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

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?

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..