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

Delirium

Feminist writer Germaine Greer was under pressure to apologise today after she suggested that British troops might take part in rapes if they are sent into Libya.

Patrick Mercer, Conservative MP for Newark and a former Army officer, accused Ms Greer of showing “extraordinary ignorance” in her remarks.

Ms Greer said on BBC1’s 'Question Time' programme on Thursday that all soldiers, in certain circumstances, will rape.

She was speaking during a discussion about allegations that Colonel Gaddafi had given his soldiers Viagra and ordered mass rapes as a weapon against rebels.

She said: “Rape is always present where you have slaughter and you don’t have to have a government fiat (order) to do it. One of the interesting things you might ask about what happens if we send in ground troops, how will be sure they don’t do a bit of raping in their turn?”

And she added: “All soldiers, in certain circumstances, will rape, regardless of whether they’re ours or theirs or whose.”

Mr Mercer, who was an Army officer for 25 years, said today: “It shows extraordinary ignorance from someone who patently has no understanding of the conduct of disciplined forces, such as the British Army, Navy and Air Force.

“For her to confuse the British forces with irregulars from other countries is not only ignorant and foolhardy from her point of view, it is also insulting.

“She should stick to things she understands. I think an apology would be very much in order.”

Colonel Stuart Tootal, who commanded 3 Para in Afghanistan, said: “The British Army is a modern, disciplined army, and it’s also a law abiding army as well.

“The British Army is a force for good, and these remarks are ill founded and not well considered.

“I don’t think there are many people, given the huge respect for the British Army and what they are doing, who will treat these remarks seriously – and rightly so.”

Ms Greer was not available for comment today.

Source

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.

Hyperbullet

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

SugarHigh

Greer is just another one of these professional trolls the media loves because they always create a controversy.

Having said that if you train people to kill certain people is it really going to be a surprise if they also think they can rape them? I think murdering someone is worse than raping them so it's a bit weird that if you shot someone it would be okay but not if you rape them.

The aim of a lot of attacks is to break down the moral of the people like the intensive bombing of Berlin. If rape also achieves this I don't see how you can say the bombing is okay but not the rape?

I don't think civilians can really judge soldiers by normal standards when it comes to morals because we are asking them to basically have no morals in certain situations but then act civilized in others. It's not hard to imagine this will be hard for them.

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

Greer is just another one of these professional trolls the media loves because they always create a controversy.

Having said that if you train people to kill certain people is it really going to be a surprise if they also think they can rape them? I think murdering someone is worse than raping them so it's a bit weird that if you shot someone it would be okay but not if you rape them.

Thats too simple a view to take with how soldiers are trained. A soldier is allowed to return fire if under attack for example. But no way would the army let them away with walking down a high street and randomly shooting civilians.

The aim of a lot of attacks is to break down the moral of the people like the intensive bombing of Berlin. If rape also achieves this I don't see how you can say the bombing is okay but not the rape?

Well the first is the distance the pilot is from those he is bombing is a very different state of mind to being in a room with a man/woman/child that the soldier will rape.

It's like a person telling someone over the phone to stab someone vs. someone having to look someone in the eye and stab them.

Plus the army has what's called rules of engagement and various military laws. I'd imagine if the British army found a soldier raping citizens of the country they were located in, that the army wouldn't let that continue.

I don't think civilians can really judge soldiers by normal standards when it comes to morals because we are asking them to basically have no morals in certain situations but then act civilized in others. It's not hard to imagine this will be hard for them.

But the army themselves said that Greers comment was contrary to the standards expected of their soldiers. It's not comparing civilian and military, it's the military saying that she is talking crap.

There was even a movie based on this scenario, where a group of soldiers rape a girl while stationed in Vietnam. One soldier refuses to take part and subsequently reports the soldiers. It was based on actual events in Vietnam.

That soldier should have raped the girl also based on Greers statement that "all soldiers rape".

Otis Driftwood

At this stage Greer just makes me lol.For the most part she is an embarrassment to women everywhere.

Galvasean

People like Greer trivialize actual rape claims. This 'everyone is out to rape us!!!!' metality does no one any good.

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

Thats too simple a view to take with how soldiers are trained. A soldier is allowed to return fire if under attack for example. But no way would the army let them away with walking down a high street and randomly shooting civilians.

NSFW
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

Click on the images to see more. They amputated body parts to keep as trophies.

During the first five months of last year, a platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan went on a shooting spree, killing at least four unarmed civilians and mutilating several of the corpses. The “kill team” – members of the 5th Stryker Brigade stationed near Kandahar – took scores of photos chronicling their kills and their time in Afghanistan. Even before the war crimes became public, the Pentagon went to extraordinary measures to suppress the photos, launching a massive effort to find every file and pull the pictures out of circulation before they could touch off a scandal on the scale of Abu Ghraib.

The images – more than 150 of which have been obtained by Rolling Stone – portray a front-line culture among U.S. troops in which killing innocent civilians is seen as a cause for celebration. “Most people within the unit disliked the Afghan people,” one of the soldiers told Army investigators. “Everyone would say they’re savages.”

Many of the photos depict explicit images of violent deaths that have yet to be identified by the Pentagon. Among the soldiers, the collection was treated like a war memento. It was passed from man to man on thumb drives and hard drives, the gruesome images of corpses and war atrocities filed alongside clips of TV shows, UFC fights and films such as Iron Man 2. One soldier kept a complete set, which he made available to anyone who asked.

On January 15th, 2010, U.S. soldiers in Bravo Company stationed near Kandahar executed an unarmed Afghan boy named Gul Mudin in the village of La Mohammad Kalay. Reports by soldiers at the scene indicate that Mudin was about 15 years old. According to sworn statements, two soldiers – Cpl. Jeremy Morlock and Pfc. Andrew Holmes – staged the killing to make it look like they had been under attack. Ordering the boy to stand still, they crouched behind a mud wall, tossed a grenade at him and opened fire from close range. This photograph shows Mudin’s body lying by the wall where he was killed.

Well the first is the distance the pilot is from those he is bombing is a very different state of mind to being in a room with a man/woman/child that the soldier will rape.

Killing people up close isn't rare. And I don't see how distance changes morals anyway.

It's like a person telling someone over the phone to stab someone vs. someone having to look someone in the eye and stab them.

The morals are the same. It's telling them stabbing is ok.

Plus the army has what's called rules of engagement and various military laws. I'd imagine if the British army found a soldier raping citizens of the country they were located in, that the army wouldn't let that continue.

Or maybe they'd cover it up like the American? What if the other soldiers don't report it because they also the same thing?

But the army themselves said that Greers comment was contrary to the standards expected of their soldiers. It's not comparing civilian and military, it's the military saying that she is talking crap.

THe American army also covered up the rape of it's own soldiers.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/421/index.html

There was even a movie based on this scenario, where a group of soldiers rape a girl while stationed in Vietnam. One soldier refuses to take part and subsequently reports the soldiers. It was based on actual events in Vietnam.

I'm not sure what you think that proves. That soldier was outnumbered so do really think there will always be someone to report them? DO you rally think the army will always take action instead of covering up a scandal?

That soldier should have raped the girl also based on Greers statement that "all soldiers rape".

She never actually said all soldiers rape she really said all soldiers are capable of rape which isn't that outlandish when you consider all soldiers are capable of killing people.

SugarHigh

"Women serving in the US military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed while serving in Iraq."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k_0b9hvIjc

A woman was also raped by her physician while undergoing a gynecological exam.

SugarHigh

Galvasean wrote: »

People like Greer trivialize actual rape claims. This 'everyone is out to rape us!!!!' metality does no one any good.

I actually completely agree with that. Rape get's used by people like Greer as political currency.

Hyperbullet

So Sugarhigh do you agree with Greer's views?

*Edit, read your post there.

Finnbar01

I don't agree with one word that Greer has said but why the demand for an apology? Why is it that people feel that they should never be offended?

ToniTuddle

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/421/index.html

What the hell??
Where are these Pentagon reports that go into detail about it

Rape has always been used during wars all down through the ages but normally it's done to whoever they are fighting ....not their own fellow soldiers. Maybe the odd incident but 1,400 in one year???

Galvasean

Finnbar01 wrote: »

I don't agree with one word that Greer has said but why the demand for an apology? Why is it that people feel that they should never be offended?

I also think demanding an apology is pointless. Why have free speech at all if we demand apologies from people who say things we don't like?
Personally i think publicly ridiculing people for saying stupid things is far more effective.

SugarHigh

Finnbar01 wrote: »

I don't agree with one word that Greer has said but why the demand for an apology? Why is it that people feel that they should never be offended?

I don't think it's about being offended. The military obviously has to protect their reputation, which is why these things get covered up.

SugarHigh

ToniTuddle wrote: »

Where are these Pentagon reports that go into detail about it

Would you really trust a report by someone with such vested interests?

Why wasn't this a bigger deal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7qTBkA8X_E

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

NSFW
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

Click on the images to see more. They amputated body parts to keep as trophies.

But that's not the same as every soldier engaging in the actions.

Killing people up close isn't rare. And I don't see how distance changes morals anyway.

Never said it changes the morality, my point was that killing someone via remote bombing would be somewhat easier for a soldier compared to standing over a person and shooting them in the head.

The morals are the same. It's telling them stabbing is ok.

Agreed.

Or maybe they'd cover it up like the American? What if the other soldiers don't report it because they also the same thing?

THe American army also covered up the rape of it's own soldiers.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/421/index.html

I'm not sure what you think that proves. That soldier was outnumbered so do really think there will always be someone to report them? DO you rally think the army will always take action instead of covering up a scandal?

I'm not saying that armies don't engage in cover ups. What I am saying is that there are plenty of soldiers, that won't rape regardless of the circumstances.

She never actually said all soldiers rape she really said all soldiers are capable of rape which isn't that outlandish when you consider all soldiers are capable of killing people.

She said: "All soldiers, in certain circumstances, will rape". That to me saying that all soldiers are rapists who haven't had the opportunity to rape yet.

She isn't just saying they're capable, she's saying that they will rape given the right circumstances.

SugarHigh

Galvasean wrote: »

I also think demanding an apology is pointless. Why have free speech at all if we demand apologies from people who say things we don't like?
Personally i think publicly ridiculing people for saying stupid things is far more effective.

If someone says something damaging to you reputation you have to defend yourself or else it gets taken as fact.

FewFew

Oh wow... I need to wake-up, I jumped in here cause I thought it said "German Beer urged to apologise..." Hah!

Fbjm

koth wrote: »

the army has what's called rules of engagement

I wouldn't mind having that boxset myself. :pac:

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

But that's not the same as every soldier engaging in the actions.

Who said it was?
She never said every soldier has raped someone. She simply said they are all capable of it.

I'm not saying that armies don't engage in cover ups. What I am saying is that there are plenty of soldiers, that won't rape regardless of the circumstances.

I'm not sure if that's true. If you're okay with killing someone how could you not be okay with raping someone?

She said: "All soldiers, in certain circumstances, will rape". That to me saying that all soldiers are rapists who haven't had the opportunity to rape yet.

It's really not a controversial statement. You could be trained to rape someone. Soldiers don't start out being able to kill someone they need to be trained to do it. The actual act of killing someone is a mental block that they overcome. Is it really a shocking thing to say that they could also overcome the same mental block that makes them rape someone?
I believe you could make a rapist or a killer out of anyone.

Rape is a horrific problem in Liberia and the statistics are shocking. A study was conducted by the World Health Organization in partnership with the Ministry of Gender and Development in 2005. 2,828 women and girls from around the country were interviewed about their experience during Liberia’s civil war.

* 93% said they suffered physical or sexual violence during the war.

* 73% were sexually violated or raped, many of them gang raped.

Certain environmental factors promote rape. If you were raised to believe killing is okay you will also be fine with rape. I don't see why we have to believe westerners are different. We just exist under different circumstances but if those were change why do you think we wouldn't also have rape stats this high?

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

Who said it was?
She never said every soldier has raped someone. She simply said they are all capable of it.

I never said she said all soldiers had raped. I said that she put the idea out there that every soldier will rape if the right circumstances arise. Thats saying they're capable and will actually rape.

I'm not sure if that's true. If you're okay with killing someone how could you not be okay with raping someone?

Because some would take the view that you kill someone the victim is dead, but you rape someone and they will suffer mentally long after the rape.

It's really not a controversial statement. You could be trained to rape someone. Soldiers don't start out being able to kill someone they need to be trained to do it. The actual act of killing someone is a mental block that they overcome. Is it really a shocking thing to say that they could also overcome the same mental block that makes them rape someone?
I believe you could make a rapist or a killer out of anyone.

But the military aren't training rapists, sure they train soldiers to kill but they don't have classes in raping.

What about murderers in prison who will actually beat/kill sex offenders? Surely all murderers should be fine with rapists as it's just another violent crime to them?

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

Certain environmental factors promote rape. If you were raised to believe killing is okay you will also be fine with rape. I don't see why we have to believe westerners are different. We just exist under different circumstances but if those were change why do you think we wouldn't also have rape stats this high?

I don't disagree with the idea that if you raise kids with murder being acceptable that it's less likely they'll have a problem with rape. And I don't think that any nation is exempt from that.

But the soldiers weren't raised to think murder and rape are ok. Most if not all of them would be raised to believe those acts are wrong. Then the military trains them to get past the block they have that stops them killing. That doesn't mean that the military has also removed the block for raping.

Galvasean

SugarHigh wrote: »

If someone says something damaging to you reputation you have to defend yourself or else it gets taken as fact.

The best way IMO, is to point out with facts and logic just how stupid their statements are.

edit: Of course if anyone takes Greer's comments as fact it says a lot about their lack of intelligence more than anything.

djk1000

I think soldiers in wartime are much more likely to rape than others. It's a group made up largely of fit strong men with lots of testosterone, in a position of power, in a place where they can't really have a normal sexual relationship with a woman.

You can't say that every soldier will do it, or is capable of it. But I'd agree that the chances are much much higher than usual.

There are a lot of people in this world that follow the laws because of their fear of consequence, not because of a well developed sense of morals. Take away the fear of consequence and anything can happen.

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

I never said she said all soldiers had raped. I said that she put the idea out there that every soldier will rape if the right circumstances arise. Thats saying they're capable and will actually rape.

It's not saying they will all rape because the circumstance might never present themselves. Everyone will rape/kill in the right circumstances.

You could create a serial killer out of anyone if you wanted to.

Because some would take the view that you kill someone the victim is dead, but you rape someone and they will suffer mentally long after the rape.

Okay it's not universally agreed upon which is worse but personally I think murder is far worse.

But the military aren't training rapists, sure they train soldiers to kill but they don't have classes in raping.

I know they're not training rapists but do you honestly think they view the enemy as humans? I don't think they could kill them easily if they did. The fact they can also rape their own in such high numbers shows that they really don't have the same aversion to rape as civilians.

What about murderers in prison who will actually beat/kill sex offenders? Surely all murderers should be fine with rapists as it's just another violent crime to them?

I think that's just prison culture. I bet the people who kill sex offenders sometimes also rape other soldiers. It's not a moral stance. Did you watch that louis theroux Miami Mega prison Documentary? Most of the sh1t they do doesn't really make sense but it's just prison culture.

Galvasean

SugarHigh wrote: »

Everyone will rape/kill in the right circumstances.

Preposterous!
But out of curiosity, what how would you go about turning someone like, oh let's say me, into a rapist?

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

I don't disagree with the idea that if you raise kids with murder being acceptable that it's less likely they'll have a problem with rape. And I don't think that any nation is exempt from that.

But the soldiers weren't raised to think murder and rape are ok. Most if not all of them would be raised to believe those acts are wrong. Then the military trains them to get past the block they have that stops them killing. That doesn't mean that the military has also removed the block for raping.

The training removes the block of giving a sh1t what you do to another person usually the enemy but clearly they don't hold back with raping their own.

SugarHigh

Galvasean wrote: »

Preposterous!
But out of curiosity, what how would you go about turning someone like, oh let's say me, into a rapist?

How are rape stats so high in a country like Liberia? Whats different about you?


If you were raised in Liberia I really don't you would have the same views on rape. I never said I knew how to turn someone into a rapist but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

I also don't know how to make someone a killer but the military does a good job of that.

The truth is society does most of the work in making sure we don't kill or rape people. When a society breaks down these things become a lot easier.

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

It's not saying they will all rape because the circumstance might never present themselves. Everyone will rape/kill in the right circumstances.

You could create a serial killer out of anyone if you wanted to.

I guess I'm just naive then, in that I don't think everyone can be moulded into a killer.

Okay it's not universally agreed upon which is worse but personally I think murder is far worse.

I'd agree that it's not universally agreed upon but I'd think that death has less possibly of mental trauma when compared to a rape.

I know they're not training rapists but do you honestly think they view the enemy as humans? I don't think they could kill them easily if they did. The fact they can also rape their own in such high numbers shows that they really don't have the same aversion to rape as civilians.

I agree that it's higher to civilians but to for her to say all soldiers will rape is just crap IMHO. If someone is trained to be violent to another person, does that mean they're going to be sexually assaulting people too?

I think that's just prison culture. I bet the people who kill sex offenders sometimes also rape other soldiers. It's not a moral stance. Did you watch that louis theroux Miami Mega prison Documentary? Most of the sh1t they do doesn't really make sense but it's just prison culture.

No haven't seen it, but shall hunt it out

SugarHigh

djk1000 wrote: »

I think soldiers in wartime are much more likely to rape than others. It's a group made up largely of fit strong men with lots of testosterone, in a position of power, in a place where they can't really have a normal sexual relationship with a woman.

You can't say that every soldier will do it, or is capable of it. But I'd agree that the chances are much much higher than usual.

There are a lot of people in this world that follow the laws because of their fear of consequence, not because of a well developed sense of morals. Take away the fear of consequence and anything can happen.

I don't think it is just a fear of consequences. If you told me to cut a live cats head off I genuinely don't think I could do it even if I was sure there was no consequences. However I bet the Army could break down that mental block.

Galvasean

SugarHigh wrote: »

How are rape stats so high in a country like Liberia?

I don't know a whole lot about Liberian culture, but I'm willing to bet there is not much law enforcement there(?). I'm sure without adequate law enforcement all crimes would be much more prominent everywhere.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Whats different about you?

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).

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

I guess I'm just naive then, in that I don't think everyone can be moulded into a killer.

But why? Honestly what makes you so different from Liberians?

I'd agree that it's not universally agreed upon but I'd think that death has less possibly of mental trauma when compared to a rape.

You can recover from rape you can't recover from death.

I agree that it's higher to civilians but to for her to say all soldiers will rape is just crap IMHO. If someone is trained to be violent to another person, does that mean they're going to be sexually assaulting people too?

It means they won't have the same aversion to it and given the right circumstance could do it.

Seriously how could you think that raping someone is immoral but then blow their brains out? Soldiers really don't have a problem with killing innocent people if it's part of their mission so if the Brits started using rape as weapon(I'm not saying they would) then I just don't see how the soldiers wouldn't be able to do it.

Cities in WW2 were bombed by both side for no other reason then to break down moral. If rape achieves the same thing then why would they have an issue with it? They are okay with maiming thousands and killing the friends and families of those maimed but you think they wouldn't rape them?

Why, would there be a block against raping them if that's what they were ordered to do? If the circumstances were changed so that they were ordered to rape people of course they'd do it. They do everything else.

SugarHigh

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't know a whole lot about Liberian culture, but I'm willing to bet there is not much law enforcement there(?). I'm sure without adequate law enforcement all crimes would be much more prominent everywhere.

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?

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).

I never said it was out of a fear of punishment. Your morals can be changed. If you grew up in a different society you would have different morals. People who aren't racist today would have been if they lived in a different time and place.

(I would suggest looking into the evolution of morality for further reading. there is some very interesting research out there).

I already have and you can even build machines to change someones morals. They aren't fixed.
http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_saxe_how_brains_make_moral_judgments.html

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

But why? Honestly what makes you so different from Liberians?

never said I was different. I said I don't believe everyone kills/rapes. Does every Liberian male rape? if not why, why not since it's so prevalent over there?

You can recover from rape you can't recover from death.

But you're not aware/conscious of anything when you die.

It means they won't have the same aversion to it and given the right circumstance could do it.

Seriously how could you think that raping someone is immoral but then blow their brains out? Soldiers really don't have a problem with killing innocent people if it's part of their mission so if the Brits started using rape as weapon(I'm not saying they would) then I just don't see how the soldiers wouldn't be able to do it.

But thats saying that every soldier is a mindless drone that will rape on command. I'd think quite a few soldiers would go AWOL if they heard that rape was being considered as a tactic.

Cities in WW2 were bombed by both side for no other reason then to break down moral. If rape achieves the same thing then why would they have an issue with it? They are okay with maiming thousands and killing the friends and families of those maimed but you think they wouldn't rape them?

Soldiers know that bombing/shooting is expected of them when they sign up, I seriously doubt any of them think that rape is part of the military life.

Why, would there be a block against raping them if that's what they were ordered to do? If the circumstances were changed so that they were ordered to rape people of course they'd do it. They do everything else.

Because they can still think for themselves. For example, if a C.O ordered the soldiers to rape a group of people, the soldiers could relieve him of his command as they would view him unfit for his command.

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

never said I was different. I said I don't believe everyone kills/rapes. Does every Liberian male rape? if not why, why not since it's so prevalent over there?

They aren't all under the same circumstances. Just like how anywhere crime levels vary depending inside each country.

But you're not aware/conscious of anything when you die.

If you are seriously suggesting rape victims would be better of dead why don't we kill rape victims? If the rape victim felt they would be better dead surely they would all kill themselves?

But thats saying that every soldier is a mindless drone that will rape on command. I'd think quite a few soldiers would go AWOL if they heard that rape was being considered as a tactic.

Well then they obviously weren't trained well enough. How many people who were ordered to blow up Hiroshima wen't AWOL? You really think they can be ordered to kill 100,000 people but not able to rape 1 person? The disconnect of being in a plane still doesn't change that.

Soldiers know that bombing/shooting is expected of them when they sign up, I seriously doubt any of them think that rape is part of the military life.

Of course not. I haven't said otherwise. I just find it strange how you think they can be so easily convinced to kill so many people but then averse to raping them.

Because they can still think for themselves. For example, if a C.O ordered the soldiers to rape a group of people, the soldiers could relieve him of his command as they would view him unfit for his command.

I wonder how many soldiers in Libya did this when they were ordered to rape people?

Logical Fallacy

SugarHigh wrote: »

"Women serving in the US military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed while serving in Iraq."

To be honest i can see why she should be made apologise...she's a vile, hate filled woman and any apology she ever gives for the garbage she spouts is completely empty of sincerity.

This whole "apologise and you'll be okay" thing is really starting to piss me off. You can pretty much say anything now once you are willing to apologise and claim a "poor choice of words" after the fact.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Everyone will rape/kill in the right circumstances.

Out of interest, what are the right circumstances for you to rape someone?

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

They aren't all under the same circumstances. Just like how anywhere crime levels vary depending inside each country.

and within a community where rape is highly prevalent, all males will rape?

If you are seriously suggesting rape victims would be better of dead why don't we kill rape victims? If the rape victim felt they would be better dead surely they would all kill themselves?

Never for one minute suggested that. They'd be better off if they weren't raped of course.

Well then they obviously weren't trained well enough. How many people who were ordered to blow up Hiroshima wen't AWOL? You really think they can be ordered to kill 100,000 people but not able to rape 1 person? The disconnect of being in a plane still doesn't change that.

Again, soldiers were trained to kill, they weren't trained to rape.

Of course not. I haven't said otherwise. I just find it strange how you think they can be so easily convinced to kill so many people but then averse to raping them.

and I find it strange that you can't understand that people could see a moral distinction between the act of raping someone or murdering them.

I wonder how many soldiers in Libya did this when they were ordered to rape people?

neither of us know that. I can no more say that X number of soldiers refused to rape, than you can say 100% of the soldiers engaged in rape.

SugarHigh

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

To be honest i can see why she should be made apologise...she's a vile, hate filled woman and any apology she ever gives for the garbage she spouts is completely empty of sincerity.

This whole "apologise and you'll be okay" thing is really starting to piss me off. You can pretty much say anything now once you are willing to apologise and claim a "poor choice of words" after the fact.

I agree. Tracy Morgan(Crap Comedian) recently said he'd stab his son if he was gay but hasn't even been fired because he issued an apology.

Out of interest, what are the right circumstances for you to rape someone?

I never said I knew the circumstances it takes. I also don't know how to train a killer but it clearly can be done. If they're able to train killers they could train rapists if they wanted to. I'm not saying they are trying to train rapists I'm just saying it's possible to break down that mental block the same way you can with murder.

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

and within a community where rape is highly prevalent, all males will rape?

They are capable of it.

Never for one minute suggested that. They'd be better off if they weren't raped of course.

Obviously but you are suggesting that those killed are better off than those who were raped and not killed. So that means that you think those who weren't killed would have been better off if they were killed. That's a direct implication of what you said and it's why I find the idea that rape is worse than murder silly.

Again, soldiers were trained to kill, they weren't trained to rape.

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.

and I find it strange that you can't understand that people could see a moral distinction between the act of raping someone or murdering them.

I never said there wasn't a moral distinction. I'm just saying that both set of morals can be broken down. How can it be so easy to create a killer yet somehow impossible to create rapists? If the drive was there they could do it.

neither of us know that. I can no more say that X number of soldiers refused to rape, than you can say 100% of the soldiers engaged in rape.

Fair enough, I wasn't actually expecting an answer. I don't find it likely that Libyan soldiers suddenly got an attack of conscious over rape when they've just been killing people.

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

They are capable of it.

But Greer contends that they will rape, which is what I have issue with.

Obviously but you are suggesting that those killed are better off than those who were raped and not killed. So that means that you think those who weren't killed would have been better off if they were killed. That's a direct implication of what you said and it's why I find the idea that rape is worse than murder silly.

You're wrong on that, I thought no such thing, I was talking about the consequence of the victim with regards to each action. I said that they would be better off if they weren't raped.

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.

But that isn't what Greer said. She said that British soldiers with their current training with the right circumstances will rape.

I never said there wasn't a moral distinction. I'm just saying that both set of morals can be broken down. How can it be so easy to create a killer yet somehow impossible to create rapists? If the drive was there they could do it.

I never said it was impossible, what I said that in training a soldier to kill, the army haven't by proxy also created a rapist.

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

But Greer contends that they will rape, which is what I have issue with.

Saying they will rape under the right circumstances is not the same as saying they will rape someone. It is just saying they are capable, as long as the right circumstances come about. The does not mean all soldiers will rape somebody but it does mean all of them are capable.

You're wrong on that, I thought no such thing, I was talking about the consequence of the victim with regards to each action. I said that they would be better off if they weren't raped.

You're backtracking. Obviously they would be better off if neither happened that just goes without saying. You started a tangent on whether rape is worse than murder. I said that no it isn't because that implies that rape victims are better off dead. Anyone saying rape is worse is literally implying that they would be better dead.

But that isn't what Greer said. She said that British soldiers with their current training with the right circumstances will rape.

Which is the exact same as saying they are capable.
She isn't saying they are definitely going to rape someone because the circumstances may never come about. She doesn't outline what the circumstances are.

I never said it was impossible, what I said that in training a soldier to kill, the army haven't by proxy also created a rapist.

I'm also not saying they have crated a rapist. They will rape in the right circumstances applies to everyone not just soldiers. I do believe soldiers are more likely to end up in these circumstances and some of that is thanks to their training. Their training requires them not to care about the people they are trying to kill this will also make it easier to rape them. Soldiers who rape probably never would have raped someone if they never joined the army otherwise the army wouldn't have a higher incidence of rape than the general public.

They have to care less about other people otherwise they wouldn't be able to kill them.

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

Saying they will rape under the right circumstances is not the same as saying they will rape someone. It is just saying they are capable, as long as the right circumstances come about. The does not mean all soldiers will rape somebody but it does mean all of them are capable.

No one knows what those right circumstances are, so that means that an army of potential rapists has been unleashed on a nation.

You're backtracking. Obviously they would be better off if neither happened that just goes without saying. You started a tangent on whether rape is worse than murder. I said that no it isn't because that implies that rape victims are better off dead. Anyone saying rape is worse is literally implying that they would be better dead.

I'm not backtracking, I've been saying the same thing repeatedly, but you're taking something I said to mean something else.

I've have not said death is better than rape.

Which is the exact same as saying they are capable.
She isn't saying they are definitely going to rape someone because the circumstances may never come about. She doesn't outline what the circumstances are.

then why make the statement? what was she hoping to accomplish with it?

I'm also not saying they have crated a rapist. They will rape in the right circumstances applies to everyone not just soldiers. I do believe soldiers are more likely to end up in these circumstances and some of that is thanks to their training. Their training requires them not to care about the people they are trying to kill this will also make it easier to rape them. Soldiers who rape probably never would have raped someone if they never joined the army otherwise the army wouldn't have a higher incidence of rape than the general public.

They have to care less about other people otherwise they wouldn't be able to kill them.

My point is that she is saying ALL soldiers will rape under the right circumstances, and I'm saying that not all soldiers will rape regardless of circumstances. Just llike some people have died for refusing to kill another person.

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

No one knows what those right circumstances are, so that means that an army of potential rapists has been unleashed on a nation.

Like I said everyone is a potential rapist/killer in the right circumstances.

then why make the statement? what was she hoping to accomplish with it?

She's obviously anti-war.

My point is that she is saying ALL soldiers will rape under the right circumstances, and I'm saying that not all soldiers will rape regardless of circumstances.

All people are capable of terrible things under the right circumstances. I don't see how you can claim some people are immune. People can be brainwashed to do anything and the same affects of brainwashing could also happen naturally.

[/QUOTE] Just llike some people have died for refusing to kill another person.[/QUOTE]That actually doesn't tell us that it isn't possible to make those people kill. They were just unaffected by what worked on everyone else.

Delirium

SugarHigh wrote: »

Like I said everyone is a potential rapist/killer in the right circumstances.

So do we all just live in a state of constant fear because everyone could potentially rape/kill us?

All people are capable of terrible things under the right circumstances. I don't see how you can claim some people are immune. People can be brainwashed to do anything and the same affects of brainwashing could also happen naturally.

I don't understand enough about brain washing to assert that it is or isn't 100% effective on everyone.

That actually doesn't tell us that it isn't possible to make those people kill. They were just unaffected by what worked on everyone else.

so why can't there be people that under no circumstance would they rape/kill someone?

SugarHigh

koth wrote: »

So do we all just live in a state of constant fear because everyone could potentially rape/kill us?

No, why you fear something that has basically zero chance of happening to you? If we enter a time a crisis then start fearing people. If we had a shortage of food and martial law don't expect people to be so nice to you. Were nice because our circumstances allow us to be. If you tried to live in Liberia with anti-violence stance you'd be dead.

I don't understand enough about brain washing to assert that it is or isn't 100% effective on everyone.

so why can't there be people that under no circumstance would they rape/kill someone?

You're suggesting that someone can be born anti rape/murder. I just don't see how that's possible. Can you be born anti-theft?

We are conditioned to be against these things so that also means we can be conditioned to do them.

HellFireClub

The response given by the British Military is interesting though... According to them, a highly trained military force can do no wrong really and could never be associated with allegations of rape. Wasn't it only in 1972 that the same highly trained professional army went on a rampage and shot 14 unarmed and innocent people dead in Derry?

I remember being in Ayia Napa in Cyprus one year only a few years ago, and seeing with my own eyes, two UK Army Military Police patrolling the local streets every night to supervise their off duty personnel who were socialising in the local pubs and clubs, after local uproar emerged when a string of physical and sexual assaults occurred and were all associated with a regiment of UK military who had just come off frontline operations in Iraq at the time and were based in a UK military base in Cyprus... Locals feared that army personnel who could have only last week been engaged in killing any number of people, were this week on the lash in their communities...

I remember being shocked that the problem had reached such a lavel as to warrant UK officers in uniform walking the streets of Ayia Napa to keep an eye on their own troops...

Delirium

You're suggesting that someone can be born anti rape/murder. I just don't see how that's possible. Can you be born anti-theft?

not suggesting that, I just asked is it possible that people exist that wouldn't kill/rape under any circumstance?

We are conditioned to be against these things so that also means we can be conditioned to do them.

and I'm suggesting that there will be people that are exceptions to that.

CDfm

Gernaine Greer suffers from a huge Daddy hang up and wrote a book "Daddy we hardly knew you" about her fathers illegitimacy and success in life.

He served in the Army in WWII and kept his early life private from his daughter.

From Publishers Weekly

Greer's father, an Australian intelligence officer, left for WW II when she was only four. His cavalier pose concealed a family secret revealed in the closing section of this poignant memoir by the author of The Female Eunuch . Reg Greer came back from the war an anxiety-ridden, emotionally distant wreck. His daughter's later need to reconnect with him and her genealogical roots involved coming to terms with her craving for the love he never gave her. Though the narrative suffers from purple-hued padding, self-dramatization and a glaring dearth of factual evidence about her father's adult life, it's worth sticking with for the surprising finale, when Greer discovers his true identity and, in so doing, faces her own feelings of loss, love, regret and anger. The deeply affecting climax is a remarkable feat of family reconstruction. Along the way Greer files discerning observations of Australia's people and ecology, of war, and of Tasmania, India and Malta, where she traveled in search of "Daddy."
Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Driven to know if the father who returned from World War II a cold and vacant man had loved her once, feminist Greer ( The Female Eunuch, LJ 4/15/71) follows a trail of false leads and outright lies to know the truth about the man who called himself Reg Greer. To the dismay of her sharp-tongued, eccentric mother, but to the pleasure of herself and her siblings, she finds someone who, concealing his origins in poverty and illegitimacy, rises to middle-class security on the strength of his own wit and resourcefulness. Some of the writing is marred by Greer's fascination with the minutiae of herself, but the search and its results are intriguing. For medium and large public libraries. Previewed in Prepub Alert, LJ 11/15/89.
- Christine M. Hill, Free Lib. of Philadelphia
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

http://www.amazon.com/Daddy-We-Hardly-Knew-You/dp/0394583132

A good Time review here.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,969315-1,00.html

So Greer does not relate to men well and I read the book and was struck by that and how she could not see the contrast between her comfortable middle class upbringing and his.

Dudess

SugarHigh wrote: »

Greer is just another one of these professional trolls the media loves because they always create a controversy.

I think, unlike a troll, she actually believes the crazy sh1t she says. For man-hating trolling, Julie Burchill is yer woman.

djk1000 wrote: »

I think soldiers in wartime are much more likely to rape than others. It's a group made up largely of fit strong men with lots of testosterone, in a position of power, in a place where they can't really have a normal sexual relationship with a woman.

You can't say that every soldier will do it, or is capable of it. But I'd agree that the chances are much much higher than usual.

Yep, war brings out the ugly side of humanity - whether the person is male or female (remember that Lynndie England one in Iraq...)

There are a lot of people in this world that follow the laws because of their fear of consequence, not because of a well developed sense of morals. Take away the fear of consequence and anything can happen.

Indeed. Of course most wouldn't due to having empathy, but there is a cluster of folks that don't possess this. Hardcore military training and witnessing horror after horror... well if these don't help fully erase empathy, nothing will.

CDfm

Dudess wrote: »

I think, unlike a troll, she actually believes the crazy sh1t she says. For man-hating trolling, Julie Burchill is yer woman.

Hiya Dudess

Does she believe it or does she say it to collect shed loads of money and sell books ?

metrovelvet

Galvasean wrote: »

Preposterous!
But out of curiosity, what how would you go about turning someone like, oh let's say me, into a rapist?

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.