"having her sleep with the protagonist... for no discernible reason."

Why does she need a reason? you mean for love, money or to further her career? Why can't she just sleep with a man because she wants to? Maybe for some reason you can't wrap your head around. Maybe she just wants to have sex at that moment, or feels like she wants to reward him or feels a connection to him missing from most other people in her life? Maybe the feelings just overcame her? maybe she was just horny?

If you feel she needs a reason TO sleep with someone, maybe she also needs a reason NOT TO?

I see this reasoning as a step backwards for women's rights.

To my understanding, rape and violence towards women stems for a need to maintain power and control.

The subordination of women will continue to remain dominant as it is as said before it is reinforced culture, media and blah.

In Japan, women have parallel rights as to men. They believe the birth rate in Japan is at a record low because of this. As the women are more focused on careers and so on. The birth rate is so low that the government are giving money to couples that choose to have children.

Getting to my point, the interest in women being treated as equals has no benefit to men as this creates more competition for leadership and so on.

Hence dominance can only succeed through fear of the most horrific act such as rape plus men are genetically physically stronger than women (in most cases)
Unless a generation of physically stronger women are engineered for our safety and start gang raping men, then perhaps the power dimensions may change.

In terms of the title of the book, personally I can not see men choosing to purchase a book that may suggest that they hate women. Of course the book has been sensationalised if it had not been the target audience would have been severely reduced.
Which is tragic but it's a fact.

Rape and violence - the Viking gene?

Pre-Roman Brit-Celtic culture was parallel rights too. Still is in some parts of the country.

Laurie - I'm not sure it befits one of the blogosphere's better-known feminists to write this article seemingly without understanding the difference between misogyny and sexism. I would expect all misogynists to be sexist, but not vice versa.

With respect, the anti-misogyny angle of the books isn't written for you. And it's not written for the misogynist either. It's written in for people like me - men (maybe women too) who consider themselves liberal but not feminist, who live in advanced liberal democracies where they consider the major battles of feminism to have been won, and that the feminist cause no longer demands our attention in a serious way.

It's designed to shock people (especially men) like that - like me - into recognising that the broad brush strokes of civilisation might have muted misogyny, but that even the most advanced societies in this regard (Sweden) are capable of harbouring a darker and more insidious misogyny than we acknowledge. It's reminding decent men who don't consider themselves feminists (any more, if they ever did) how visceral their reactions are to violence against women, and why gender still needs to be taken seriously.

Blomqvist's liaisons with women (and indeed the past activities of Berger) are designed to show the limits of what is tolerable (though not necessarily morally upstanding), and demonstrate to a Swedish liberal audience that the author is not a prude, or opposed to sex in all its forms. But Blomqvist is a fairly sexist character, if in recovery - the novels draw a very clear line between his sexism and the misogyny of other characters.

I think the books make the very opposite point that you make. Misogyny *is* sensational and very different from sexism. And yet misogyny is still very real, and no matter how successful attempts are to diminish sexism in the every day worlds of work and home, we shouldn't delude ourselves that the worst of what we can do belongs to the past.

Not all misogynists are violent sadists and psychopaths, but there is a difference between a sexist man and a non-violent misgynist.

All good points on how terrible men are, but this is especially intriguing:

"If they work, just for instance, in publishing, they might reject a book title that draws attention to violence against women and replace it with one that infantilises the female protagonist and focuses on a trivial feature of her appearance."

I wonder how hard it would be to find out? I found it very strange at the time that they didn't just directly translate the "Män som hatar kvinnor".

I doubt that someone consciously decided to "infantilise" the protagonist. They were thinking solely in terms of sales. Would be interesting to find out why someone considered the Swedish market okay with a book about men who hate women whereas not so in the UK.

i've had to look at this for work but i am a bit annoyed that i'll never get those 15 minutes back. i think you should all focus on something else for a bit. it's a nice day outside.

well biosphere... I think it is asking too much of contemporary feminism to have any opprobrium about the relationship between 'misandry' and 'misogyny' in our culture. According to them, misandry is only ever a reaction to, a result of misogyny. It is bullshit and needs challenging at every turn in my view.

I'm not keen on revenge fantasies, because in reality, we don't get vengeance on our rapists. Which is why I post this comment with a fake name and a pseudonymous email address, because I'm *still scared* of him.

It's why I have to ignore when my boss tells a co-worker to "treat [the till] like a woman: touch gently, but if it doesn't work, punch it!" because I don't want to rock the boat, become the unpopular one, maybe get my hours cut, draw attention to myself and my female-ness. Fit in, be one of the boys, have a laugh and don't moan when they dehumanise you. And don't say a word when they rape you.

Helena - ugh, that till story makes me shudder. I'm so sorry for your experience.

Interesting points here about the difference between misogyny and sexism. No, I don't think they mean the same thing, but they're closer than (eg) the Larsson books describe. As I said above, not all men who hate women are actual murderers and rapists - and that has to be understood. What Stieg does well is remind readers that actually, there are some men who are just like that, men who do rape, who buy sex from sex-slaves, who beat and brutalise women, even kill them. And that's just as important to hang on to. Which is why I find it so distressing that the title was changed - it changes the whole premise of the book.

Hi Penny,

Don't know if you remember me from last week but I thought I would make the point of saying about this line:

"Most rapists are ordinary men who believe that they are entitled, when drunk, angry or horny, to take violent advantage of women who know and trust them."

I genuinely could not agree more and again with the point about revenge. Sadly there are men out there who really do hate women, luckily there are a lot of men out there who love them as equals as well.

"On the contrary, I think most rapists know what they are doing is wrong but do it anyway. Of course they may attempt to rationalise it after the fact, but anyone who rapes a woman with the belief they are 'entitled' has a very warped view and simply does not reflect what most men think."
Well, I'd hope that anyone who rapes a woman with any kind of belief doesn't reflect what most of us think. Laurie's right on this one: don't look at rapists as perverts who want to rape women, look at them as bastards who want to get a sexual thrill from women, and plain don't care if that means raping them.

"stop moaning and pop the kettle on, love; there's a good girl."
Ah, the 'fIrST pOSt LoL' of the feminist blogosphere.

@harry the don

Incredible! I DO have small boobs and nicotine-stained fingers! This ties in well with the belief that the less intellectual activity, the more psychic information can get through...

Not willing to show you boobs but very happy to show you my fingers. Well - one of them, pointing 'up'.

@Token
''Unless a generation of physically stronger women are engineered for our safety and start gang raping men, then perhaps the power dimensions may change.''

Blimey guv, I feel your view is a little skewed? Also a considerable number of men might look forward to that day.

I kid, but you started it!

Please forgvie the previous trolling, that was for solely for my own personal amusement. It should be pointed out, I think, that the po-faced uber-earnest stance of the author and most of the commentators on here is nothing but a gift to anyone with a genuinely misogynistic agenda. It does your cause no good to make it so easily brushed off as the hormonal ravings of some 'milly tant' character IMVHO.
All the same, I've thoroughly enjoyed my first foray into the 'feminist blogosphere', and I'm most grateful to you all for making me feel so welcome. (LoL!)

"Clearly there is something in his psyche that overides all conscience and convention. That is NOT the normal state for the vast majority of men for whom no means no."
Not sure about overriding *all* conscience and convention. It just needs to override enough to make it seem ok at that moment, and like I said, there are plenty of loopholes in everyday attitudes to rape for it to slip through.
"then I think you are generalising in such a way that I can't really engage in debate other than to say I don't know anyone who attempts to justify rape."
Me neither, but like I said, the tone tends to be less to do with when rape is ok, but when it isn't really rape. A lot of rapists probably don't think of it as rape either. Still very much generalisation though, you're right.
"Perhaps a rapist does but their view is hardly relevent."
Really? I'd say it's the most relevant one of all. Why they thought they had a right to rape their victim, why they thought whatever it was counted as consent or that consent didn't matter. What casual, everyday attitudes to women they hold that tied into that.

Obviously there's going to be something really wrong with rapists, but it's what's ordinary about them that should really worry us.
"sounds like alex ain't getting none that's for sure.."
I'm guessing you've got a "your mum" joke and a crack about hairy lezzers up your sleeve, and then you're out.

I was similarly concerned about Guy N Smith's seminal horror fiction work 'The Man in the Black Fedora' Through concentrating on a matter of sartorial affectation it trivialised the work of undercover police operatives involved in fighting occult forces.

Don't even get me started on 'The Mill on the Floss'.

Des, one for to pin on the back of your wardrobe door. Phwarr! (the average female, 2110),
http://www.eatliver.com/img/2007/2637.jpg

Have you noticed the resemblance between Laurie Penny and Noomi Rapace?

A bit of slap on Laurie and they'd be identical.

quiet riot girl - I'm not speculating on whether or not you've experienced sexual violence or molestation. It wouldn't surprise me, however, as a frighteningly large percentage of girls and women I've known have - and I include myself in that. I can say for certainty that any woman I know who has experienced such would a) NEVER condone real OR depicted violence against women in any way, and b) would not deride one of the few journalists in this country that attempts to draw attention to the plight of women vis a vis violence, misogyny or general sexism. Let's not be pedantic about these terms, by the way folks...

You say it's important to depict violence in culture 'in order to try to understand it'? Really? Isn't there enough of the real stuff for everyone? Don't you think fictionalising and glamourising sexual violence desensitises the public - or, worse, titillates that small percentage of male viewers who might just get turned on or frustrated enough to leave the cinema and 'try it at home'? Chances are they're watching it at home anyway, behind closed doors.

Violence on screen doesn't 'cause' violence - it encourages it. It helps it along. Bad enough, surely?

If you actually bothered to research the kinds of men that commit violent sexual crimes against women, you might be surprised. To my knowledge, which clearly surpasses yours, they are all addicted to pornography - in particular, violent pornography against women - and slasher films. Nice.

I... I just don't think this is true at all.

You seem to be taking the subgroup of a particular kind of psychopath and using that as a base for "all men who commit violence against women." But the serial killer/stalker/loner is a rare exception within that group, which is much broader and more diverse.

Your personal experience no doubt skews you towards sensitivity towards this type, but if you were to take the group "women who have experienced violence at the hands of men" most would not have a story similar to yours, most would be the more mundane types, such as my grandmother, who was a battered wife at the hands of her drunk husband before internet pornography and slasher flicks were invented. I've known women who experienced violence at the hands of men who hated pornography, and strip clubs, and loved the bible with all their heart, especially the bits where it instructs them to discipline their wives. I've known women who experienced violence at the hands of men who were otherwise well balanced but who just got angry and lashed out.

I've also known men who love slasher films and porn and exploitation flicks who don't hit their girlfriends. And I've known their girlfriends well enough to know that it's true, they don't. And often the girlfriends in question love slasher flicks and porn too.

There's also the little matter of what "addicted" means in this context. It's an overused word by the alarmist media these days, and I wonder what concept you're trying to get across with it? Are they dependent on it? Heavy users? Obsessed? Fanboys? What's the definition of "addicted" here?

I don't dispute that media informs and alters culture, although it must have a starting point to begin with - it's a feedback cycle, not a one-way injection of values. But porn and slasher flicks are such a small section of the culture, that also includes mainstream rom-coms, the glorification of sportsmen and religious texts, all of which are far more troubling because they're not transgressive, the values they affirm are part of the mainstream.

What conclusions are we expected to draw from the whole "men who are violent like porn" thing?

you have not been taking your tablets again mcduff i have noticed.

Nice article, shame about the comments.

Alex
Sorry I should have expanded '"Perhaps a rapist does but their view is hardly relevent." .... to what constitutes normal behaviour.

Of course there are going to be cases where rape is not so clear cut - take the Julian Assange case where it appears he slept with two women, one of whose complaint seems to be that the condom burst and the other that he didn't use a condom - in neither case have they apparently indicated that the sex was not consensual - is that rape? For the court to decide? Perhaps it is these kind of areas that make you feel that ' the tone tends to be less to do with when rape is ok, but when it isn't really rape'

However, cases like the above are unusual. In my opinion forcing sex on a woman who has either said no, is unwilling in any way or is too insensible to know what they are doing is cleary rape, no ifs or buts.

As far as motivation to rape is concerned, I like most men, have no real comprehension of the thought processes involved but can hazzard a guess that in many cases it has something to to with a sick power trip possibly fuelled by some deep seated feelings of inadaquecy. However I am not a psychiatrist, and despite your earlier comment that 'I'd shy away from looking at it in medical or psychiatric terms, or anything that individual.' I have to disagree and say it is down to the individual.
Rape takes place in this sociey as does murder and robbery. I wish none of them did but the problem of rape is not going to be solved by a societal change - there will always be sick inadequate men out there. It is a horrible fact of human nature.

McDuff - I agree with most of what you say. We’re not discussing domestic abuse here, though – or alcoholic violence (which I’m also rather familiar with). My argument was in relation to violence against women in the horror genre and how it relates to the more extreme cases of violence against women which, as you say, is skewed by my experience. Obviously.
I'm well aware that the vast majority of men who watch such films are not impacted and no doubt serve as a form of primal-release (like sports, for eg…) However, the violence towards women in films is often extreme, it is incredibly rampant and it has, without any doubt whatsoever, desensitised the public. No-one –male or female - seems to bat so much as an eye as they watch yet another woman screaming, terrorised and cut up. We are becoming so much harder to shock, are we not? My point is that, when you come into contact with these things happening in your real life, your sensitivity is raised (yes), as is your empathy and sympathy for victims, and so you are no longer desensitised. As with any personal level of experience, your awareness and understanding increases.
Finally, the use of the word 'addicted' in relation to pornography was borrowed from Ted Bundy who, in his final interview before he was executed, chose to utilise his last ever opportunity to speak to stringently warn anyone who would listen about the dangers of porn - especially violent porn. He stressed that it was key to – was the launch point of – sexual predation. And he would know, right? From personal experience and from many sexual predators he came into contact with during the many years he served in prison.

also, Laurie says she likes the books but not the films. So she is not saying violence should not be depicted in literature. she seems to object to visual representation.