Germaine Greer on rape - controversial

Actually understanding why for some women ‘it’s just a fuck’ whether this was always the case or something they came to, whether it’s denial or integration and why for other women it is ‘deeply traumatising’ and has ‘lifelong effects’, how that trauma manifests, what caused it, how it has lifelong effects... all those things are important re how we respond to rape.

As long as there is a narrative which demands a certain type of response we can’t actually do this work.

So yes, I do think we need to talk about the experiences of rape that are ‘It’s just a fuck’ but we must not allow that to override the experiences that are ‘deeply traumatising’ or ‘lifelong effects’. The problem is women never own the narrative re rape.

I feel I’m a bit against the grain here but I find the specific statement of “it was a fuck.....” really horrible. I don’t think that’s positive or empowering and it made me feel demeaned and even patronised for the feeling the way I do about my own experiences.

I also feel like it’s something for men who already feel a certain way about women to latch onto - that we don’t even mind it really.

I agree with the poster who says that rape is something we should be really angry about but not something that has to destroy us. That is a good empowering sentiment that in my view isn’t so offensive to women who do suffer trauma from being attacked.

I obviously don’t know GG but I know a few women that I perceive to be like her - and while I can admire them I also feel like they are slightly condescending, that’s not the right word... but they have a certain view of how women should be and they can be a bit scathing of women who perhaps don’t live up to that view. It’s sad because I actually take that as just another way to shut women down. And yes, that attitude does perpetuate the, “well she’s not that upset..” mindset - which is so insidious on so many levels, because once again it places the responsibility of the rape on the woman. She’s not that upset so therefore the man shouldn’t be/isn’t seen as culpable for his own actions.

Yes, exactly that. Aim of the rapist, expectation of the rape culture.

When I was raped at 17 I thought about reporting it, as he had a penknife and I was sure he'd carried out the ruse that trapped me before - and would again. But I was in Paris and my French wasn't up to dealing with police in a foreign country. Plus I was due to leave in a week and I dreaded the fuss my parents would make. It affected me for months. I knew it was a serious crime but it's also a crime that's very difficult to prove.

I was raped more than 30 years ago, when attitudes towards rape victims were far worse than they are today. Reporting rape was very daunting, even now. The second time I did actually tell the man that what he was doing was rape. While he was raping me. Which I suspect ruined it for him.

We don’t have the same difficulty with assaults TBH which is telling. Some people aren’t really affected by being punched and others are very traumatised and there is room for both reactions to exist without it affecting whether we think punching someone is a crime.

That context re these discussions is not GG’s fault. You might argue she has a responsibility to be considerate re that context, but I don’t think anyone expects that from GG and I don’t think that’s what she’s for.

This is entirely from memory, but in one of her books GG makes the point that we see rape as a special category, different from other kinds of assault. And because of that special category, women feel shame about rape, when they should be angry.

She was arguing that if we saw rape as just another form of physical assault, the impacts might be less traumatic.

That shame and sense of invasion is why rape is such a powerful weapon for men. GG suggests that by changing the narrative we might be able to diffuse some of power rape has over women's psyche.

I don't know that she's right, but I've always remembered her argument and thought it was interesting.

Yy katara, this is why I would like separation between crime and experiences.

Rape always is and should always be considered a serious crime. Experiences are variable and it makes sense to have holistic support available for those who do find it deeply traumatic and life changing.

I think, in short, my contribution is shame for making it about how women react and the relative circumstances of their lives, when it should be condemnation of men who cannot keep their dick to themselves. For shame

I agree the effects of rape are very dependent on the woman’s social conditions.

My ex is currently on police bail. I wanted to make a complaint re coercive control but the police want to focus on the ‘more serious crime’ of rape, which I understand. The coercive control and the false imprisonment parts are the things which affected me much more.

I also believe that my experience is not the determinant of how serious a crime is. The determinant is ‘public harm’. I would argue that coercive control should be seen as more serious than it is because of the public harm but not as serious as rape.

This experience and my feelings on it are very different to the past experiences and they have all been different to each other too. Much depends on the features of the actual crime and also the context of woman’s life when the rape happens IMO.

But IMO it is always a serious crime because it’s about public harm not individual experiences.

I cannot engage too much with this topic as I am one of those who is traumatised from rape and abuse. I agree that reactions are individual. But I think it gets into the territory of having to justify why one is traumatised and of categorising some rape as worse than others.

One of the outcomes of assuming everyone who is raped is in some way affected is that everyone is then (theoretically at least) entitled to the same level of support and understanding as well as the same level of justice.

If we start laying out a path of not being affected, or some rape is not as bad (how do we know?), this may indeed be valid for some, but it also risks not being affected becoming the default position - and then why provide comprehensive resources for support or comprehensive justice for rape (which already has a low conviction rate and women are already not believed)? If we chip away by setting a bar for what is or is not traumatic, I don’t think that is helpful, plus you are somehow worse for being affected (if that makes sense) and needing that support, and feel you have to justify that too.

Really, the focus should be on the perpetrators and not women’s reactions. It’s not my job to manage (or justify) my reaction, it should have been the perpetrators’ responsibility not to breach my consent.

I know what GG is talking about. I've been raped twice. Neither event was anything like as traumatic as numerous other events in my life. I've often been annoyed when you get people on TV talking as if rape automatically wrecks your life.

I'm sure some rapes are very traumatic, particularly if accompanied with extreme violence and a fear for your life. I know getting seriously beaten up with numerous punches to my face - broken nose, stitches in my face - was way more distressing than being pinned face down by a lout who just thrust a few times and let me leave.

I think it's partly to do with the fact that both GG and I seem to have had a lot of partners. If you've slept with dozens of men and had a lot of casual fun, then one bad experience doesn't affect your views of either sex or men so much. Also we're both older. I've had some truly terrible experiences in my 50+ years. The rapes aren't even on that list. But I'm fully aware that some men are total creeps.

Offred I think you're right. He certainly is abusive and extremely misogynist. Even the women in his own family (mother/sister) are not spared his invective.

I don’t think it would be wise for feminism to head into the territory of rape not being a problem though.

I really very strongly think the problem is that ‘being terribly affected’ is the aim and it is the mandated reaction. Women’s actual experiences and reactions vary, some are inarguably traumatised and others are not. We have the right to both reactions.

It’s not ignorance it’s admission. That narrative re women’s experiences and reactions to rape is a manifesto re what abusive men are trying to achieve when they rape.

Recently a disgruntled ex of mine sent out a very nasty message to some young family members (calling me a whore etc)
He's stalking me tbh and evidently means me harm but that's another thread (or not)

But I was struck by his remarks about my own rape. Apparently he does not believe I was raped at all because my behaviour (more than 20 years later) does not reflect hls narrative of permanent trauma about relationships and having sex.

It's as if I am responding "incorrectly" as a mere woman to something a man did to me. How dare I get over it?

I'm evidently supposed to be ruined for life, unable to go near a man again, let alone have and enjoy sex. Because a man raped me and I'm supposed to let that define me forever.

The ignorance is breathtaking.

The ‘why?’ Is the most important part IMO...

Well yes, the good think about Greer is that she says things in such a way that it forces you to think.

Even re ‘why? It’s just a fuck’ that’s so confrontational and so far away from the standard narrative that you have to think about it more.

In reality it’s not intended to redefine everybody’s experience, it’s a statement about her feelings. It’s said to push you to think about it.

I think it’s quite misogynistic to place rape as the most traumatic thing that can happen to a woman.

That’s not my experience.

I heard GG speak at a radfem event a few years ago.

From what I remember she had a similar sentiment then- I’m paraphrasing but it was along the lines of women fear physical violence ‘more’ and rape can happen in an attempt to prevent other physical injury or being murdered. I don’t think she said this directly but I got the insinuation that women fear physical assault/ injury more than rape. (My memory is a bit fuzzy though)

The narrative of what victimhood means for a woman who has been raped actually results in those victims who are most likely to be able cope with a criminal case both self exclude and are also excluded by the system from the initial report all the way through to jury decisions IMO.

The system means that the most vulnerable groups, the women who are suffering, are the ones who are selected for hearing and then they are given unrealistic expectations re the court process and retraumatised by the experience because they are seen not to be credible witnesses.

If only the court system was able to actually cope with the group of women who feel ‘it’s not that bad’ and understand that it is a crime whether the woman feels bad about it or not!

I agree with her, I also think if we treat it as a fate worse than death, it makes it harder to convict or accept that 'normal people' may do it

It would be much better re supporting women to be witnesses if we were clear re what a criminal court is than this move to try and centre victims’ feelings. Of course there are other problems re criminal prosecutions of rape and victims too but I’m not touching on them in this point.

Victims and their feelings should not be given a huge amount of weight in an actual criminal case if the criminal courts are going to try cases effectively. Victims should be prepared for this to be the case.

From the OP: “And whatever someone’s reaction is to shitty things that happen to them - their reaction is their reaction, there isn’t a right and wrong way to react.”

And yet there you are OP, doing exactly this to her.