Germaine Greer: How to leave your credibility in tatters on live television

An appalling segment from last Thursday’s Question Time when “legendary left-wing feminist”, Germaine Greer, in a demented self-contradictory rant, stated that the rape of women in Bangladesh in 1971 “never stood up” and was “another urban myth” in order to justify another mass-rape of women, currently in perpetration by Gaddafi’s forces in Libya today.

So let’s follow her line of reasoning:

She starts off by asserting that “Rape is always present where you have slaughter and you don’t have to have a government fiat to do it”.

She then attempts to diminishes the severity of the Libyan rapes by Gaddafi’s soldiers with this shameful and appalling mock irony:

“What’s wrong with these Libyans. Everyone else did without [viagra], as far as I can see. Give them enough viagra and they’ll be raping each other”

And finally, this sacred cow of the far-left contradicts her own line of argument by stating the mass and systematic rape of Bangladeshi women by Pakistani soldiers in 1971 could not have happened:

“There was another famous case where rape was alleged on the part of the Pakistani commanders in Bangladesh in 1971. And that never stood up. It turned out to be another urban myth. An extraordinary notion that 300,000 raped women were left at the end of the war looking for husbands. It’s not true. And I think in this case, we’ve got one of those legends we’re going to hear about the hated enemy. All soldiers in certain circumstances will rape regardless of whether they’re ours or theirs or whose”

You have to question the ethical and intellectual judgement of someone who, in a feeble attempt to justify Gaddafi, attests to the fact that all wars have rape, as if this excuses the pro-Gaddafi rape policy, but then glibly contradicts her own argument by asserting the war in Bangladesh had no cases of rape. So which is it going to be, Germaine?

Does this disgusting and stupid woman have no regard for her own credibility at all? After all, how can we forget that only 12 years ago this “feminist”, who has dined out on the Female Eunuch for the last 40 years, opposed a ban on female genital mutilation on the grounds that it would be “an attack on cultural identity”

There’s no need to waste time helping the cretinous Germaine Greer discredit herself, she does such a fine job of it all by herself.

This entry was posted in The Regressive Left, War Crimes. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

27 Comments

  1. pakman
    Posted June 13, 2011 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    She is a mad old dingbat who is capable of saying anything just to get some kind of effect. She is also completely symptomatic of the left .

    Watch the total silence from the left in response to this awful dismissal of rape in Bangladesh and now in Libya.

  2. Brand Nubian
    Posted June 13, 2011 at 2:06 PM | Permalink

    She is defending the right of Muslim men to rape Muslim women? I’m sure that’ll be music to the ears of the Islamic Forum Europe, the Muslim Council of Britain and Bob Pitt at Islamophobia-Watch.com.

  3. AB
    Posted June 13, 2011 at 2:07 PM | Permalink

    How to dismiss the mass rape of women while posing as a feminist, and to enable and excuse mass murderers while posing as a pacifist.

  4. Agha
    Posted June 14, 2011 at 5:13 AM | Permalink

    Funny how the good folks who run this site are against Leftism in the West but all for it in majority Muslim countries. A bit inconsistent, no?

    I think most people would undoubtedly disagree with the sentiments expressed by Greer, but, in my opinion, the political Right has said far worse than her and has says it consistently and continues to say it. And her sentiments certainly don’t represent the opinions of most Leftists.

    Sad to see that Far-Left Muslims feel the need to bend over to people who, overwhelmingly, harbor anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudices (see Zogby polls of Republican opinions of Muslims and Arabs, for a telling proof).

  5. Posted June 14, 2011 at 10:20 AM | Permalink

    Agha

    I’m sure that individuals of the political far -right have come out with worse than Greer, but then, the last time I checked, the left is supposed to stand up for the oppressed, the defranchised and the “other”. And how many of the far-right who might also be a veritable “icon of feminism” have gone on record to excuse the mass-rape of Libyan and Bangladeshi women, as Greer has done here? If you let me know, they certainly qualify for ridicule. But you have to agree, Greer must surely take the biscuit.

  6. Posted June 14, 2011 at 10:53 AM | Permalink

    The author of the article misheard (i hope) three words which transform the meaning of the sentence.

    “There was another famous case where rape was alleged [AS A POLICY] on the part of the Pakistani commanders in Bangladesh in 1971. And that never stood up. It turned out to be another urban myth.

    Its rape-as-policy-of-pakistani-officers that she claims doesnt stand up.

    Its not a no-rape argument at all.

    It can’t be a no rape argument, because simply googling about the place I find reference that she went to bangladesh after the war in 1972 to investigate the rapes.

    Greer, Germaine. 1972. “The Rape of the Bengali Women.” Sunday Times, April 9, 1972.

    Something has changed her mind about the credibility of the makers of the systematic rape claims against Gaddafi and it reminds her of the post-Biafra Bangladesh case 40 years ago.

  7. Posted June 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM | Permalink

    Perhaps “fugstar” has misheard (I hope) that the sentence he himself quotes, Greer says

    There was ANOTHER famous case where rape was alleged as a policy on the part of the Pakistani commanders in Bangladesh in 1971. And that never stood up. It turned out to be another urban myth.

    [my emphases]

    Is fugsar saying that he agrees with Greer in her baseless assertion that the pro-Gaddafi troops are not using rape as policy?

    It would appear that in his zeal to discount and revise the historical record of systematic rape as policy used by the Pakistani military in 1971, he is also excusing the rape of Libyan women currently perpetrated? How does he justify this position?

    Given that the “International Criminal Court investigators have evidence linking Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to a policy of raping opponents and may bring separate charges on the issue”
    http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE75805520110609

    As for why Greer changed her mind and her own position on the mass rape of Bangladeshi women, perhaps he would like to suggest a possible reason. Could it be that left-wing Greer is now an exponent of the neo-con hack, Sarmila Bose?

  8. AsifB
    Posted June 14, 2011 at 12:09 PM | Permalink

    Germaine Greer has changed her mind on many things over the years. It’s one of the privileges of growing old.

    It is perhaps only a sign of fashionable acadmic contrarianism that she should be apearring to support Sarmilla Bose’s revisionist take on 1971: This definitely demands further explanation from her given Greer’s own articles on the occurrence of rape in 1971 bangladesh from her 1972 sunday Times article. (see below)

    However, I have to share her main point that ‘ rape is one of those bad things that happens in war and it could be committed by any side’ an I share @Peter ‘ bonkers’ Hitchens scepticism about the ‘Gaddafi issues Viagara to troopps to rape’ story – remember the 2 rules of journalism
    a) if a story sounds too good to be true, check and corroborate your sources
    b) if you have the truth and hear the legend, print the legend.

    So, just becuase, Gaddafi is mad (as well as murderer) and just because some Libyans are rapists and some Libyan men take viagara – the idea of Gaddafi issuing vpills to his soldiers as a deliberate policy is worthy of fact checking.

    BTW< the Greer, Germaine. 1972. “The Rape of the Bengali Women.” Sunday Times, April 9, 1972. mentioned by Fugstar appears on p.109 of Greer's 1986 'greatest hits' essay collection The Madwomans Underclothes. It is a descriprtive piece of a visit to Bangladesh in March/april 1972 referring to both indigenous (Sufia Kama) and interantional NGO (Planned parenthood et al) govt efforts to help women who had been tortured and raped during the war.

    Commentary wise, she refers to the World Council of Churches estimate of 200000 rape victms and comments on the higher indian estimates of up to half a million as maybe 'not as implausible as it sounds at first ' given ninety three thousand men and 'nine months of rapine.' No scepticism about mass rape occurrences here – some comment on numbers coupled with an acknolwedgement that 'the only people who really know' are the women themselves and give the prevalent culture of shame, they 'aren't talking.'

    She goes on to express some scepticism about shiekh mujib's call for the young men of Bangladesh to marry rape vicitms arguing that though compassionate, equating sexual subjugation with heroic resitance and pity are not good foundations for cohabitation.

    There's some food for thought here from Greer – she may be a bit batty and willing to shoot her mouth off stupidly (eg; on supporting calls to stop the filming of Brick Lane) but I think her shoehorning a reference to 1971 rapes in the QT question on Libya, was simply an echo of her earlier interest and experience in Bangladesh – tempered no dount by her reading some recent references to Sramila Bose in the Guardian.

  9. Posted June 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

    AsifB, you’re quite right, most sensible people will see through the viagra story. But Greer appears to conflate the obvious propaganda with the actual fact-based accounts of rape in Libya, thereby discombobulating fact and fiction.

  10. fugstar
    Posted June 14, 2011 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

    I wish freedom, dignity and success to the libyan people and am very worried that the decisions, capacities and alliances that the rebels have deployed may not be sufficient. I dont have an answer but Zuma, Erdogan and Wade are peoples whose actions i support.

    I’m not in a position to know what gaddafi is doing or take a position of knowledge on the precise methods of his tyranno-mania. Because he is crazy you can’t discount anything. Its a bit like trying to understand why you blog how you do with the allies that you do with the venom and circularity that you do.

    She’s just being a little skeptical and appealing to people to think through political sex capitalism.

    The logic of liberal humanitarian interventions and liberation causemakings require the vivid portrayal of enemy atrocities. But people arent believing everything they see or hear or are relayed nowadays. I like the way she refused to give approval/disaproval to the chairs demand she take one of two positions on the uk getting involved.

    She kept history in play and observed hypocrisy.

    Im not a fan of greer always, but i think she read something interesting into the brick lane situation a few years back, which displayed an interesting observation of our people.

    Just found it strange that youd change the meaning of her comment to titilate yourself so publically.

    Do you think its just the (sarmila) Bose effect?
    Greer does mention just at the end the bit about the demonic enemy construction, which is well featured in dead reckoning. probably a bad choice of analogy.
    but it could be another consequence of getting old.

    Or a culmination of seeing biafra, bangladesh, chelabi, save darfur projects take charge of how they are framed and a call to pause.

    As a femenist she might also be aware of the substantial west bengali work on the rapes by mukherjee and the pissing contest between the two. Mukherjee treats the bangladesh like a mental patient requiring therapy.

    I think it might be contributory, but she’s made a judgment on the causemaking at the time which bose covers quite well.

    i dislike the idea that the

  11. Posted June 14, 2011 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    Supporting Greer’s conflation of Libya and Bangladesh, opposing Chelabi but supporting the Neocon Sarmila Bose’s revisionism. You are in utter confusion.

  12. Agha
    Posted June 15, 2011 at 1:00 AM | Permalink

    Effendi: And how many of the far-right who might also be a veritable “icon of feminism” have gone on record to excuse the mass-rape of Libyan and Bangladeshi women, as Greer has done here?

    Well, some of them excused the rape of Iraqis by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib, for example. Something about “blowing off steam” if I remember correctly.

    By the way, I noticed no one here has said anything about the palpable anti-Muslim bigotry of Raymond Ibrahim. Some people are more equal than others, I guess.

  13. Posted June 15, 2011 at 2:12 AM | Permalink

    More whataboutery from Agha “the Oven” wonderboy.

    He will be telling us next that Muslims, by definition, cannot commit genocide.

  14. qidniz
    Posted June 15, 2011 at 4:17 AM | Permalink

    I really don’t know with what feeling I should continue to witness fugstar’s titanic struggle towards coherence: admiration or despair.

  15. Agha
    Posted June 15, 2011 at 6:24 AM | Permalink

    He will be telling us next that Muslims, by definition, cannot commit genocide.

    Now, now…calm down. Where did I say that?

    Methinks you should keep to rambling about how you believe imams and young Arab men (the two most evil peoples in the world, undoubtedly) have a fondness for pornography and bestiality.

    Must be more of that “religious self-criticism” no doubt. If you said something similar about Jews it would be called anti-Semitism; and for Blacks, racism.

  16. Posted June 15, 2011 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

    By the way, I noticed no one here has said anything about the palpable anti-Muslim bigotry of Raymond Ibrahim. Some people are more equal than others, I guess.

    I did. I said said I haven’t seen any examples of of his “palpable” anti-Muslim bigotry. If you think there are, post them up and let’s have a look. Better to debate concrete examples with citations than throwing around epithets and slurs and try and kick up a fuss, don’t you think?

  17. Posted June 15, 2011 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    Agha

    So, you do not understand the expression “he will be telling us next…”?

    Oh, Islam is not a race, dimwit.

  18. Agha
    Posted June 15, 2011 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

    Effendi:

    So you don’t think someone who purports conspiracy theories regularly is a bigot? Or do you actually believe Muslims are practicing “taqiyya” in order to deceive Westerners? And what about the fact that he write for venues that contain genocidal content? He doesn’t even seem to believe that moderate Muslims are a majority, and in fact says that at least 200 million “are hell-bent on destroying the West.” And what of his Christian apologetics and speaking oh so kindly of Christian holy wars waged against Muslims?

    Again, do you actually believe this garbage?

    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/articles/

    Abu Faris:

    Oh, Islam is not a race, dimwit.

    Of course it isn’t. That’s why I didn’t say that.

    But your comment is telling: you identify that your animosity against Muslims (and particularly Arab Muslims) as qualitatively akin to anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. The “Islam is not a race” argument is one also forwarded by the good folks over at Atlas Shrugs, Faith Freedom, JihadWatch, and countless other hate sites (including this one incidentally). You’re basically saying it’s okay to be bigoted against Muslims but not Jews or Blacks (or the “Judeo-Christian” White man, whose acceptance and approval you endlessly seek).

    Maybe throwing a few ad hominems around can make you feel better about yourself. Also add a few comments about those dirty, perverted Muslims.

  19. Posted June 15, 2011 at 7:01 PM | Permalink

    “Again, do you actually believe this garbage?”

    I see a list of article titles. What do you mean by garbage?

    Which sentence, line, verse, citation are you referring to in particular?

  20. Agha
    Posted June 15, 2011 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    Unfortunately I thought you had the capacity to peruse Ibrahim’s articles. Disappointed but not surprised.

    But I understand why you’re attempting to dodge my questions — and I suppose you don’t think anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are not garbage?

    For example, do you think at least 200 million Muslims are hell-bent on destroying the inherently superior West?

    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7316/200-million-minority

    Do you think it’s noble to demonize Islam for Christian proselytization?

    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7333/islam-public-enemy

    Do believe Muslims come to Western countries for conquest via “creeping shari’a”?

    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7315/what-do-muslims-want

    And why the deafening silence regarding the genocide-minded fanatics Ibrahim associates with and writes for? Need I go on? I do hope you’re not as delusional as indicated by this joke of a blog.

  21. Posted June 15, 2011 at 10:27 PM | Permalink

    “Unfortunately I thought you had the capacity to peruse Ibrahim’s articles. Disappointed but not surprised. “

    I can peruse his articles but your question was “here is a list of Ibrahim’s articles, do you actualy believe in this garbage?” – which is a non-starter as far as reasoned debate is concerned. And your reply isn’t much better. All you’ve done is post a bunch of links and followed each one with some abstract anathematic. Without particular references it’s pointless posing some otherwise abstract question. It’s all a bit sixth form. But since you’ve asked abstract questions, I’ll post some abstract answers:

    “do you think at least 200 million Muslims are hell-bent on destroying the inherently superior West?”

    I don’t know. But there is a sizeable population in the Middle East and Pakistan who would like to see the west utterly destroyed. Would you disagree?

    “Do you think it’s noble to demonize Islam for Christian proselytization?”

    I don’t care for religious proselytization of any form. Though I’m guessing you’re partial to a bit of Islamic proselytization, no?

    “Do believe Muslims come to Western countries for conquest via “creeping shari’a”? “

    Yes, some do. Have you met Omar Bakri Muhammed? Have you heard Azad Ali of the IFE? Are you familiar with the remit of some the structures set up by the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK?

    “And why the deafening silence regarding the genocide-minded fanatics Ibrahim associates with and writes for? “

    Please let me know who they are so that I may disagree with them.

    “Need I go on?”

    If you must.

    “I do hope you’re not as delusional as indicated by this joke of a blog.”

    Bit of a harangue-merchant, aren’t you?

  22. karmakar
    Posted June 15, 2011 at 11:09 PM | Permalink

    Here are 2 articles Germaine Greer should read:

    Rape and its consequences

    Rape in 1971: in the name of Pakistan

  23. qidniz
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 1:17 AM | Permalink

    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7333/islam-public-enemy

    Ah yes, the good Fr. Botros.

    Incapable of rebutting Botros, the only strategy left to the ulema (aside from a rumored $5-million bounty on his head) is to ignore him. When his name is brought up, they dismiss him as a troublemaking liar who is backed by — who else? — international “Jewry.” They could easily refute his points, they insist, but will not deign to do so. That strategy may satisfy some Muslims, but others are demanding straightforward responses from the ulema.

    The most dramatic example of this occurred on another famous show on the international station, Iqra. The host, Basma — a conservative Muslim woman in full hijab — asked two prominent ulema, including Sheikh Gamal Qutb, one-time grand mufti of al-Azhar University, to explain the legality of the Koranic verse (4:24) that permits men to freely copulate with captive women. She repeatedly asked: “According to sharia, is slave-sex still applicable?” The two ulema would give no clear answer — dissembling here, going off on tangents there. Basma remained adamant: Muslim youth were confused, and needed a response, since “there is a certain channel and a certain man who has discussed this issue over twenty times and has received no response from you.”

    The flustered Sheikh Qutb roared, “low-life people like that must be totally ignored!” and stormed off the set. He later returned, but refused to admit that Islam indeed permits sex-slaves, spending his time attacking Botros instead. When Basma said “Ninety percent of Muslims, including myself, do not understand the issue of concubinage in Islam and are having a hard time swallowing it,” the sheikh responded, “You don’t need to understand.” As for Muslims who watch and are influenced by Botros, he barked, “Too bad for them! If my son is sick and chooses to visit a mechanic, not a doctor — that’s his problem!”

    Tee hee.

  24. Posted June 16, 2011 at 10:37 AM | Permalink

    Agha,

    You are either a grade A idiot, or you simply cannot remember what you previously wrote:

    you wrote:

    If you said something similar about Jews it would be called anti-Semitism; and for Blacks, racism.

    Erm… let’s let slide the fact that anti-Semitism is also a form of racism: Jews being an ethnicity as well as a religious community (I suspect you disagree with this).

    As you are discussing racism, it must be assumed that your point was that hostility to Muslim intolerance of others should be equated with race-hate. At least that was the way I read it. It is actually quite a common theme of the Islamists that any criticism of them is islamophobia and islamophobia is a brand of racism. You appear to fall very neatly into this line of argument.

  25. Posted June 16, 2011 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    Islamists and assorted religious nutters love to pull the mock “horrified by the opponent’s potty-mouth” routine whenever they feel cornered or unable to respond – as if this band of thugs, thieves and liars can claim the moral high ground about anything.

    Oh look, there’s Agha doing it over on the “About” page!

  26. this is me
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 11:01 PM | Permalink

    everyone knows that it’s only rape if it happens to a white woman. Actually, rape may also be “rape-rape” when a black woman is raped in a developing land and the white feminists can seize upon it as further evidence of the dilatoriness, insensitivity and patriarchal evil of the west. Generally speaking, the day-to-day rape of black women or non-white women is of no concern to the likes of Greer unless it can be used to advance an ideological agenda/narrative. I think people need to realize how privileged white females are and how they effectively shape so many issues in our society; I think people need to also realize that people like Greer do not so much want to see an end to rape (obviously they do, but bear with me) as much as they want to see the creation of a world in which male sexuality is so pathologized that a man takes a terrible risk asking any “empowered” woman out in any setting. As we know, if he’s beautiful and hung like a horse, then it’s never sexual harassment, no matter the context or professional setting; however, if the poor fellow is ugly and has the unmitigated gall to ask out the wrong woman, then it suddenly becomes “harassment” (I saw this on more than one occasion at work). Likewise, if the guy is a careless, clumsy or simply experienced lover in bed, then it’s “rape” – which is a great way to effectively control and manipulate your partner in intimate encounters. Suffice it to say, womyn like Greer wouldn’t want it any other way. Personally, i think a lot of these women would be prolific rapists if they were men because a lot of them are sociopaths and pathological narcissists/liars/manipulators. These women also tend to see no inconsistency in railing against men as sexual predators at the same time as they go to places like Bali in the hopes that they can pressure a young teenage buck into having sex with them for the right price.

    I just wish our culture – and men, especially – would stand united against these pigs.

  27. Bluey
    Posted July 5, 2013 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

    When is Germaine Greer going to convert to Islam and put a Burqua on?
    One of Silvio Belusconi’s Ministers converted to Islam a few years back and now one of Geert Wilders crew!
    By converting to Islam, Germaine Greer’s “Sellout” will be complete!

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting

  • Categories

  • Archives