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

Yahew

LZ5by5 wrote: »

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.

But the Russian army which raped Germans was full or ordinary folk. All we know is that when society breaks down, more men rape than otherwise. I dont think that all men are rapists - I dont know the percentages for the Russian army - but a larger proportion in war than in peace. Which is basically what Germaine says. Lets not fool ourselves, her statistics are true.

Monty Burnz

koth wrote: »

As a guy I have to say that it's truly depressing that some people still hold the view that given the right circumstances, all men will rape.

Well, we know by now that in the right circumstances, all women are incapable of logic.

Scanlas The 2nd

Maguined wrote: »

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?

I'm a happy meat eater and will continue to be one just to make that clear. As you can see from what you have written morals is about the overall benefit of the group. We can do horrible things so long as our group benefits overall. Our morality is basically selfish. We can turn a blind eye to extreme suffering so long as it benefits the group.

If we can allow ourselves to be biased for our own benefit whats to stops other scenarios where it benefits the group to allow rape in certain situation.
As you have basically said above we do what's best for us. What's to stop another subset of humans from agreeing whats best for that group at the expense of everyone else.

Maguined

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm a happy meat eater and will continue to be one just to make that clear. As you can see from what you have written morals is about the overall benefit of the group. We can do horrible things so long as our group benefits overall. Our morality is basically selfish. We can turn a blind eye to extreme suffering so long as it benefits the group.

If we can allow ourselves to be biased for our own benefit whats to stops other scenarios where it benefits the group to allow rape in certain situation.
As you have basically said above we do what's best for us. What's to stop another subset of humans from agreeing whats best for that group at the expense of everyone else.

I agree that morality can be relative but I disagree that it is basically selfish. Yes there is the basis that it is a do unto others as you would have done unto you so the motivation for treating others nice is the hope that it get returns to you, but it is only a hope and not a guarantee that such positive treatment gets returned to you by others.

For every generalised example of selfish morality benefiting the individual there is also an altruistic example of an individuals morality sacrificing themselves for the benefit of others.

K-9

I watched the programme and the comment I noticed was daughters are brought up to flirt with their Dads. Guy from the audience took her up on it and apparently a child giving her Dad a good night kiss is flirting with him.

Strange woman.

Yahew

Germaine is partially right on that one too. There is a certain innate flirtation which goes on. Rather than put cart before horse though, it might be that flirtation is an adult woman acting like a little girl.

And, lets remember Germaine is from a generation which took Freud to make some sense. she could have made that comment in the 70's and no-one would have noticed.

metrovelvet

Yeah, I have noticed in a lot of American films where you have a daddy's girl type of thing, sometimes they do act flity and spousal. I always a vomit a little.

Elle Collins

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

...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.

Nice to see a man telling the truth about rape for a change.

Maguined

Elle Collins wrote: »

Nice to see a man telling the truth about rape for a change.

All crimes skyrocket when there is no law or fear of punishment to act as a deterrent.

Logical Fallacy

Elle Collins wrote: »

Nice to see a man telling the truth about rape for a change.

Yes, we have a club whereby we all agree to tell lies and smudge the facts about rape. :rolleyes:

metrovelvet

I thought Bottle of Smoke was a woman.

tbh

Elle Collins wrote: »

Nice to see a man telling the truth about rape for a change.

don't use a generalization like this again. Your access to this forum will be removed if I see any more of this kind of crap.

I've left the post there as an example of what is not acceptable, please do *not* respond to it.

Galvasean

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.

We don't have to be brainwashed by society to want to eat animals. We are naturally omnivores. Our diet consists of both plants and animals and has done so for millions of years. It is only natural that a predator would not empathize with it's prey.

SugarHigh

Galvasean wrote: »

We don't have to be brainwashed by society to want to eat animals. We are naturally omnivores. Our diet consists of both plants and animals and has done so for millions of years. It is only natural that a predator would not empathize with it's prey.

This is why it's easy for rapists to not feel guilt about the women they rape. They simply don't have empathy for them. A soldier obviously isn't going to have empathy for his enemy because they're his prey, so is there really going to be any mental block in raping the enemy?

The idea that these people are "just fúcking nutters" seems intellectually lazy to me. Most rapists don't stand out because they're just normal people. One of the big problems is even making them realise they are rapists. How many marital rapists actually consider themselves to be rapists?

When people think of rape and rapists they imagine some guy in a trench coat pulling a girl behind the bushes and raping her. So once what they're doing doesn't resemble this it's for them to not consider themselves rapists.

It's like how those Russian soldiers though the girls wanted to have sex with them even though they still had to force them. The guys obviously didn't consider themselves to be unattractive or the type of people who would need to rape women therefor what they did wasn't rape in their eyes, because they didn't fit their own view of a rapist.

You get this with most criminals where since they justify their own crimes but can still look down on others for breaking the law. Their own self image doesn't fit their image of what criminal is so therefor they can't be criminals. Like when people say to the guards "Go catch some real criminals" when they've just been caught breaking the law.

Scanlas The 2nd

Galvasean wrote: »

We don't have to be brainwashed by society to want to eat animals. We are naturally omnivores. Our diet consists of both plants and animals and has done so for millions of years. It is only natural that a predator would not empathize with it's prey.

It shows that it is possible for us to cause unnecessary suffering and terror and to be ok with it, regardless of the reasons we do it the animals still suffer. We do empathise with these animals to a degree. Seeing someone slaughter a mammal generally speaking bothers us more than a reptile being slaughtered as reptiles are less related to us.

We don't have to be brainwashed to want to eat animals, but if everyone thought it was evil and wrong then so would you. We get out morals from our society. If we were born into a society that thought rape was ok I'd say you'd more than likey think it was ok too.

Galvasean

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It shows that it is possible for us to cause unnecessary suffering and terror and to be ok with it, regardless of the reasons we do it the animals still suffer. We do empathise with these animals to a degree. Seeing someone slaughter a mammal generally speaking bothers us more than a reptile being slaughtered as reptiles are less related to us.

This empathy we feel toward animals appears to be relatively new in evolutionary terms, no doubt due to the expansion of intellect. You can see empathy in the other great apes too and to a lesser extent monkeys and to a lesser extent on occasion other mammals such as cats and dogs. It does seem the more intelligent an animal becomes the more likely it is to experience empathy to another creature, even one of a different species. Empathy relies on relating to the plight of another, hence why (as you rightly pointed out) we by and large would empathize with a fellow mammal more so than say a reptile or a fish. To put it simply reptiles and fish don't really remind us of ourselves, so it doesn't generally make us sad when they die/get hurt. The suffering of a cute little monkey or puppy on the other hand can stir up great empathy in a human as they share many of the characteristics that we do. Of course not everyone has the same levels of empathy and it's not entirely down to how we were raised. Some of us are naturally predisposed to it, while others are not.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

We don't have to be brainwashed to want to eat animals, but if everyone thought it was evil and wrong then so would you. We get out morals from our society. If we were born into a society that thought rape was ok I'd say you'd more than likey think it was ok too.

I have addressed this point earlier in thread and don't feel like doing so again so soon. I don't mean to be dismissive of your point, but feel time and energy would be better spent addressing new points such as the point you made above.

metrovelvet

Empathy is not static either. If you are angry or tired your empathy levels drop.

I cant imagine in combat they would be at their highest levels.

Great post SUGARHIGH. Rapist don't have empathy for the victim and may not even be aware that what they are doing is rape. It wasnt that long ago either that a husband could not be incriminated for rape.

Womanisers too, dont have empathy for the person they end up hurting, they are just into the game and are not too concerned with the hurt they cause. The pain is all part of the fun for them.

Just how teachers used to hand out severe corporal punishment, no empathy for the children who they felt 'deserved' it. They thought what they were doing was good.

Galvasean

SugarHigh wrote: »

This is why it's easy for rapists to not feel guilt about the women they rape. They simply don't have empathy for them. A soldier obviously isn't going to have empathy for his enemy because they're his prey, so is there really going to be any mental block in raping the enemy?

I'm not really sure your use of the word 'prey' is the same as mine. In this instance I have used the word 'prey' as in a predator eats it's prey to survive. The use of the word 'prey' in the case of a rapist and it's victim is somewhat different.
However, at the same time that does raise a very interesting point which I do think might warrant further discussion. While we all know a carnivore (or in our case an omnivore) killing a prey item for food is a very natural process. There are instances of rape in the animal kingdom too (cats and ducks for example do it all the time), however not all species do it. I wonder could a case be made that at some point in our evolutionary lines did the ancestors of modern humans use rape as a primary source of reproduction, as opposed to a consensual ritual. Could a predisposition to raping be a trait we are evolving past in favor of a different reproductive system.
This harks back to the what I was saying earlier about how our genes, not just our personality, define who we are in terms of character as well as appearance. A person is not simply a blank slate to be given a character by the society it grows up in (that is certainly a large factor in who we become too). Much of who we are is predefined by our genetic disposition.
Getting back to rape (rarely a good way to start a sentence, but bear with me), since personality traits are to an extent predefined I am personally of the opinion that some people carry a genetic makeup that predisposes toward being a person who would commit rape while others quite literally don't have it in them. Of course there is also much to be said for your points that social construction could change someone's disposition, albeit not on a genetic level. However, I well and truly do not believe that you can turn anyone into a rapist under the right conditions as some simply so not have the genetic traits for it, much like how all people do not have the latent genetic traits to become an Olympian level athelete.
Well, in theory you could probably reverse engineer their genetic makeup and completely change who they are, but something tells me that was not what Germaine Greer had in mind when she said, "All soldiers, in certain circumstances, will rape, regardless of whether they’re ours or theirs or whose.". In relation to her comments I feel people are giving far too much leeway in terms of how to condition a rapist in relation to what was simply a misandrous comment by a misandrous person.

Galvasean

metrovelvet wrote: »

Empathy is not static either.

I never said they were?

metrovelvet

Galvasean wrote: »

I never said they were?

I know you didnt. Wasnt arguing...just adding to..

Galvasean

metrovelvet wrote: »

I know you didnt. Wasnt arguing...just adding to..

Ah, very good. I thought I mentioned it. Must have got lost in my genetics based musings.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I don't think you can compare the genetics of being capable of rape and being capable of becoming an olympian athlete.

Pretty much any guy is physically capable of rape. mentally capable is a different matter, however I do not believe genetics would ever rule a guy out from being a rapist. I just don't see why genes which would contribute to mr.anti-rape would be selected for on any great scale

Its a nice thought but I just don't think it would be true. Certainly not for anything but a tiny minority of men. As has been said if you can turn people into killers there's no reason you couldn't turn them into rapists.

SugarHigh

since personality traits are to an extent predefined I am personally of the opinion that some people carry a genetic makeup that predisposes toward being a person who would commit rape while others quite literally don't have it in them.

And of course you are one of these people I'm guessing?

Okay there could be people who are impossible to turn into rapists but they'd be along the lines of people who are actually mentally handicapped so the normal brain washing doesn't apply to them. Anyone who couldn't be a rapist is so rare they aren't worth considering. I think any normal functioning person can be turned into a rapist. To be completely free of the almost universal traits that allow a person to self delude themselves into justifying their actions would probably mean you'd struggle to function in a normal society. The fact you currently view the actions as being wrong is irrelevant because you would justify them.

We all do bad things we just justify them. Everyone is against bullying but the truth is we've probably all been the bully at one stage we just didn't consider it bullying. We justified it in ways we wouldn't do if we were a neutral party observing it happening. It's basically impossible to live a life without doing bad things so we need to be able to justify them so we aren't constantly overcome with guilt. I just don't believe bad people walk around thinking they are bad people so it's pretty much impossible to judge if you yourself are a bad person.

Galvasean

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't think you can compare the genetics of being capable of rape and being capable of becoming an olympian athlete.

The mind is every bit as much a product of one's genes as one's body.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Pretty much any guy is physically capable of rape. mentally capable is a different matter, however I do not believe genetics would ever rule a guy out from being a rapist. I just don't see why genes which would contribute to mr.anti-rape would be selected for on any great scale

Anti-social attributes such as being unnecessarily violent hostile to the group can lead to being exiled from the group entirely. In modern terms (when we do catch them, which we often don't I must ad) we lock murderers, rapists etc. in jail away from others or in some cases have them executed. Unfortunately, these violent people do pass on their genes before getting caught (or indeed escape punishment entirely). In fact as often is the case with rape, the very deed itself often results in the siring of offspring.
In the case of those predispositioned to not wanting to murder, rape etc., they would have a very good chance of being well rounded good people in general, which would lead to meeting another similar person and reproducing with them.
Of course, there are countless variables, so no one way is much more prevalent than the other. This would go some of the way to explaining why we see such a huge diversity in people's mentalities, even when they are born of very similar social constructs.
It's kind of like the nature/nurture debate. A combination of genetic and social constructs make us who we are. Of course exactly to what extent each plays in this is still being furiously debated in academic circles. People far smarter than I argue for both sides of the equation.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its a nice thought but I just don't think it would be true. Certainly not for anything but a tiny minority of men.

Even if only a tiny minority of people are mentally incapable (which would be my opinion) of such acts it completely dispels Greer's assumption that all soldiers are capable of rape.
I'm sure each and every one of us here would like to consider ourselves among that minority, but until (God forbid) we are put into these situations we will never truly know if we are.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

As has been said if you can turn people into killers there's no reason you couldn't turn them into rapists.

As has also been stated here there is simply a lot more to raping someone than there is to kill someone. You can kill somebody from a mile off with bombs, rockets etc. To rape someone you need to be much closer. You can't just close your eyes and pull the trigger.

Galvasean

SugarHigh wrote: »

And of course you are one of these people I'm guessing?

You beat me to the punch (didn't realist it took me that long to write a post).

me wrote:

I'm sure each and every one of us here would like to consider ourselves among that minority, but until (God forbid) we are put into these situations we will never truly know if we are

Scanlas The 2nd

metrovelvet wrote: »

Empathy is not static either. If you are angry or tired your empathy levels drop.

I cant imagine in combat they would be at their highest levels.

Great post SUGARHIGH. Rapist don't have empathy for the victim and may not even be aware that what they are doing is rape. It wasnt that long ago either that a husband could not be incriminated for rape.

Womanisers too, dont have empathy for the person they end up hurting, they are just into the game and are not too concerned with the hurt they cause. The pain is all part of the fun for them.

Just how teachers used to hand out severe corporal punishment, no empathy for the children who they felt 'deserved' it. They thought what they were doing was good.

I find labeling people and coneptualizing them as some "other" allows people not to feel empathy for other human beings and allows them to do things they wouldn't normally even imagine doing. I think thats why people can kill so easily in war. It's "them" and "us". In America I notice they say "good guys" and "bad guys" a lot which I can't stand when I hear. Dangerous terms to use for a society.

SugarHigh

In the case of those predispositioned to not wanting to murder, rape etc., they would have a very good chance of being well rounded good people in general, which would lead to meeting another similar person and reproducing with them.

I actually disagree. The skill of being able to justify these actions is one we pretty much all have, the number of Germans who resisted Hitler were far outnumbered by those who supported him. If it's so prevalent it's clearly an important trait. Also keep in mind that just because they resisted Hitler doesn't mean they weren't capable of doing everything the Nazi soldiers did, they probably just felt the Nazi's would have killed them anyway even if they didn't resist. Were there many people who would have benefited from Nazi power who resisted? It always seemed to me that only those with nothing else to lose resisted.

SugarHigh

Galvasean wrote: »

You beat me to the punch (didn't realist it took me that long to write a post).

This is a slight backtrack though isn't it?:D

I'm not a rapist. Believe it or not some people do have morals and behave themselves in a civilized matter out of a sense of morality rather than fear of punishment (I would suggest looking into the evolution of morality for further reading. there is some very interesting research out there).

Were you not suggesting you couldn't be a rapist here?

Galvasean

SugarHigh wrote: »

This is a slight backtrack though isn't it?:D



Were you not suggesting you couldn't be a rapist here?

I did not state that I couldn't be one, merely that I am not one. I did pose the question as to how one would go about turning a person such as I into one and received interesting answers which are providing food for thought.
I am not a tireless refuter. I can and sometimes do change my opinion on matters from time to time in light of further reading/new evidence. There is no shame in changing one's opinion in some cases (something many internet debaters seem to think). I do not view threads like this as an argument to be won or lost, but rather a means of exchanging ideas in order to learn.
So no, I don't think I'm really backtracking, not that there is anything inherently wrong with that. I am however, somewhat coming around to your lines of thinking (however, certainly not to Greer's let it be known!), but not completely.
I am finding this debate very interesting. As you have no doubt noticed I am approaching it from a very biological point of view while you appear to be approaching from a more psychological standpoint.

metrovelvet

^ We are all capable of monstrosity. You can take an innocent person, abuse them in some way, and then lock them into an identifying with the agressor pattern and then they become the abuser later on. No one is immune from this.

Genetic or not, no one is immune to doing horrific things in an absolute sense. There are theories that some people are born without empathy, that there is a genetic pre disposition to, just as there are theories around genetics and alcoholism, but that does not mean its a destiny. Just as empathy can be socialised or beaten out of someone who was not born with such a pre disposition but with a normal capacity for empathy.

If we take your theory that some people are more predisposed genetically to rape than others, that still does not counter the possibility that in some circumstances people can still commit the act. If I go along with the analogy of an olympic athlete, well I would also say that in certain circumstances, we are all probably capable of Olympic type feats if it means survival.

Manic Moran

If we take your theory that some people are more predisposed genetically to rape than others, that still does not counter the possibility that in some circumstances people can still commit the act

The problem with this theoretical statement is that the circumstances presently controlling pretty much preclude the statement that all soldiers will rape, or that letting the British Army loose in Libya will result in British soldiers raping. We have a bunch of 18-30-year-olds on the front lines, the vast majority of whom have been brought up since day one under the concept that rape is wrong. This isn't 1940s Communist farm peasants or a small smattering of ideological racist die-hards in the SS, they are products, just like us, of modern Western society. Even if Private Tommy Atkins would be inclined to rape if he were in the British Army of two centuries ago (a quick Googling for incidents of rape by the British Army in the American War of Independence indicates that the British troops liked sex and looked for women of easy virtue, but reports of raping seem to be less than one would expect, possibly because discipline in the British Army back then would probably not pass Health and Safety review today), his genetic clone of today would not be as inclined.

NTM

metrovelvet

Thats true- the morality around rape has changed.

Also- her language appears to treat it as a destiny.

Yahew

She said

Rape is always present where you have slaughter.
How will we be sure (our ground troops) wont rape as well?
All soldiers, in certain circumstances, will rape.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011vl9t/Question_Time_09_06_2011/

The last sentence is ambiguous, while watching it I took it to mean ( as the first two) all armies in certain circumstances would rape, but not all soldiers in an army. In any case the controversy is over-wrought.

Logical Fallacy

Yahew wrote: »

The last sentence is ambiguous, while watching it I took it to mean ( as the first two) all armies in certain circumstances would rape, but not all soldiers in an army. In any case the controversy is over-wrought.

I don't think it's over-wrought, i think it's very carefully instigated by Greer. As much as i dislike the rubbish she comes out with she is a clever woman, and she knows exactly what she is doing.

Getting people talking about her.