GG guardian article - Rape - "bad sex"

[Chaosandcoffee]

guardian link

Germaine Greer talking at Hay about reducing sentences for rape - well actually just reframing rape altogether - rejecting it as a violent crime in itself - where there isn't physical injury etc.

Don't know if there's already a thread. I've just deleted my attempt at discussion. I've reread the article and I don't feel like trying to be rational and open minded. But maybe someone can help me out.

I'm afraid GG is increasingly bonkers these days.

Yes I thought in hindsight not worth the headspace.

I think GG is losing her mental capacity. If the GG of 40 years ago saw that she’d be horrified. I wish she’d retire from public life. It’s so sad to see.

I wonder if it's partly that she just doesn't have to deal with this shit any more. She's a famous academic, author and media personality - that's got to insulate her to a greater or lesser extent to the sort of experiences that, for want of a better way of putting it, an ordinary, non-famous woman might have, especially if that non-famous woman was also poor, isolated, a refugee, etc. Perhaps this has become a purely academic question for GG, or at least a less immediate one than it is for many women.

Or perhaps not. I'm just musing after a glass of wine.

I agree with what she says. There’s a dangerous and sexist narrative that paints rape as the worst thing that could ever happen, it’s all tied up in a very patriarchal view of women as property.

She’s saying that by reframing it as a crime like any other, with harsh penalties but a lower threshold for conviction, you change the game.

And she’s right that not all rape is violent, and yes, her use of ‘lazy’ etc is clunky but I get that she means because it’s so hard to prove and that actually, yes, a lot of rape is husbands not bothering to ask for consent. Which is still rape, but it creates a schism between the narrative of rape (awful, traumatic, worst thing ever) and the reality of domesticity (but this is my partner, maybe he misunderstood, it was just the once).

She’s not saying that rape is just peachy. But something needs to change because currently rapists can rape with impunity.

GG has never been afraid to address uncomfortable truths.

The current laws and dialogues around rape are a product of the patriarchy - they are created by men and they benefit men. By framing rape as one of the worst possible crimes, it makes it possible for lots and lots of men to rape. Because lots and lots and lots of men can’t possibly be commiting one of the worst possible crimes, can they? That would be ridiculous!

It must be women lying about it. It must be women misinterpreting their husband’s “passion”. It must be women getting drunk or dressing provocatively.

The subject is very sensitive and GG will inevitably cause controversy (and she doesn’t speak for all women), but there’s one really important question - is the legal system discouraging rape? The answer is no. So something must be done.

I like her idea of branding rapists with a visible tattoo.

there’s one really important question - is the legal system discouraging rape? The answer is no. So something must be done

And reducing (already ridiculously low) sentences MUST be the answer! Those rapists won’t know what hit them. In fact if we really want women to feel properly safe, we should probably just let rapists off with a caution

Here’s an article by Germaine Greer in 2006 on exactly the same topic - but with more context.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/germaine-greer-rape-5335933.html

As a pragmatic approach to getting more rapists convicted, perhaps it is worth considering. The current system seems to brutalise women who try to pursue the rape attacks they have suffered and virtually no rapists get prosecuted. Her argument is that the categorisation of the crime is shifted to that of an assault and depending on a range of other associated aspects of the rape (violence, pregnancy and others) varying sentences could be meted out. Her argument is that it would result in more prosecutions as the burden of proof would be less if the charges were less.

I agree something must be done. I have thought about lowering the threshold for rape, having "lesser" legal remedies, fuck it, I'd be fine with calling it something else.

But it's possible to consider all those things without saying that women aren't as damaged by rape as they think they are. (Hope i've got it right that that's the word that was used without re-reading). It might appeal to take that power away from rape but I'm not sure it's true.

It's the rehashing of the "real rape" stuff that is so unpalatable. Ignoring the terrible injury of feeling unsafe in the place you should feel most safe and secure.

I’m not convinced entirely by this argument though as it could end up destigmatising rapists

Cross post. Maybe that's more along the lines of how I'd been thinking. Will have a read of link thanks.

If GG had any empathy and had done her homework, she'd realise that some rapes leave vaginal injury and some rapes do leave their victims traumatised. As for 20% of war veterans having PTSD versus 70% of rape victims having it, I'll take that down in two points:

• Most war veterans don't see their mates get killed and are trained to expect it and get debriefing and counselling if that does happen. By contrast all rape victims have been raped and none of us are trained for it and we often don't get counselling.
• An enemy trying to kill you hasn't betrayed your trust. By contrast, a rapist has not only physically violated you, but in 80% of cases is already known to you and this adds betrayal trauma to the rape.

I don't think that a lowering of sentences will cause juries to return guilty verdicts more often: the standard of proof is unrelated to the sentence options available. It's possible that GG intends for the law to be changed such that a woman's accusation is enough to convict. That's not going to fly, it's at odds with the fundamentals of our legal system. Even civil cases still have a standard of proof greater than "I said so", it's "on balance of probabilities".

Our justice system doesn't deal well with rape (understatement) but I'm not sure putting it on a par with shoplifting would help.

GG is also conflating no violence with not traumatic, and that's plain wrong.

Hi OP, I think in GG’s defence she doesn’t seem to be minimising the effect of rape on women but rather suggesting a radical alternative to getting men convicted

"She questioned a statistic which said that 70% of rape victims had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder compared with 20% of conflict veterans.

“What the hell are you saying? Something that leaves no sign, no injury, no nothing is more damaging to a woman than seeing your best friend blown up by an IED is to a veteran?”

Society wanted women to believe that rape destroyed them, she said. “We haven’t been destroyed, we’ve been bloody annoyed is what we’ve been.”"

FAO QUARKS ^^

She's saying rape is annoying, Quark.

The current laws and dialogues around rape are a product of the patriarchy - they are created by men and they benefit men. By framing rape as one of the worst possible crimes, it makes it possible for lots and lots of men to rape.

Why wouldn't they just frame it as not one of the worst possible crimes then? And do it with impunity?

There was another thread on this and most posters agreed with her.

What is the point of the justice system?

Surely the aim should be to reduce the number of rapes? Currently, the system is not doing that, and questioning why should not be verboten.

Imagine if a man were as likely to get a rape conviction as, say, a drink driving conviction. If it were acknowledged in our culture how common rape actually is, what it really looks like most of the time, and how damaging it is to both the individual victims and society at large (toxic masculinity). Just like drink driving is, as a result of legislation changing the way we look at it.

I think there would be a hell of a lot less of the whole “he’s a decent chap and she’s a drunken liar” aspect to rape trials if it were culturally acknowledged that “decent chaps” rape all the damn time.

Or we could just carry on as we are, where rape legislation is rooted in a time when women were the property of men (and therefore a man violating another man’s property was an extremely serious crime), so men get away with it because even when women do report (which of course they mostly don’t), they get character assassinated.

Bd67th* Thanks. You’ve very clearly explained the hole in the argument. I was trying to rationalise what my reaction to her claim that more convictions would occur but couldn’t quite get there.

You point that reducing the seriousness of the crime won’t necessarily result in any more convictions as the actual legal system is flawed in how it deals with women makes a lot of sense

sciencemad Yes that’s awful. That is minimising rape! Sorry, I’m skim reading in bed with a sick baby - not at my sharpest!

There was a previous thread where she had been quoted as saying something along the lines of women shouldn’t be upset by rape they should be angry. That was what I had conflated. Saying that rape is annoying is utterly minimising what rape is all about. In fact it’s a close argument to what pro prostitution lobbies claim. That sex with someone you don’t like is no big deal. Which is just wrong

This isn’t just about changing the legal system though, it’s the whole culture.

It’s also not about saying rape is not a serious crime - it’s about it being properly, actually acknowledged as an extremely common crime by society.

I’m not saying GG’s ideas are correct (or that mine are, obv), but there does need to be a massive, fundamental change in the way rape is perceived culturally, as well as how it is dealt with in the courts. One can’t change without the other. Not effectively. It’ll be a feedback loop.

None of this is to say that rape should be trivialised (and I disagree with GG on this aspect - I think she is trivialising it). But there is a fundamental dissonance between the treatment of the crime (and its victims) in the legal system, and the frequency of incident.

I’m happy to argue for the idea that rape is almost as serous a crime as murder, but then we have to find a way to square the circle of the seriousness of the crime and how common it is.

I can’t think of any other crime that has this problem of dissonance, and the only way to change the culture is to drill down into how and why - and how to fix it.

I thought that those comments were largely related to her own experience?

I concur with @TokenBritPoshOfCourse, @RealityHasALiberalBias, and @QuarksAndLeptons that rape laws are designed to protect men's property interests in women and need reform. (Taking out the "reasonable belief in consent" clause would be a good start, IMO if you assumed consent and didn't check, you are a rapist.)

I disagree strongly that rape isn't a big deal. Rape can leave the victim pregnant, sick with an STI, or injured, and in my case the extent of the (vulval) injuries only became apparent much later.

I believe that the victim should have a say in the sentencing, because many victims know their rapists and don't want to "ruin his life" (even though he never cared about ruining hers, and also first rule of patriarchy: women are to blame for men ruining their own lives by raping and then being sent to prison for rape). If the victim could set a sentencing cap, or demand that the perp pay money into a charity of the victim's choice in lieu of a custodial sentence, more women might report.

I'm not really sure what she means
... she seems to be saying that it would be easier to convict if rape was rebranded as assault. But it would still come back to the issue of consent, how couldn't it? and the burden and standard of proof would still be the same, so ... ??? And all this talk of "grown women" not being that fussed about having a penis inserted unexpectedly seems dangerously close to saying lie back and think of England.