Trigger warning: Germain Greer's opinion on rape...

[LokiBear]

I can't actually get my head around this. How can a woman think like this? I have two daughters and comments like hers frighten me. I teach consent to 15 year olds and this goes against everything I try to teach them. I just dont get how anyone can think like this.

news.sky.com/story/germaine-greer-says-most-rape-is-bad-sex-not-violent-crime-11390855

You should read what she said, not just the headlines Penggwyn.

I cant reconcile my own feelings on this, despite some of the arguments made here being very helpful. No need to reconcile them right now! The debate being had is enough!

CuriousaboutSamphire

I'm not wrong. I read what she said and the comments, taken in whatever context, are unacceptable to me.

Fair enough. But I don't think you have understood what she said within the context she set up for it to be said in.

She framed it all very clearly, I think. Within that frame she is saying, very clearly and with many nuances, that rape is a bigger problem than society admits to. That society, in mislabelling rape as a hideously violent crime, is holding closed many doors to prosecution. She is asking if it might not be better to look again and do better!

CuriousaboutSamphire

Not being an idiot or a child, I read reasonably well. I understand exactly what she is saying.

Not being an idiot or a child I haven't intimated you are!

I am just saying that I disagree with you. Expressing my opinion of what she said!

You don't have to get angry about that. This is a discussion, it woudl be pointless if we all agreed!

CuriousaboutSamphire

No, you implied that we disagreed because I don't understand what she is saying. That is condescending and untrue. We disagree because I believe her comments amount to rape apologism.

Not being an idiot or a child, I read reasonably well. I understand exactly what she is saying.

No you don’t, if you think she is minimising rape.

She's also talking in context of how our judicial system deals with rape.which is utterly failing again and again. Majority of cases don't even get to court,and once they do they rarely get a guilty verdict. Then there is the issue of sentencing which is a joke in many cases.
The less violent the rape,the less chances of conviction. Introduce being in a relationship and the chances are minuscule. And no wonder that is the case when judges come up with comments like "you can't have sex on mondays and Wednesdays and be raped on Saturdays."

She's looking at ways to ensure that more guilty verdicts are given , more women are seen as victim of a crime regardless of how they act,dress etc with less traumatic experiences in court.

Ye gods! I implied nothing. I said, clearly, that your saying you had read the comments and had come to and understanding that you needed to read what she said, hear her say it.

Then, when you said you had read what she said I replied, clearly, no implication, that I thought you were wrong, had not undersrtood her context. That was clearly framed as my opinion!

Not condescending but, in my opinion, quite true, as I disagree wth you! My perspective being as valid as yours!

We can ^discuss* it if you would like to! We may come to a consensus, you never know!

TheStoic

Well, I think she is, so we will have to either agree to disagree, or engage in prolonged debate, and it's a hot day.

Argh Italics fail

I also agree with much of what Greer is saying.
Most of us who are raped don't report it for two reasons,

1. We don't want to experience the trauma of the court process and the enormous likelihood that no conviction will occur.
2. We don't want to experience the by product of being a rape 'victim'. Shame, judgement, thought of as either a slut or damaged goods.

Neither of these points would occur if rape was considered more like ABH or GBH. So we need a drastic rethink around rape and the law in order for women to want to report and be public about what's happened to them.

Also I don't think most of us who have been raped let it define us anyway. I was raped when I was 17, I processed it, learned from it and moved on. I'm not alone in that, many people I know also moved on and were able to have a normal life and sexual relationships afterwards.
This sort of suggestion that women are devastated and there lives destroyed by rape is almost insulting. Women live with the reality of rape every day and characterising it as life changing gives rapists a power I'm not comfortable with. Greer says we are elevating the penis and its power by doing this and that feels true to me.

I found living with a man who gaslighted me and threatened me with violence for several years a much worse and long lasting issue to deal with. That took years for me and my daughters to heal from.

So I can't wait to read Greer's book, I know it will make me think, I know I may not agree with all of it, I know I will probably wince at some of the soundbites. But I'm bloody glad she is still writing and thinking.

CuriousaboutSamphire

I don't think that is how your comment came across. Let's agree to disagree.

Let's agree to disagree. Oh! OK. But this is AIBU, I was hopng for that prologed debate

Blythe I agree. Your experience matches mine.

But I would disagree with one thing... suggesting that women are devastated and there lives destroyed by rape is not almost insulting, it is very defintiely insulting!

Okay. I felt these comments minimised rape:

Most rape is just lazy, just careless, insensitive. Every time a man rolls over on his exhausted wife and insists on enjoying his conjugal rights he is raping her. It will never end up in a court of law.

1. It suggests marital rape is not violent: he 'rolls over' on her, rather than holds her down, which, if he is 'insisting', he probably is doing, because she is saying no. What word does Greer think we should use for this, and why does she not believe it to be a violent crime, rather than an example of 'laziness'? Is the implication that the man shouldn't be considered to be committing the crime of rape, even though all the elements that make it rape are there? Why?
2. The concept of 'conjugal right' - what the fuck is she going on about? There is no right to sex, not since marital rape was made illegal in the 90s. What does she think should happen in this situation ?

I never thought I'd see the day when someone minimising the impact of rape and calling for gentler sentencing for rapists would be defended on Mumsnet. I guess "gender critical feminists" will defend their own through pretty much anything. How depressing.

Rape is not "annoying". It is violence. It is no less violent if the victim isn't beaten. That's a separate crime. Otherwise we're saying that people who don't fight back against their rapists are somehow "less raped" than those who do, which is victim-blaming at its finest.

If some rape victims are able to put their rape behind them then that is wonderful and they can define their own rape in whatever way they choose. But they don't get to define it for the rest of us. And they certainly don't get to call for rapists to be given community service. Jesus.

I already typed up what I thought she meant, within her context. She wasn'tmaking the point you ascribe, she as saying exactly the opposite!

1. She said that marital rape is far more prevalent than we currently 'count' and that we need to acknowledge that. Our outdated, parochial view of conjugal rights need to be reviewed. When we acknoweldge it we can start to see why it never gets to court.

1. When we have done that, we can start to re-write the laws, the crime and make it easier to get more rapists intro court - then send them out into the community with a big "R" tattooed on ther heads or hands, for all to see!

That is exactly what she said!

CuriousaboutSamphire

But in the process of doing that, she wants to make rape a less serious crime when it occurs in contexts like the one mentioned above. That is minimising it. The fact that it happens frequently is irrelevant. That doesn't make it any less serious for someone to insert their penis into your orifices against your will. At all. This is the definition of minimising.

But they don't get to define it for the rest of us. She was saying that society is wrong when it insists that all rape is horrifically violent and devastates and destroys lives. Why would all women have to accept that definition. I am not a ruined woman. We are working on eradicating that idea for unwed mothers, we don't see victims of any other violent crime as 'ruined'!

I agree with her. People like Davina McCall endorsed martial rape, have a go at people like her!

It’s not careless, lazy or insensitive to roll over on someone and have sex with them - it requires thought that sex is what he wants, and entitlement that he should have it, and some level of control and manipulation that he should get this.

Add in societal and financial power which men usually have, and the fact that if the woman does not wish sex, she may well be internally bruised and injured, how is that not sexual abuse at least? If the woman does not want sex, then it is rape.

The concept of conjugal rights is outdated. The law recognises rape in marriage as an offence. So how can a man exercise his conjugal rights? He does not legally have any.

Who says women are 'ruined' by rape? This isn't the 19th century. Acknowledging the violent nature of the act of forcing your penis into someone else's body does not include suggesting that the woman has been shamed. She is pedalling rape myths and then trying to use them to downgrade the crime.

She is saying that if we can see rape as a multifacetted crime we can make the punishment not only fit better but be more likely for successful prosecution to happen!

I don't see what is wrong in trying to have that debate. If we can discuss rape without all the victim blaming, without all the embarrassment and shame, then we can target the perpetrators better, maybe start looking at prevention - as in making men actually believe that they do not have conjugal rights!