Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975) is widely recognised as a transformative work that reshaped societal and legal perspectives on rape, framing it as a tool of violence and patriarchal power. Published at the height of second-wave feminism, the book argued that rape is not an isolated act by deviant individuals but a systemic mechanism by which "all men keep all women in a state of fear" (p. 15). While Brownmiller's work brought critical attention to sexual violence, its radical feminist approach, particularly the assertion that all men are potential rapists, has significant flaws. This claim, rooted in ideological overreach, not only lacks empirical grounding but also undermines the seriousness of rape as a crime, much like overusing terms like "racist" dilutes their meaning. This evaluation explores the problems with Brownmiller's approach, its impact on discourse, and the consequences of its generalisations.
Brownmiller's central thesis is that rape is a "conscious process of intimidation" (p. 15) used by all men to subjugate all women, with rapists acting as "Myrmidons" (p. 209), agents of terror who enact the latent desires of all men. She asserts that men inherently seek to dominate women through the threat of sexual violence (p. 209) that instils fear and ensures male supremacy. This view casts every man as a potential rapist, implying that rape is not an aberration but a natural extension of male psychology and societal structures.
This sweeping generalisation is problematic for several reasons. First, it lacks empirical support. Brownmiller provides no surveys, psychological studies, or statistical data to substantiate the claim that all men harbour rape-supportive beliefs or desires. Her argument relies heavily on anecdotal interpretations of history, literature, and war, often ignoring contradictory evidence. For instance, she dismisses the harsh legal penalties for rape in historical contexts, such as the death penalty under England's Second Statute of Westminster (1275), as evidence of male indifference to women's suffering, rather than acknowledging them as societal condemnation of the crime (p. 27). Similarly, her assertion that war enables men to "give vent to their contempt for women" (p. 32) ignores the broader context of wartime violence, including male-on-male rape and the brutalisation of men, which she barely addresses.
Second, the claim is inherently unfalsifiable. By framing rape as a universal male impulse, Brownmiller creates a narrative that cannot be disproven, as any man who does not rape is simply seen as restraining a latent desire rather than lacking it. This circular reasoning mirrors the overapplication of labels like "racist" to conservatives, where the absence of overt behaviour is interpreted as latent prejudice. Such an approach stifles meaningful debate and dismisses the complexity of human motivations.
Labelling all men as potential rapists deconstructs the seriousness of rape merits close examination. By equating the actions of a minority of perpetrators with the inherent nature of all men, Brownmiller's framework trivialises the gravity of actual rape. Rape is a horrific crime that causes profound physical and psychological harm, deserving focused attention and justice. However, when every man is implicated as a potential rapist, the term loses specificity, much like overusing "racist" diminishes its power to address genuine prejudice. This overgeneralisation risks diluting public outrage and empathy for victims, as it shifts focus from the act to an abstract, all-encompassing ideology.
Moreover, this approach fosters a culture of fear and mistrust rather than constructive solutions. By suggesting that rape is an inevitable outcome of male biology or socialisation, Brownmiller implies that it is an intractable problem, discouraging efforts to address specific causes, such as individual pathology, socioeconomic factors, or cultural norms that enable violence. This mirrors the effect of labelling all conservatives as racists, which shuts down dialogue and alienates potential allies who might otherwise support anti-racism efforts. In the case of rape, portraying all men as complicit risks alienating men who condemn sexual violence and could contribute to prevention efforts, such as education or bystander intervention programs.
Brownmiller's arguments are marred by ideological bias, which manifests in her selective use of evidence and dismissal of counterexamples. Her portrayal of history as a monolithic narrative of male oppression ignores instances where men have risked or sacrificed their lives to protect women, such as during wartime efforts to counter atrocities like the Rape of Nanking (p. 57). She interprets propaganda depicting Belgium as a raped woman as evidence of male contempt, rather than recognising it as a call to action that mobilised men to fight against such violations (p. 48). This selective lens distorts reality, presenting men as uniformly predatory and women as perpetual victims.
Her treatment of male victims further highlights this bias. Brownmiller briefly acknowledges male-on-male rape in prisons and historical cases like Gilles de Rais and Dean Corll, who raped and murdered boys (p. 292-293). However, she quickly dismisses these as irrelevant to her thesis, speculating that society forgets male victims because men cannot identify with them sexually, unlike with female victims (p. 293). This claim is not only unsupported but also callously overlooks male suffering, reinforcing a gendered narrative that excludes men as victims and women as potential perpetrators. Her refusal to consider female-on-male or female-on-female sexual violence further entrenches this one-sided perspective, undermining the book's credibility as a comprehensive analysis of rape.
Brownmiller's attempt to address race in the context of rape reveals additional flaws. She argues that white men created the "mythified spectre of the black man as rapist" (p. 255) to control both white women and black men, while acknowledging that black men did commit rapes, driven by rage inspired by white men's historical rape of black women (p. 253). This convoluted reasoning shifts blame to white men, portraying them as the ultimate orchestrators of all sexual violence. While it aims to reconcile her feminist and anti-racist commitments, it oversimplifies complex social dynamics and ignores the agency of individual perpetrators. By framing rape as a byproduct of white male oppression, Brownmiller risks excusing or contextualising the actions of non-white perpetrators, which undermines accountability and perpetuates stereotypes in a different form.
Brownmiller's call for legal reform (p. 386) contributed to significant changes in how rape is prosecuted, including the "believe women" paradigm and reduced barriers to conviction. While some reforms, such as removing corroboration requirements, improved justice for victims, the broader impact of her ideology has been problematic. By framing rape as a universal male crime, her work fuelled policies that sometimes prioritise accusation over evidence, eroding due process for accused men. This parallels the user's analogy to labelling conservatives as racists, where broad accusations can lead to unfair judgments without substantiation. The resulting legal and cultural shifts have, at times, led to cases where men face severe consequences based on unproven allegations, further polarising gender relations.
A more nuanced approach to rape would recognise it as a complex crime driven by a range of factors, including individual pathology, power dynamics, and cultural influences, rather than an inherent male trait. Psychological research, such as studies on sexual offenders, points to specific risk factors like antisocial personality traits, substance abuse, or exposure to violence, rather than universal male psychology. Sociological data, such as FBI crime statistics from the 1970s onward, show that rape is committed by a small minority of men, with rates varying by context, not a universal male conspiracy. Acknowledging male victims and female perpetrators, as documented in studies like the 2010 CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, would provide a more balanced understanding, fostering solutions that unite rather than divide genders.
In summary, Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will played a pivotal role in highlighting rape as a serious crime, but its radical feminist approach—particularly the claim that all men are potential rapists—is deeply flawed. By generalising a heinous act to an entire gender, it deconstructs the seriousness of rape, alienates potential allies, and fosters division, much like overusing "racist" undermines anti-racism efforts. The book's lack of empirical evidence, selective use of history, and dismissal of male victims and female perpetrators reflect an ideological bias that chooses narrative over truth. While Brownmiller's work sparked important conversations, its legacy is marred by its divisive generalisations, which continue to influence gender discourse in ways that hinder mutual understanding and effective solutions to sexual violence.
https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/susan-brownmillers-rape-mythsl