Susan Brownmiller Asked Us to Rethink Everything We Thought We Knew
Last Saturday, after a long illness, the radical feminist Susan Brownmiller died at 90. She leaves behind a few distant cousins, loving friends, and a public conversation about sex and gender that was transformed by her journalism, books, activism, and media presence. The author of seven books, Brownmiller is best known for Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, still in print 50 years after its 1975 publication. This surprise bestseller came on the heels of a boomlet in radical feminist theory, criticism, and fiction marketed to a commercial audience.
Brownmiller was, hands down, one of the savviest feminist media figures of the twentieth century. The architect of a savage takedown of Playboy mogul Hugh Hefner that aired on the March 26, 1970, episode of The Dick Cavett Show, she was a star in a movement that deplored self-appointed leaders or spokespeople.
Accounts of Susan Brownmiller's life, as they have emerged in the press and in popular culture, rightly note the controversial stances she took over the course of her life in feminism. But perceiving Brownmiller as singular in this regard misses important context. Radical feminists were inherently controversial, not only because they promoted a gender revolution but because their insights emerged from intimate conversation, conflict, and arguments. Clashes over ideas and personal styles were also consistent with the radical political movements that Brownmiller and her sisters were forged in before feminism: Communist and Communist-adjacent groups, Fair Play for Cuba, anti-nuclear politics, the Civil Rights Movement, and the mobilization to end the war in Vietnam.
Although she did not anticipate, or accept, some of the criticisms that would be aimed at her, Brownmiller also knew that the claims about male power that structured Against Our Will would be broadly controversial. Its project was to create a national debate about sexual assault based on facts that already existed, a debate that had not yet happened outside radical feminist circles. By recasting rape as a political act, Brownmiller asked her readers to rethink everything they thought they knew: Western civilization, their own attitudes, the law, and social science—among other things.
In the introduction, Brownmiller also foregrounded the radical feminist principle that talking and listening can change minds. She, for example, had not believed that rape was a feminist issue. Yet other women 'understood their victimization,' she wrote. 'I understood only that it had not happened to me—and resisted the idea that it could. I learned that in ways I preferred to deny the threat of rape had profoundly affected my life.' From conflict came transformation, and the idea for the book that commercial editors had been soliciting from her since Brownmiller's 1970 insider account of the women's movement in The New York Times Magazine.
Against Our Will was widely praised but also had its detractors. Black feminist intellectuals such as bell hooks and Angela Davis pointed out that Brownmiller's attempts to weave the crime of lynching into her theory of gender and power were clumsy and confounded history. For example, Black men were historically controlled not by the fear of rape but by the fear of being put to death by a false rape charge, a fact that Brownmiller acknowledged but then displaced in a tortuous section on the Emmett Till lynching.
It isn't true, however, that only Black feminists thought Against Our Will was flawed. Some male, and a few female, reviewers were outraged by Brownmiller's conclusion that the patriarchy was promoted and preserved by the ever-present possibility of sexual assault. Some radical feminists who had always been uncomfortable with Brownmiller's high media profile deplored her use of ideas developed in consciousness-raising sessions, and challenged her to take her name off the book.
Brownmiller's theory that the patriarchy is propped up by the possibility of sexual assault, as well as positions she took later—her fight to push sex workers and the adult entertainment industry out of Times Square; her assertion that Hedda Nussbaum, a battered woman and the subject of Brownmiller's 1987 novel, Waverly Place, was not an innocent victim; and most recently, her skepticism about the #MeToo movement—remain controversial, particularly among younger feminists who are fighting these fights in their own way.
But what is often missed in accounts of Susan Brownmiller's life is that, in addition to her deep commitment to social justice, she was a fundamentally generous, good person with a terrific sense of humor. She loved dogs, the theater, movies, poker, and baseball. When she became prosperous, she put money back into political causes she cared about and took her friends on international trips.
Brownmiller was profoundly loyal to, and generous with, those friends. Her archived correspondence is full of instances in which she connected other women with agents and editors, encouraged them to write books, and boosted their self-confidence. When she worked for ABC in the 1960s, assigned to the Washington bureau over one weekend, she asked the female assistant tasked with orienting her: 'Why aren't you in charge?' This woman quit her job, went on to her own career as a journalist, and became a lifelong friend.
For the last 25 years, Susan Brownmiller played that role for numerous researchers too. In 2009, long before I imagined the biography of her that I am now writing, I went to interview Brownmiller. Nervously stepping off the elevator, I saw the woman on the back of the book I read back in 1975, draped against her door jamb. 'Welcome to Jane Street,' she greeted me, flashing a warm smile designed to put me at ease.
By the end of the afternoon, I had not only a terrific interview but a fistful of appointments with other veterans of a political movement who are justifiably wary about how they will be represented. 'Her name is Claire Potter,' Susan would say, waving a lit (or sometimes unlit) cigarette with one hand and holding the phone in the other. 'She's a feminist—the real deal. Talk to her.' She would then thrust the receiver at me, and I would make another appointment.
It was, to paraphrase a classic film, the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
I was not Brownmiller's best friend, or her most daily friend, or the person who helped her the most in her final years. I'm the biographer. But as a feminist who will be in dialogue with her until my book is done and a new generation can argue with her, I will nevertheless miss the living, breathing Susan Brownmiller terribly.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We must ‘get real' about Trump abandoning Ukraine, Europe admits
British and French officials drawing up plans for a peacekeeping force in Ukraine have discussed the need to 'get real' about Donald Trump abandoning the country. Officials agreed to shift the focus from deploying European troops to back up any ceasefire to sustaining Kyiv's long-term defence against Russia's invasion without American support. There is now a genuine concern that the US president will follow through on his threat to walk away from his role as a mediator, having failed to bring Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table. 'Let's get real and admit the US will never be on board,' a Western official told the Telegraph, describing the dire mood at the meeting in the Hague. A European diplomat added: 'It was mostly about how to sustain the necessary support to Ukraine when we assume that the US would only continue providing some specific assets, such as intelligence. 'We also agreed on the need to step up economic pressure on Russia.' The meeting in the Dutch capital, attended by 'political directors' from foreign ministries, marked a stark change in roles of the 'coalition of the willing' devised by Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron to uphold a possible ceasefire being pursued by the Americans. Sir Keir and Mr Macron have been pushing the 'coalition of the willing' proposal under which European allies would use their soldiers to help enforce any peace deal. More than 30 nations have indicated support, although only a handful have publicly offered to put troops on the ground in Ukraine. A central question had been whether Washington is willing to provide what has been described by UK figures as a 'security guarantee' or a 'back-up' for this force. The group still hasn't publicly conceded that its intentions have changed, with the chances of peace dwindling the longer Putin holds out against international pressure for a truce. The European nations also agreed to invite Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, to the Nato summit in The Hague next month. His attendance had previously been in doubt after Mr Trump's vocal opposition to Ukraine joining the Western military alliance. General Keith Kellogg, Mr Trump's Ukraine envoy, said on Friday: 'We've said that, to us, Ukraine coming into Nato is not on the table. 'And we're not the only country that says that. You know, I can probably give you four countries in Nato, and it takes 32 of the 32 to allow you to come into Nato.' It is likely the coalition will continue to support the Trump peace efforts in public at the request of Ukrainian officials, who fear not doing so will result in the US leader ending weapons shipments and intelligence sharing. Although Washington has not signed off on deliveries of new weapons since Mr Trump took office, it continues to ship hardware agreed under Joe Biden's tenure. The US has also signed off on sales of domestically-produced kit, such as spares for F-16 fighter jets, to Ukraine, as well as allowing European nations to deliver American-made equipment. The meeting in the Dutch capital comes ahead of a key week of diplomacy. On Monday, Britain's national security adviser is expected to attend the next round of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul. Gen Kellogg told ABC News: 'We'll have what we call the E3. That is the national security advisers from Germany, France, and Great Britain…When we were in London, they kind of helped us mould a term sheet for Ukraine.' Moscow and Kyiv held their first direct negotiations in more than three years in the Turkish capital earlier this month. On Friday, the Kremlin said it would only discuss the conditions of a ceasefire at the talks in Istanbul after Kyiv demanded to see a peace memorandum prior to negotiations. Ukraine said it wanted to see a document setting out Russia's peace proposal before committing to sending officials to Istanbul. Andrii Sybiha, Ukraine's foreign minister, said: 'In order for the next planned meeting to be substantive and meaningful, it is important to receive a document in advance so that the delegation that will attend has the authority to discuss the relevant positions.' Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, announced the second round of talks earlier this week after Donald Trump further criticised Vladimir Putin. The US president had called his Russian counterpart 'crazy' and accused him of 'playing with fire' before appearing to give him a two-week deadline to secure a deal. Next week, Britain and Germany will also host a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group of 50 nations coordinating military aid to Ukraine. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

2 hours ago
Trump and Putin hint at US-Russia trade revival, but business environment remains hostile
Hundreds of foreign companies left Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, including major U.S. firms like Coca-Cola, Nike, Starbucks, ExxonMobil and Ford Motor Co. But after more than three years of war, President Donald Trump has held out the prospect of restoring U.S.-Russia trade if there's ever a peace settlement. And Russian President Vladimir Putin has said foreign companies could come back under some circumstances. 'Russia wants to do largescale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic 'bloodbath' is over, and I agree,' Trump said in a statement after a phone call with Putin. 'There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is UNLIMITED.' The president then shifted his tone toward Putin after heavy drone and missile attacks on Kyiv, saying Putin 'has gone absolutely crazy' and threatening new sanctions. That and recent comments from Putin warning Western companies against reclaiming their former stakes seemed to reflect reality more accurately — that it's not going to be a smooth process for businesses going back into Russia. That's because Russia's business environment has massively changed since 2022. And not in ways that favor foreign companies. And with Putin escalating attacks and holding on to territory demands Ukraine likely isn't going to accept, a peace deal seems distant indeed. Here are factors that could deter U.S. companies from ever going back: Russian law classifies Ukraine's allies as 'unfriendly states' and imposes severe restrictions on businesses from more than 50 countries. Those include limits on withdrawing money and equipment as well as allowing the Russian government to take control of companies deemed important. Foreign owners' votes on boards of directors can be legally disregarded. Companies that left were required to sell their businesses for 50% or less of their assessed worth, or simply wrote them off while Kremlin-friendly business groups snapped up their assets on the cheap. Under a 2023 presidential decree the Russian government took control of Finnish energy company Fortum, German power company Unipro, France's dairy company Danone and Danish brewer Carlsberg. Even if a peace deal removed the U.S. from the list of unfriendlies, and if the massive Western sanctions restricting business in Russia were dropped, the track record of losses would remain vivid. And there's little sign any of that is going to happen. While the Russian government has talked in general about companies coming back, 'there's no specific evidence of any one company saying that they are ready to come back,' said Chris Weafer, CEO of Macro-Advisory Ltd. consultancy. 'It's all at the political narrative level.' Russia's actions and legal changes have left 'long-lasting damage' to its business environment, says Elina Ribakova, non-resident senior fellow at the Bruegel research institute in Brussels. She said a return of U.S. businesses is 'not very likely.' In a meeting at the Kremlin on May 26 to mark Russian Entrepreneurs Day, Putin said that Russia needed to throttle large tech firms such as Zoom and Microsoft, which had restricted their services in Russia after Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, so that domestic tech companies could thrive instead. 'We need to strangle them,' Putin said. 'After all, they are trying to strangle us: we need to reciprocate. We didn't kick anyone out; we didn't interfere with anyone. We provided the most favorable conditions possible for their work here, in our market, and they are trying to strangle us.' He reassured a representative from Vkusno-i Tochka (Tasty-period) — the Russian-owned company that took over McDonald's restaurants in the country — that Moscow would aid them if the U.S. fast food giant tried to buy back its former stores. Asked for comment, McDonald's referred to their 2022 statement that 'ownership of the business in Russia is no longer tenable.' On top of Russia's difficult business environment, the economy is likely to stagnate due to lack of investment in sectors other than the military, economists say. 'Russia has one of the lowest projected long-term growth rates and one of the highest levels of country risk in the world,' says Heli Simola, senior economist at the Bank of Finland in a blog post. 'Only Belarus offers an equally lousy combination of growth and risk.' Most of the opportunity to make money is related to military production, and it's unlikely U.S. companies would work with the Russian military-industrial complex, said Ribakova. 'It's not clear where exactly one could plug in and expect outsize returns that would compensate for this negative investment environment.' Some companies, including Renault and Ford Motor Co., left with repurchase agreements letting them buy back their stakes years later if conditions change. But given Russia's unsteady legal environment, that's tough to count on. The Russian purchasers may try to change the terms, look for more money, or ignore the agreements, said Weafer. 'There's a lot of uncertainty as to how those buyback auctions will be enforced.' Multinational oil companies were among those who suffered losses leaving Russia, so it's an open question whether they would want to try again even given Russia's vast oil and gas reserves. US.. major ExxonMobil saw its stake in the Sakhalin oil project unilaterally terminated and wrote off $3.4 billion. Russia's major oil companies have less need of foreign partners than they did in the immediate post-Soviet era, though smaller oil field services might want to return given the size of Russia's oil industry. But they would have to face new requirements on establishing local presence and investment, Weafer said. According to the Kyiv School of Economics, 2,329 foreign companies are still doing business in Russia, many from China or other countries that aren't allied with Ukraine, while 1,344 are in the process of leaving and 494 have exited completely. The Yale School of Management's Chief Executive Leadership Institute lists some two dozen U.S. companies still doing business in Russia, while some 100 more have cut back by halting new investments. U.S. sanctions are considered the toughest, because they carry the threat of being cut off from the U.S. banking and financial system. But the EU is still slapping new rounds of sanctions on Russia. Even if U.S. sanctions are dropped, EU sanctions would continue to present compliance headaches for any company that also wants to do business in Europe.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Putin hint at US-Russia trade revival, but business environment remains hostile
Hundreds of foreign companies left Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, including major U.S. firms like Coca-Cola, Nike, Starbucks, ExxonMobil and Ford Motor Co. But after more than three years of war, President Donald Trump has held out the prospect of restoring U.S.-Russia trade if there's ever a peace settlement. And Russian President Vladimir Putin has said foreign companies could come back under some circumstances. 'Russia wants to do largescale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic 'bloodbath' is over, and I agree,' Trump said in a statement after a phone call with Putin. 'There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is UNLIMITED.' The president then shifted his tone toward Putin after heavy drone and missile attacks on Kyiv, saying Putin 'has gone absolutely crazy' and threatening new sanctions. That and recent comments from Putin warning Western companies against reclaiming their former stakes seemed to reflect reality more accurately — that it's not going to be a smooth process for businesses going back into Russia. That's because Russia's business environment has massively changed since 2022. And not in ways that favor foreign companies. And with Putin escalating attacks and holding on to territory demands Ukraine likely isn't going to accept, a peace deal seems distant indeed. Here are factors that could deter U.S. companies from ever going back: Risk of losing it all Russian law classifies Ukraine's allies as 'unfriendly states' and imposes severe restrictions on businesses from more than 50 countries. Those include limits on withdrawing money and equipment as well as allowing the Russian government to take control of companies deemed important. Foreign owners' votes on boards of directors can be legally disregarded. Companies that left were required to sell their businesses for 50% or less of their assessed worth, or simply wrote them off while Kremlin-friendly business groups snapped up their assets on the cheap. Under a 2023 presidential decree the Russian government took control of Finnish energy company Fortum, German power company Unipro, France's dairy company Danone and Danish brewer Carlsberg. Even if a peace deal removed the U.S. from the list of unfriendlies, and if the massive Western sanctions restricting business in Russia were dropped, the track record of losses would remain vivid. And there's little sign any of that is going to happen. While the Russian government has talked in general about companies coming back, 'there's no specific evidence of any one company saying that they are ready to come back,' said Chris Weafer, CEO of Macro-Advisory Ltd. consultancy. 'It's all at the political narrative level.' Russia's actions and legal changes have left 'long-lasting damage' to its business environment, says Elina Ribakova, non-resident senior fellow at the Bruegel research institute in Brussels. She said a return of U.S. businesses is 'not very likely.' 'We need to strangle them' In a meeting at the Kremlin on May 26 to mark Russian Entrepreneurs Day, Putin said that Russia needed to throttle large tech firms such as Zoom and Microsoft, which had restricted their services in Russia after Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, so that domestic tech companies could thrive instead. 'We need to strangle them,' Putin said. 'After all, they are trying to strangle us: we need to reciprocate. We didn't kick anyone out; we didn't interfere with anyone. We provided the most favorable conditions possible for their work here, in our market, and they are trying to strangle us.' He reassured a representative from Vkusno-i Tochka (Tasty-period) — the Russian-owned company that took over McDonald's restaurants in the country — that Moscow would aid them if the U.S. fast food giant tried to buy back its former stores. Asked for comment, McDonald's referred to their 2022 statement that 'ownership of the business in Russia is no longer tenable.' Not much upside On top of Russia's difficult business environment, the economy is likely to stagnate due to lack of investment in sectors other than the military, economists say. 'Russia has one of the lowest projected long-term growth rates and one of the highest levels of country risk in the world,' says Heli Simola, senior economist at the Bank of Finland in a blog post. 'Only Belarus offers an equally lousy combination of growth and risk.' Most of the opportunity to make money is related to military production, and it's unlikely U.S. companies would work with the Russian military-industrial complex, said Ribakova. 'It's not clear where exactly one could plug in and expect outsize returns that would compensate for this negative investment environment.' Repurchase agreements Some companies, including Renault and Ford Motor Co., left with repurchase agreements letting them buy back their stakes years later if conditions change. But given Russia's unsteady legal environment, that's tough to count on. The Russian purchasers may try to change the terms, look for more money, or ignore the agreements, said Weafer. 'There's a lot of uncertainty as to how those buyback auctions will be enforced.' But what about the oil and gas? Multinational oil companies were among those who suffered losses leaving Russia, so it's an open question whether they would want to try again even given Russia's vast oil and gas reserves. US.. major ExxonMobil saw its stake in the Sakhalin oil project unilaterally terminated and wrote off $3.4 billion. Russia's major oil companies have less need of foreign partners than they did in the immediate post-Soviet era, though smaller oil field services might want to return given the size of Russia's oil industry. But they would have to face new requirements on establishing local presence and investment, Weafer said. Some never left According to the Kyiv School of Economics, 2,329 foreign companies are still doing business in Russia, many from China or other countries that aren't allied with Ukraine, while 1,344 are in the process of leaving and 494 have exited completely. The Yale School of Management's Chief Executive Leadership Institute lists some two dozen U.S. companies still doing business in Russia, while some 100 more have cut back by halting new investments. EU sanctions could remain even if US open U.S. sanctions are considered the toughest, because they carry the threat of being cut off from the U.S. banking and financial system. But the EU is still slapping new rounds of sanctions on Russia. Even if U.S. sanctions are dropped, EU sanctions would continue to present compliance headaches for any company that also wants to do business in Europe.