That not entirely accurate, and it isn't enough to simply hope that we can somehow try to 'Orwell-spin-it'. Let's examine that sentence again.
What Facebook and others who defend this pernicious hate speech don't seem to get is that rapists don't rape because they're somehow evil or perverted or in any way particularly different from than the average man in the street:
So rapists don't rape because
- they're somehow evil
- or perverted
or
- in any way particularly different from than the average man in the street
So the author has discounted evil, perverted and not particularly different (from the average man in the street).
Unfortunately, intentionally-or-not the authors HAS managed to trot-out the 'all men are rapists' theme with the text in any way particularly different from than the average man in the street.
I can't interprete that text string any other way. If she had written say rapists don't rape because they're somehow evil or perverted (BUT) because they are particularly different from the average man in the street
...then that would have been fine, and any of the CIF and not necessarily MRA's critisisms would have been unjustified. But no, Cath Elliott chose to write;
What Facebook and others who defend this pernicious hate speech don't seem to get is that rapists don't rape because they're somehow evil or perverted or in any way particularly different from than the average man in the street: rapists rape because they can. Rapists rape because they know the odds are stacked in their favour, because they know the chances are they'll get away with it.
Although she writes about a disgusting and pernicious problem, the message is indeed the medium, and Ms. Elliott blundered and blundered big style. Instead of perhaps giving her article a little skim through before submitting it, she might have simply reconsidered that single sentence. As it does paint 50% of the adult population with the same brush, it rightfully required some explanation from the author (which hasn't been forthcoming).
She blundered. So did The Guardian editor who should have picked-up on it. There ain't no way any other gloss can be put on it. It mangled an otherwise-pertinent article and ensured that the subject matter was relegated to an also-ran. It gave the MRA lot a perfect example of what they call 'misandry' and I have no doubt they will be quoting the paragraph with glee.
In effect she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Facebook is fine with hate speech, as long as it's directed at women isn't going to be remembered for being the rallying call to give Facebook a deserved kicking, but rather a custard-pie-in-the-face moment for British feminism when one particular trade union activist/feminist wrote something that should have been regretted.
Unfortunately it isn't the first time Cath Elliott has given-in to the temptation of 'sweeping generalisation-based insults'.