Germaine Greer urged to apologise for "all soldiers rape" comment

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Strip away your values. Take away any sense of consequence. Inflate your sense of entitlement. Brainwash you into thinking women are there to serve your needs. Create a culture what backs you up in this. Stress you out. Make you feel out of control. Disenfranchise you. Desensitise you to others pain to make you capable of hurting them without forethough or remorse. Then get someone in a position of authority to tell you to do it, and presto.

I think people don't like the idea that rapists are just humans too, they really aren't different from anyone else. People love the idea that some evil force is inside them driving their actions, when the truth is anyone can be convinced to do the same.

CDfm

REmember the American GI Lyndie England and her statements

In a sworn statement to investigators, Pfc. Lynndie England explained the mystery of why soldiers at Abu Ghraib took pictures of detainees masturbating and piled naked with plastic sandbags over their heads by saying, "We thought it looked funny, so pictures were taken."
England's statement, made May 5, narrates the photos now at the center of the prison abuse scandal in specific detail and a matter-of-fact tone, describing the abuse as routine and sometimes amusing, but almost never, to her mind, out of bounds.
She explains how she put a strap around a detainee's neck and forced him and others to run and crawl down a hallway for "approximately four to six hours"; how one soldier would regularly throw a Nerf football at detainees with bags over their heads "to scare them"; how one soldier would kick detainees and cause open wounds, then "would personally stitch detainees if the wound weren't too bad," according to a copy of her statement given to the New York Times.
Asked if she ever physically abused a detainee, England said, "Yes, I stepped on some of them, push them or pull them, but nothing extreme."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/16/MNG156MHD61.DTL#ixzz1OzoXABqM

irishh_bob

Hyperbullet wrote: »

Some fantastically ignorant comments, and too right she should apologise.

greer is far too arrogant an individual to appologise for anything

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think people don't like the idea that rapists are just humans too, they really aren't different from anyone else. People love the idea that some evil force is inside them driving their actions, when the truth is anyone can be convinced to do the same.

Interesting experiment on good people doing bad things. Everyone likes to think they are immune.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/video?id=2769000

parker kent

metrovelvet wrote: »

Strip away your values. Take away any sense of consequence. Inflate your sense of entitlement. Brainwash you into thinking women are there to serve your needs. Create a culture what backs you up in this. Stress you out. Make you feel out of control. Disenfranchise you. Desensitise you to others pain to make you capable of hurting them without forethough or remorse. Then get someone in a position of authority to tell you to do it, and presto.

This is a good post. It is similar to how brutal regimes have many normal people involved. Take the SS for example, horrible acts but they were not evil monsters born in another dimension. Many were simply acting out of fear of what would happen their families were they refuse to comply with orders. Ditto the soldiers in Libya ordered to rape. I doubt there would be wonderful consequences for any soldier who refused to carry out the order.

metrovelvet

parker kent wrote: »

This is a good post. It is similar to how brutal regimes have many normal people involved. Take the SS for example, horrible acts but they were not evil monsters born in another dimension. Many were simply acting out of fear of what would happen their families were they refuse to comply with orders. Ditto the soldiers in Libya ordered to rape. I doubt there would be wonderful consequences for any soldier who refused to carry out the order.

ITs quite scary really how susceptible we are to it. The SS got people to kill other people without even using force to do it. In fact, they didnt even need to act out of fear, people do what they are told, they obey authority, its how we are wired.

There was a case recently of a man pretending to be a child psychologist who convinced a couple of moms to molest their kids while he watched on a webcam.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41835123/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

As for Germaine Greers comments, I dont know if she meant that all soldiers have the potenitial to be rapists or will be rapists under certain circumstances. At first when I read it, I was taken aback by what she said, but the more I think about it, the training soldiers go through, the conditions of war, which most of us can only imagine, it does not seem that far fetched an idea, but she didnt need to dishnour the military like that.

parker kent

metrovelvet wrote: »

As for Germaine Greers comments, I dont know if she meant that all soldiers have the potenitial to be rapists or will be rapists under certain circumstances. At first when I read it, I was taken aback by what she said, but the more I think about it, the training soldiers go through, the conditions of war, which most of us can only imagine, it does not seem that far fetched an idea, but she didnt need to dishnour the military like that.

I had a similar reaction to her comments. I think people are taking her out of context. As annoying as she is, I don't think her comments are being interpreted correctly.

metrovelvet wrote: »

ITs quite scary really how susceptible we are to it. The SS got people to kill other people without even using force to do it. In fact, they didnt even need to act out of fear, people do what they are told, they obey authority, its how we are wired.

There was a case recently of a man pretending to be a child psychologist who convinced a couple of moms to molest their kids while he watched on a webcam.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41835123/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Stories like that are shocking. It is like the classic case of the Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures in Yale. People are so easily led sometimes.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Interesting experiment on good people doing bad things. Everyone likes to think they are immune.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/video?id=2769000

What's really interesting is how the guy immediately justifies what he's doing by blaming the person he's giving the shocks to.

I don't think rapists consider themselves to be bad people because they probably blame the victim as well. It's really easy to justify any action you take when you have a self interest in believing something.

Even bullies will blame the person they bullying for what they're doing or they will simply not consider it bullying no matter how clear it is.

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't think rapists consider themselves to be bad people because they probably blame the victim as well. It's really easy to justify any action you take when you have a self interest in believing something.

Even bullies will blame the person they bullying for what they're doing or they will simply not consider it bullying no matter how clear it is.

First, the'd have to acknowledge what happenned actually constitutes rape.

Second the acknowledgement that rape is an absolute moral of wrong, and the lines of right and wrong can get pretty blurry during wartime or combat.

Galvasean

SugarHigh wrote: »

SO you agree it's the society we grow up in that makes us not rape people? And that if people were in a different society they would be more likely to rape people?
I don't understand why this then doesn't apply to you?

Slight misinterpretation of what I was saying. I will try to make my point more clearly.
You say that rape is prevalent in Liberia and I believe this is due to a lack of law enforcement.
I have little doubt that if we were to strip away our own societies laws there would be much more crime. Stealing, murder, rape, you name it.
What I certainly did not say is that without laws/fear of punishment everyone would be a rapist. The fact that not every person in Liberia who had the opportunity to commit rape but chose not to is a testament to the fact that people have different levels of morality. Much like how people have different hair colour, eye colour, bone structure, morality varies from person to person. It's in our genes. Some people have what we would call incredibly high levels of morality and will not do immoral things even when given ample opportunity to do so without consequence. Similarly there are others who are the very opposite of this and will do horrible things regardless. Of course, there is a whole lot in between too.
Basically what I'm trying to get at here is that each person has their own level of natural morality. Society, peer group, upbringing etc. certainly does change someone's morals to an extent as by and large a lot of people do seem predisposed to being led (as links posted on this thread have shown). That said, I do not think it is possible to completely change someone's entire moral set up in all cases.

Lemming

SugarHigh wrote: »

They are capable of it.

So what you've just said is 'all men are rapists' by virtue of what lies between their legs. To quote an incident on US radio many moons ago (or it was an urban myth I dunno); a US army officer replying that in saying that all women are potentially prostitutes, that doesn't make any inferred innuendo that all are prostitutes true, just like implying all men are rapists or killers.

Oh yeah, and women can and do rape too. But lets not let any equitable statements of "all women are capable of rape" get in the way of some self-serving Greer publicity.

It's a gross, gross and deeply cynical viewpoint to throw about SugarHigh; any which way you try to swing it. So pull the other one and then jog on. As has already been said by others, Greer is a hate-filled, spiteful little troll who is ironically woman's worst enemy in the media because she utterly trivialises what is a very serious issue for her own self-centred, egotistical publicity needs.

You really want to hold up someone like that as a speaker of truth? That's like holding up Charlie Haughey or Beeeeertie as paragons of responsible financial accounting. It just doesn't fly.

I never said they were trained to rape. I'm saying it's possible to create the right circumstances where they would rape. They train to kill so they can obviously create the right circumstances to allow someone to be a killer. All I'm saying is that I don't see why they couldn't also do it for rape, I never said they are actually doing it for rape.

All armies train recruits to objectify the enemy in order to kill, i.e. "It's just a target, not a person. Now pull the trigger". By contrast, the act of rape is - as far as I understand - all about showing power over another person; rarely is it about sexual gratification. That means you have have to recognise the victim as a person first. Fundamental mindset difference in as far as I can or want to try and fathom it.

You keep banging on about how it's "possible" to engineer circumstances for someone who wouldn't to otherwise commit an act of rape. Following that highly selective logic - whilst ignoring everything else - anything is possible. It's like trying to argue that because anything is possible that you can make humans fly without mechanical assistance. Given enough evolutionary time it may be possible but then again it's a preposterous statement to make. and the height of dishonesty to claim that you're "technically correct".

SugarHigh

Lemming wrote: »

So what you've just said is 'all men are rapists' by virtue of what lies between their legs.

No need to narrow it down to just men. I said all people are potential killers/rapists. I do believe you create female killers just like you can create male killers. The problems with creating a female rapist would be physical ones not a moral ones you could still make her okay with with raping people.

I don't think women are naturally morally above raping or killing people I just think the circumstances that make men killer and rapists don't happen to women. In gangland America the men do the killing but it's not like the women are morally adverse to it, they just don't have to do it. Those societies turn the men into killers they don't turn the women into killers but that doesn't you can't turn women into killers.

Oh yeah, and women can and do rape too. But lets not let any equitable statements of "all women are capable of rape" get in the way of some self-serving Greer publicity.

Where did I claim they couldn't. I'm pretty sure all throughout this thread I've been saying "people" and not "men".

It's a gross, gross and deeply cynical viewpoint to throw about SugarHigh; any which way you try to swing it.

No one has given me any reason to believe there are humans who can't be made to do bad things. Some people might take more effort than others but they can all be done. No one would like to consider themselves cannibals but put them in the right situation and it happens. I think people aren't really capable of judging how they would react but they'd rather the idea that they're above killing people so they go with that one.

So pull the other one and then jog on. As has already been said by others, Greer is a hate-filled, spiteful little troll who is ironically woman's worst enemy in the media because she utterly trivialises what is a very serious issue for her own self-centred, egotistical publicity needs.

That's an argument against Geer and not her argument. If she said 2+2=4 it doesn't become false just because she said it. I'm not saying this debate is a clear cut as addition I'm just saying that arguing against the person making the argument and not their argument doesn't make sense.

You really want to hold up someone like that as a speaker of truth? That's like holding up Charlie Haughey or Beeeeertie as paragons of responsible financial accounting. It just doesn't fly.

So because of who she is it's impossible for her to ever say something that might be right? What happens if she shares an opinion you agree with? Do you just switch based on the fact if she believes then it must be wrong?

All armies train recruits to objectify the enemy in order to kill, i.e. "It's just a target, not a person. Now pull the trigger". By contrast, the act of rape is - as far as I understand - all about showing power over another person; rarely is it about sexual gratification. That means you have have to recognise the victim as a person first. Fundamental mindset difference in as far as I can or want to try and fathom it.

I don't why we are viewing rape as a big deal but murder isn't. If you can make them kill the enemy why couldn't you make them rape them? I never said it was about sexual gratification. Why do you think a soldier wouldn't enjoy showing power over his enemy? If anything you've just given a motive as to why soldiers are more likely to rape people.

You keep banging on about how it's "possible" to engineer circumstances for someone who wouldn't to otherwise commit an act of rape. Following that highly selective logic - whilst ignoring everything else - anything is possible. It's like trying to argue that because anything is possible that you can make humans fly without mechanical assistance. Given enough evolutionary time it may be possible but then again it's a preposterous statement to make. and the height of dishonesty to claim that you're "technically correct".

Find me an example of a human was made fly without mechanical existence, you can't but I can show you people who were made rape others. For example the story which started this thread of soldiers being ordered to rape in Libya.

metrovelvet

I dont know much about Greer and never read any of her books, but the statement in the OP said, soldiers, which is non gender specific, however we can assume that the majoirty of them are men, and it might be a sneaky way of making a comment, much like derogatory uses of Catholic have racial undertones, SOLDIER may have gender undertones. Im not positing this as an argument, just taking it under consideration.

I tend to agree with SUGARHIGH here, that women inevitably become part of the spoils of war. Taring and feathering civilians is wrong, but the IRA did it to Irish women who were seen to be 'fraternising with the enemy.' they don't even have to be the enemy themselves! Suddenly this very brutal deed becomes a justified and carried through upon a civilian.

Yahew

Probably what Greer meant to say was All Armies rape. And what she also meant to say was, soldiers in war rape more than normal men because we train them to kill - which removes a fundamental societal constraint. Killing in normal society is bad. Letting these demon's out probably causes men to tend to lose other inhibitions, particularly in self selecting groups like volunteer soldiers.

Manic Moran

Out of interest, I just did Google searches for "british army rape iraq" and "british army rape afghanistan", and came back with no hits for the latter, and only one hit for an alleged female-on-male rape in Iraq, which if I recall correctly was subsequently determined as unfounded. There is little reason to believe that Libya would be any different, or that there was any particular need for Ms Greer's comments, even if they were technically true in an academic sense, which would be just as true down your local pub.

If you were raised to believe killing is okay you will also be fine with rape.

I strongly disagree with this concept. There is nothing morally wrong with killing in self defence, for example. The official position of the Catholic Church, for example, is that it's fine with it. I would be very unwilling to believe that El Pope is similarly OK with rape.

And what she also meant to say was, soldiers in war rape more than normal men because we train them to kill - which removes a fundamental societal constraint

Yes, but part of that removal, at least in most modern militaries, is "it's OK to kill when certain conditions are met such as adherence to the laws of war," not just "it's OK to kill." The people which exceed that are likely also to have exceeded it on the civilian side as well, as they don't seem to feel themselves bound by it.

NTM

SugarHigh

Manic Moran wrote: »

I strongly disagree with this concept. There is nothing morally wrong with killing in self defence, for example. The official position of the Catholic Church, for example, is that it's fine with it. I would be very unwilling to believe that El Pope is similarly OK with rape.

Soldiers aren't trained to only kill in self defense though are they? It's coming to attack people who aren't a thrat to you just to bring down moral. Why did america fire bomb Japanese cities if not just to bring down moral. Why was the the bombing of Berlin so intense even against non-military targets if not to bring down moral.

Yes, but part of that removal, at least in most modern militaries, is "it's OK to kill when certain conditions are met such as adherence to the laws of war," not just "it's OK to kill." The people which exceed that are likely also to have exceeded it on the civilian side as well, as they don't seem to feel themselves bound by it.

NTM

You know this isn't true.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

Do you really believe that all these soldiers who shot innocent civilians would have been killers if they never joined the army?

Why are levels of rape so much higher in the military than in general society if these people would have been rapists anyway?

Handsome Bob

metrovelvet wrote: »

Strip away your values. Take away any sense of consequence. Inflate your sense of entitlement. Brainwash you into thinking women are there to serve your needs. Create a culture what backs you up in this. Stress you out. Make you feel out of control. Disenfranchise you. Desensitise you to others pain to make you capable of hurting them without forethough or remorse. Then get someone in a position of authority to tell you to do it, and presto.

Where does an individual's inner mental strength factor into this?

SugarHigh

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Where does an individual's inner mental strength factor into this?

That doesn't make it impossible it just makes it more difficult.

Well actually wtf is "inner mental strength" anyway? Isn't that just a spiritual term that when broken down doesn't really have any meaning?

Handsome Bob

SugarHigh wrote: »

That doesn't make it impossible it just makes it more difficult.

Well actually wtf is "inner mental strength" anyway? Isn't that just a spiritual term that when broken down doesn't really have any meaning?

Okay, how about I leave the inner bit out and just say mental strength, is that alright with yourself now?

I find the idea that I can be brainwashed with relative ease into becoming a rapist a tad irksome. It's not society that tells me rape is wrong, it's the damage and destruction it causes to the lives of people. Nothing will ever break that view I hold.

parker kent

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I find the idea that I can be brainwashed with relative ease into becoming a rapist a tad irksome. It's not society that tells me rape is wrong, it's the damage and destruction it causes to the lives of people. Nothing will ever break that view I hold.

I don't think anybody knows what they would do in certain situations. Strip away social norms and people do terrible things. World War 2 is my best example of ordinary people doing awful acts.

Galvasean

parker kent wrote: »

I don't think anybody knows what they would do in certain situations. Strip away social norms and people do terrible things. World War 2 is my best example of ordinary people doing awful acts.

People aren't all the same though. Yes many followed Hitler's* orders out of fear, brainwashing, propaganda etc. and went on to do unspeakable things, but there were those who resisted. Some had the mental fortitude to stand up for what they knew was right. Many lost their lives doing so.


*Godwin!

parker kent

Galvasean wrote: »

People aren't all the same though. Yes many followed Hitler's* orders out of fear, brainwashing, propaganda etc. and went on to do unspeakable things, but there were those who resisted. Some had the mental fortitude to stand up for what they knew was right. Many lost their lives doing so.


*Godwin!

But that doesn't change that many people who would have considered themselves good people ended up committing unspeakable acts. Like I just said in that post, you don't know how you'll react in extraordinary circumstances.

Galvasean

parker kent wrote: »

But that doesn't change that many people who would have considered themselves good people ended up committing unspeakable acts. Like I just said in that post, you don't know how you'll react in extraordinary circumstances.

I wouldn't disagree with you on that note. I suppose I was responding more so to the idea that anyone can be made do absolutely anything with a bit of mental conditioning.

Manic Moran

Why are levels of rape so much higher in the military than in general society if these people would have been rapists anyway?

Is it? Or is it just a case of misrepresenting numbers?

http://www.refusingtokill.net/rape/WhySoldiersRape.htm

Rape in civilian life is already unacceptably common. One in six women is raped or sexually assaulted in her lifetime, according to the National Institute of Justice, a number so high it should be considered an epidemic.

In the military, however, the situation is even worse. Rape is almost twice as frequent as it is among civilians, especially in wartime

Bear in mind that the civilian numbers are on a ratio of men-to-women of roughly parity, whilst in the military the ratio can be as few as 1:10 depending on branch. Assuming that the chances of any man being a rapist are going to be the same in either civilian or military employment, then by simple ratios, the fewer number of females present in the military are going to suffer the higher ratio of assaults.

Work it out for yourself.

Take 100,000 men off Grafton street. Let's say 0.1% of them are inclined to rape. Also on Grafton street are 100,000 women. If each raping man went after one woman, that would be 100 unfortunate victims, or 0.1% of women.

Take 100,000 men in the Army. Let's say 0.1% of them are inclined to rape, resulting in 100 victims. Currently, the US Army is about 14% female, 86% male. So the equivalent sample size of women is 16,280. One hundred victims gives a percentage of 0.6%.

Holy Assault Rates, Batman! Soldiers are six times more rape-prone than civilians!

Yet if one in six women in the US experience a rape or attempted rape and three in six women in the US Army experience a rape or attempted rape, (let's see, three by 14% is 42%), that means that US Army personnel are actually less likely to rape (By some 20% comparative percentage) than a civilian on the street is.

Soldiers aren't trained to only kill in self defense though are they? It's coming to attack people who aren't a thrat to you just to bring down moral. Why did america fire bomb Japanese cities if not just to bring down moral. Why was the the bombing of Berlin so intense even against non-military targets if not to bring down moral.

Of course it was to bring down morale. But it itself is a legal justification, or at least was at the time, and any war is carried out in defence or furtherance of the State's interest.

Do you really believe that all these soldiers who shot innocent civilians would have been killers if they never joined the army?

Why not? They don't seem to have considered themselves bound by either laws or human decency, and there's plenty enough killing on civvie street as well. Someone's got to be doing it.

NTM

SugarHigh

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Okay, how about I leave the inner bit out and just say mental strength, is that alright with yourself now?

I find the idea that I can be brainwashed with relative ease into becoming a rapist a tad irksome. It's not society that tells me rape is wrong, it's the damage and destruction it causes to the lives of people. Nothing will ever break that view I hold.

The word inner wasn't the problem. You can't really define what mental strength is can you?

Physical strength is easy to define in that if I can lift more than you, I'm stronger than you.


However how do you decide if you person has a more mental strength than another?

Do people with depression who view the world in a negative light have less mental strength? Maybe they have more mental strength and positive just have to delude themselves because they can't handle the reality that the worlds a sh1t place. I'm not actually saying the world is a sh1t place I'm just saying that what constitutes mental strength can change based on perspective.

I'm not trying to be controversial but what about people who kill themselves. Do they lack mental strength in not being able to handle the world ordo they show mental strength in being able to kill themselves which most people probably couldn't do.

So lets say we have an SS soldier being ordered to kill some Jews. Does saying no prove mental strength or does saying yes prove mental strength?

To kill someone you have to overcome the strong mental block of not being able to shoot people, overcoming this to survive(SS would probably kill you for not following orders) shows mental strength does it not? Maybe the people who refused to kill Jews lacked the mental strength required do whats necessary for them to survive.

Of course you are viewing it from the more obvious perspective of having the mental strength to say no.

SugarHigh

Galvasean wrote: »

People aren't all the same though. Yes many followed Hitler's* orders out of fear, brainwashing, propaganda etc. and went on to do unspeakable things, but there were those who resisted. Some had the mental fortitude to stand up for what they knew was right. Many lost their lives doing so.


*Godwin!

Just because they didn't do it doesn't actually mean it isn't possible to make them do it. Maybe Nazi propaganda was targeting the general population so wasn't working against select individuals but if these people were targeted with their own personal propaganda it would work. Like how not everyone falls for the same marketing campaigns that doesn't mean the people who avoid the main ones can't be marketed to.

Latchy

What a stupid woman and what a stupid comment to make .:mad:

Good men ,soldiers who put their lifes on the line every day to for a greater cause are dying and all she can come out with is this 'out dated ' view of soldiers in the front line .

Maybe she would like to go over to Lybia when the dust settles and report on what's happening there ,only make sure she has enough security around her to save being molested by the local mob like the expierence of that female american reporter .:rolleyes:

Yahew

Latchy wrote: »

What a stupid woman and what a stupid comment to make .:mad:

Good men ,soldiers who put their lifes on the line every day to for a greater cause are dying and all she can come out with is this 'out dated ' view of soldiers in the front line .

Maybe she would like to go over to Lybia when the dust settles and report on what's happening there ,only make sure she has enough security around her to save being molested by the local mob like the expierence of that female american reporter .:rolleyes:

What experience ( rape, or molestation) and by whom. combatants?

Yahew

On the subject of Nazi soldiers, one of the reasons to bring in industrial killings - which were more hands off than madd killings in graves etc. - was the effect on the German soldiers. People were cracking up.

Handsome Bob

SugarHigh wrote: »

Of course you are viewing it from the more obvious perspective of having the mental strength to say no.

Yes, I am.

I've no interest in judging the mental strength of another, who am I to judge the mental strength of the suicidal and the depressed. All I'm talking about is myself, no-one else.

Latchy

Yahew wrote: »

What experience ( rape, or molestation) and by whom. combatants?

When it kicked off in Egypt a few months back one of the female reporters was seperated from her male colleagues and for several minutes was molested by the baying civillian crowd who just happened to be Egyptian .

Yahew wrote: »

On the subject of Nazi soldiers, one of the reasons to bring in industrial killings - which were more hands off than madd killings in graves etc. - was the effect on the German soldiers. People were cracking up.

A recent book on Nazi atrocities by many of the people who were there themselfs has them quoted as saying '' it wasn't just the SS who enjoyed the rapes and killings but we ordinary German soldiers to '' and describes in detail the various methods used to make the 'sport 'more interesting and enjoyable .

( there is a recent thread with the book title around on this to )

SugarHigh

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Yes, I am.

I've no interest in judging the mental strength of another, who am I to judge the mental strength of the suicidal and the depressed. All I'm talking about is myself, no-one else.

My point is that mental strength isn't an objective measure of anything. You can basically decide whatever you want is metal strength.

SugarHigh

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of course it was to bring down morale. But it itself is a legal justification, or at least was at the time, and any war is carried out in defence or furtherance of the State's interest.

You said soldiers were killing in self defense and I was just showing that's not always the case. I showed that they will sometimes kill to reduce moral of the enemy and so if raping them will also reduce moral I don't see any reason why a soldier wouldn't rape the enemy. Killing everyone in a village is worse than raping a select few. So I don't see how they could the former but have a moral aversion to the latter.

Why not? They don't seem to have considered themselves bound by either laws or human decency, and there's plenty enough killing on civvie street as well. Someone's got to be doing it.

NTM

You have a greater opportunity to kill innocent people while in the army then most civilians will ever have.

I won't get into the rape stats as they probably are bollocks because rape is often used as political currency in this case it's being used by anti-war groups. I'm not anti-war, I'm just making the point that everyone is a potential rapist and I've still not read anything in this thread to suggest that there are people out who couldn't be convinced to kill/rape another person.

metrovelvet

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11

The capacity of Soviet officers to convince themselves that most of the victims were either happy with their fate, or at least accepted that it was their turn to suffer after what the Wehrmacht had done in Russia, is striking. "Our fellows were so sex-starved," a Soviet major told a British journalist at the time, "that they often raped old women of sixty, seventy or even eighty - much to these grandmothers' surprise, if not downright delight."

One can only scratch at the surface of the psychological contradictions. When gang-raped women in Königsberg begged their attackers afterwards to put them out of their misery, the Red Army men appear to have felt insulted. "Russian soldiers do not shoot women," they replied. "Only German soldiers do that." The Red Army had managed to convince itself that because it had assumed the moral mission to liberate Europe from fascism it could behave entirely as it liked, both personally and politically.

...Estimates of rape victims from the city's two main hospitals ranged from 95,000 to 130,000. One doctor deduced that out of approximately 100,000 women raped in the city, some 10,000 died as a result, mostly from suicide

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11

The capacity of Soviet officers to convince themselves that most of the victims were either happy with their fate, or at least accepted that it was their turn to suffer after what the Wehrmacht had done in Russia, is striking. "Our fellows were so sex-starved," a Soviet major told a British journalist at the time, "that they often raped old women of sixty, seventy or even eighty - much to these grandmothers' surprise, if not downright delight."

One can only scratch at the surface of the psychological contradictions. When gang-raped women in Königsberg begged their attackers afterwards to put them out of their misery, the Red Army men appear to have felt insulted. "Russian soldiers do not shoot women," they replied. "Only German soldiers do that." The Red Army had managed to convince itself that because it had assumed the moral mission to liberate Europe from fascism it could behave entirely as it liked, both personally and politically.

...Estimates of rape victims from the city's two main hospitals ranged from 95,000 to 130,000. One doctor deduced that out of approximately 100,000 women raped in the city, some 10,000 died as a result, mostly from suicide

Things like this really show how how laughable and naive "I wouldn't do bad things because I have a strong character" viewpoint is. The truth is the people who do these things don't even realise they are doing bad things so you could even hold that viewpoint while doing the deed.

Latchy

From the viewpoint of the Russian hordes who raped the women of Berlin on mass ,it was pay back time for what went on in Russia beforehand ,except it wasn't like they needed much persuasion and Stalin himself sanctioned these rapes as the spoils of victory .Not only did they rape German women but thousends of Russian female prisoners of the Nazis were also raped on German soil ,this is on record and anybody was fair game .( the average woman was raped at least 20 times or more )

The Japanese marched into Nanking and also butchered and raped the Chinese en mass with impunity for all actions so mass armys can and will rape if the circumstances allow them to .

The American and British to a lesser scale will have had men who also commited same except they will not have seen their civillian country men and women raped and murdered in their tens of thousends on home soil as the Poles ,Lativians ,Belarians , Russians and other eastern bloc countrys did , as well as the German population .

Manic Moran

You said soldiers were killing in self defense and I was just showing that's not always the case

No I didn't.
This was the original quote:

If you were raised to believe killing is okay you will also be fine with rape

Self defence is the most obvious example of killing being OK, I made no allegation that it was the only example. It simply belies the point that the act of killing and the act of rape need necessarily be correlated.

I showed that they will sometimes kill to reduce moral of the enemy and so if raping them will also reduce moral I don't see any reason why a soldier wouldn't rape the enemy

At this time of writing, killing the enemy is legal, raping them is not. That's all the distinction that needs be mentioned for a modern Western military when it comes to common practice or accepted policy. There are those individuals who will fail to follow this policy, they are to be treated in the same manner as civilians who similarly fail to follow the laws at home.

You have a greater opportunity to kill innocent people while in the army then most civilians will ever have.

I live in the US. I assure you that the locals who are inclined to do so have found plenty of opportunities to kill each other around here. No reason to believe that those soldiers were of a different mentality to the DC sniper or any of the Freeway Snipers we've had, for example.

When it kicked off in Lybia a few months back one of the female reporters was seperated from her male colleagues and for several minutes was molested by the baying civillian crowd who just happened to be Lybian

Egyptian. You're thinking of Lara Logan.

NTM

Latchy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Egyptian. You're thinking of Lara Logan.

NTM

Correct . Egypt not Lybia

Handsome Bob

SugarHigh wrote: »

Things like this really show how how laughable and naive "I wouldn't do bad things because I have a strong character" viewpoint is. The truth is the people who do these things don't even realise they are doing bad things so you could even hold that viewpoint while doing the deed.

Yeah, you know why? Because they're ****ing nutters.

You can't cherry pick a few stats from a completely different context and apply them to every male living in the world.

Delirium

metrovelvet wrote: »

One can only scratch at the surface of the psychological contradictions. When gang-raped women in Königsberg begged their attackers afterwards to put them out of their misery, the Red Army men appear to have felt insulted. "Russian soldiers do not shoot women," they replied. "Only German soldiers do that." The Red Army had managed to convince itself that because it had assumed the moral mission to liberate Europe from fascism it could behave entirely as it liked, both personally and politically.

So soldiers trained to kill wouldn't shoot women? They obviously see a difference between killing an enemy soldier and shooting a woman. Why is it so different then for soldiers to also see a difference between killing or raping a person?

Scanlas The 2nd

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Okay, how about I leave the inner bit out and just say mental strength, is that alright with yourself now?

I find the idea that I can be brainwashed with relative ease into becoming a rapist a tad irksome. It's not society that tells me rape is wrong, it's the damage and destruction it causes to the lives of people. Nothing will ever break that view I hold.

Regardless if you find it irksome, you have already been brainwashed to think it's ok to be complicit in mass murder, slaughtering and pain infliction. You aren't really bothered by it because everyone else aren't really bothered by it.

Just look at the needless suffering we cause animals that is far worse than the holocaust. But because we are biased and we are humans and it's not in our collective interest to care and we aren't taught it is evil, we don't really care to be honest.

Saying that I strongly disagree with Greer's comments as I doubt very much she is thinking along these lines.

Maguined

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Just look at the needless suffering we cause animals that is far worse than the holocaust. But because we are biased and we are humans and it's not in our collective interest to care and we aren't taught it is evil, we don't really care to be honest.

Are you being serious?

Scanlas The 2nd

Maguined wrote: »

Are you being serious?

I know it seems ridiculous, but maybe if we were conditioned in some alternate reality to think rape is ok you'd be responding to my thread saying, "Are you serious, you have a problem with rape, did you take your pills this morning?".

I don't think it would be as easy to brainwash people to cause suffering to other humans and think nothing of it as we naturally empathise with humans more than mammals. Like wise it's easier to cause suffering to non mammals such as fish for us as we empathise naturally more easily with mammals than fish because we are geneticall more closely related. How many tuna rights protesters do yo hear about, not as many as animals rights protesters thats for sure.

How can you actually argue that what we do isn't worse than the holocaust from a neutral (non human) perspective? It's outragwoues what we do yet we think nothing of it relatively speaking.

Maguined

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How can you actually argue that what we do isn't worse than the holocaust from a neutral (non human) perspective? It's outragwoues what we do yet we think nothing of it relatively speaking.

Because as a human I do not see the point in arguing something from a "neutral non human perspective", it achieves nothing in my opinion so no I do not think the brutal way we imprison and butcher animals for our food is worse than the holocaust.

metrovelvet

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I know it seems ridiculous, but maybe if we were conditioned in some alternate reality to think rape is ok you'd be responding to my thread saying, "Are you serious, you have a problem with rape, did you take your pills this morning?".

I don't think it would be as easy to brainwash people to cause suffering to other humans and think nothing of it as we naturally empathise with humans more than mammals. Like wise it's easier to cause suffering to non mammals such as fish for us as we empathise naturally more easily with mammals than fish because we are geneticall more closely related. How many tuna rights protesters do yo hear about, not as many as animals rights protesters thats for sure.

How can you actually argue that what we do isn't worse than the holocaust from a neutral (non human) perspective? It's outragwoues what we do yet we think nothing of it relatively speaking.

You dont think its as easy to condition people to cause pain to other people? Are you kidding? Just look at the Christian Brothers and the Magdalene Laundries, no different from torture, and it wasnt that hard to get people to do it or endorse it either.

There are countless examples in history of mans's inhumanity to man.

Scanlas The 2nd

metrovelvet wrote: »

You dont think its as easy to condition people to cause pain to other people? Are you kidding? Just look at the Christian Brothers and the Magdalene Laundries, no different from torture, and it wasnt that hard to get people to do it or endorse it either.

There are countless examples in history of mans's inhumanity to man.

Of course it can be done. I said it's easier to condition people to think it's ok to cause suffering to animals. I didn't say it can't be done with humans. It obviously can as history proves.

metrovelvet

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Of course it can be done. I said it's easier to condition people to think it's ok to cause suffering to animals. I didn't say it can't be done with humans. It obviously can as history proves.

Yeah, because they are animals. I have this argument with my brother every Christmas when he calls us a bunch of sociopaths for having a Turkey on the table.

And on the flip side dehumanisation is often used as step one to some pretty nasty stuff.

Scanlas The 2nd

Maguined wrote: »

Because as a human I do not see the point in arguing something from a "neutral non human perspective", it achieves nothing in my opinion so no I do not think the brutal way we imprison and butcher animals for our food is worse than the holocaust.

One can say that from many perspectives. The nazis could have said that about the jews. " As a German and a nazi I do not see the point in arguing something from a "neutral non nazi perspective". So we shall continue slaughtering those jews as they are different as the pain we cause them doesn't count the way it would count if we slaughtered nazis.

There have been many oppressed groups that I think find it quite relevant that the oppressor eventually saw things from a neutral perspective. Women, gays, blacks etc....

Bottle_of_Smoke

I wouldn't write off what she has to say because of her previous record.

We can pretend rapists are sick, evil or whatever but there's no denying rape incidence skyrockets when there's no fear of retribution. That guardian article shows mass rape in soviet occupied germany was clearly not down to revenge for the war, and more that the men enjoyed raping women, and without fear of punishment or damage to reputation their consideration for the women went out the window.

Maguined

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

One can say that from many perspectives. The nazis could have said that about the jews. " As a German and a nazi I do not see the point in arguing something from a "neutral non nazi perspective". So we shall continue slaughtering those jews as they are different as the pain we cause them doesn't count the way it would count if we slaughtered nazis.

True which is why as a society we have to make a decision for what is an acceptable point of view and what is not, the majority of global society decided that the Nazi point of view was not acceptable as we are all one human race and should be treated with basic human rights. Just as the majority global society does not consider animals to have the same rights as humans so we are fine with the way they are treated for our benefit.

So again I do not see the point of arguing something from a "neutral non human" point of view, sure you can do it, but why? what purpose does it achieve for you?