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:
But there is the core problem.
Rapists are different to the average man in the street. Because they are rapists. If they aren't different in any way then, qed - all men are rapists (who just presumerably haven't quite got around to doing it yet).
Indeed Cath Elliot provides a criteria for determining the difference betwen the rapist and the average man in the street; the rapists rape because they know the odds are stacked in their favour, because they know the chances are they'll get away with it. That's it, the only difference. Others might (and with some justification) quote criminology journal papers in support of statistics about the mental state of rapists, their attitudes to women and children, their past sexual or physical abuse, exposure to pornography...but nope, Cath Elliott skipped all those concerns and went straight for the rapists rape because they know the odds are stacked in their favour, because they know the chances are they'll get away with it. All those academic works and studies apparently rendered useless.
Try as I might I can't put any other 'spin' on Cath's work.
And as for I'm appalled that you suggest that Elliot might have a "deeply-held personal belief" that all men are rapist. What tripe.
Well that suggestion comes only from her written work;
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
Notice the any way? That removes the opportunity for compromise. any way is well any way. Rapists aren't in any way particularly different from than the average man in the street. We're not talking about how they look or behave, we are talking about any way.
Now I might be going down the wrong line here but I actually believe it is possible to distinquish a rapist from the average man in the street. I believe that through the identification of social and cultural influences (including access to pornography), psychometric testing and family and social history, it is possible to differentiate the rapist or potential rapist from the average man in the street. And that's why I object to the simplistic in any way particularly different from than the average man in the street. It isn't just issuing a generalistic insult to the male adult population, it's also insulting the hard work performed by criminologists and psychiatrists (amongst them those who would identify themselves as feminists).
The passage doesn't really need manipulating. Reading it exactly as is is quite sufficient;
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
If only she had written rapists don't rape because they're somehow evil or perverted but because they are different from the average man in the street.