Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Someone explain the dickwolves controversy to me

12627293132

Posts

  • ona-whimona-whim Registered User
    edited February 2011
    I agree that Shakesville is relevant, but I think it's been pretty well established at this point that they are not even remotely close to anything approaching reasonable. I think what people are trying to say is that there are other responses that are a lot more reasonable that we're forgetting about because we keep getting caught up on how absurd that place is (I'm guilty of this because I came here yesterday after being banned twice and had to vent).

    We do mistakenly lump in the reasonable people with what we believe are the crazies. I think the people we should be talking with and directing our equally reasonable arguments with the most are the people straight from the PA community who feel uncomfortable.

    The problem is that if you're following Twitter, it's actually easy enough to trace a lot of the outrage, reasonable as it might seem, back to Shakesville, Kirbybits, or some other incredibly over-the-top blog of outrage fuel. Because of that, it makes me think that many of the reasonable arguments are still getting trickled down from the sites like Shakesville.

    Either way, yes, we should still ignore the extremists and welcome the decent folks in, even if we can trace them back to what we see as a foul source. That largely means keeping our debates to this thread and these forums and not taking it out to other sites if it can be helped.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    suttree wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Hey two can play that game.

    "Ignore Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is not a liberal. Pick a strawman and you ignore the real debate."

    I do ignore Glenn Beck, I think others should too.
    I think you're very good at changing the subject entirely - what do US politics have to do with the issue?
    Why would you presume to know mine?

    Yeah, I didn't understand that post. I wish everyone would ignore Glenn Beck.

    steam_sig.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    I'd like to focus on the "Is wearing revealing clothes a bad decision?" question by posing a similar situation that is slightly less inflammatory due to the absence of sexual assault.

    Let's say that a student is a closeted homosexual male who attends a school with a known homophobic atmosphere. One day, he decides to come to school wearing a dress, make-up, and high heels. He is then beat-up.

    Now, I'm not condoning bigotry against homosexuals, and in an ideal world we wouldn't have people attack others for their differences, but can you really say that the boy in this scenario in no way contributed to the circumstances that resulted in him being physically assaulted? He knew what he was doing was a risky decision, but he did it anyway.

    I feel that part of the argument we're having here is due to the fact that words like "responsibility" and "fault" are loaded terms that prevent people from talking rationally about this issue.

    I feel like this is a red herring designed to draw focus away from the real problem: Bigotry, rapistry (not a word, I know), and the like.

    Because where do you draw the line? Did black people contribute to getting beat up by walking through predominantly white neighborhoods in the 60s or whatever?

    Who fucking cares? It isn't relevant and it isn't interesting. The only thing that actually matters is that someone raped someone else. Period.

    steam_sig.png
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2011
    The Cat wrote: »
    Thawmus wrote: »
    I really don't want to get anecdotal here, but when I first heard "Rape Culture", I was immediately tossing the entire idea out the window, and wondering how many crackpots actually thought that there was a large sect of society who wants to rape people.

    Yes, the terminology is fucking terrible for conveying the point.

    Will you get some people that still won't get it? Of course you will. But I would be willing to believe the number would be a lot lower if it wasn't wrapped up in a term that is inherently pointing a finger at everyone and saying, "Rapist".

    It isn't inherent at all. I'm sorry, but the bottom line is that if you can't even take the time to type the phrase into google without getting all het up, the problem isn't the phrase.

    It's still a generalized and over reaching word. If you Google Rape Culture the first three hits are the two blogs that are involved in this mess. One which is run by a crazy and the other is run by someone who blatantly, obviously, didn't understand the comic. The third hit is Wiki, and per Wiki's definition, Rape Culture does not apply to American media.

    Does it apply to outliers? Misogynistic and sexist cultures already treat women as objects and second class citizens. Rape Culture denotes something larger than those who are already predisposed to being chauvanistic, sexist, exploitative, pigs.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    suttree wrote: »
    I find it insulting that you suggest the reason Mike made the decision to remove the t-shirt is because Shakesville asked him to.

    I never once claimed this, stated it, or suggested that he had. Go ahead, check my copious post history in this thread. I dare you.
    suttree wrote: »
    I'm certainly aware of the content outside these forums, I think better than you. Shit didn't go viral in the Summer. It did now - why?

    I will say it again, Shakesville was one of the public detractors against the original Sixth Slave comic, where the ball began rolling about rape apology. It was enough of a brouhaha to prompt the, admittedly poor taste, response comic. Also, we are not privy to either the extent or content of private communication sent to Gabe & Tycho, so aside from some news posts regarding the response comic, we are left in an information vacuum. Based on Shakesvilles content alone (see how it's relevant again), we can assume that such phrases as "rape apologist" were probably bandied about in those private conversations.

    Oh, and a "I think I know better than you" claim. Lovely, because we don't get enough of those.
    suttree wrote: »
    If you take the fucknoPA tumblr as a representation of the PAX attendees who are discussing this issue, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.

    I don't.

    suttree wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Hey two can play that game.

    "Ignore Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is not a liberal. Pick a strawman and you ignore the real debate."

    I do ignore Glenn Beck, I think others should too.
    I think you're very good at changing the subject entirely - what do US politics have to do with the issue?
    Why would you presume to know my political stance?

    Because ignoring idiots with a large audience works so well. When people spout bullshit, you confront them on their bullshit.

    And I didn't presume anything about your political stance. Nice try. And I didn't change the subject, it's called an allegory.

    steam_sig.png
  • suttreesuttree Registered User
    edited February 2011
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Without that ridiculous outrage, there would have been no response, no t-shirt, and no tweets.
    If Gabe had decided to become a professional golfer instead of an artist, we wouldn't be here having this debate. Perhaps you should write him an letter expressing your own ridiculous outrage.

  • TalkcTalkc Registered User
    edited February 2011
    I see it this way. Not going to PAX cause you didnt like a PA comic, is a lot like not watching championship boxing cause Mike Tyson raped his wife. Or not watching football cause Michael Vick abused dogs. Or because some other footballer raped someone.

    There are a lot of things going on with PAX that have little or nothing to do with the comics.

    These people are really only doing themselves a disservice by not going. Its not going to harm everyone else, and im sure attendance wont even notice a dip with the small fraction of offended people not going.

    Also PA is far from the first place to make an offensive joke.

  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So, no, commenting that a victim of a rape made bad decisions that put them in that situation is not an evidence of "rape culture" any more than saying playing three card monty on the street is stupid evidence of "fraud culture."

    Does wearing revealing clothing count as a bad decision?

    It's a decision that is more risky, yes. Just like driving over the speed limit is a risky decision.

    Did you just draw an equivalency between choice of clothes and an illegal act?

    Yes. It doesn't matter if one is legal and the other isn't; they are both decisions that carry a hypothetical risk.

    Some people get turned on by red hair. Is dying your hair red a bad decision?

    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So, no, commenting that a victim of a rape made bad decisions that put them in that situation is not an evidence of "rape culture" any more than saying playing three card monty on the street is stupid evidence of "fraud culture."

    Does wearing revealing clothing count as a bad decision?

    It's a decision that is more risky, yes. Just like driving over the speed limit is a risky decision.

    Did you just draw an equivalency between choice of clothes and an illegal act?

    Yes. It doesn't matter if one is legal and the other isn't; they are both decisions that carry a hypothetical risk.

    Some people get turned on by red hair. Is dying your hair red a bad decision?

    You do have a point there. Albeit it would most likely carry lower risk.

    Maybe we should use the term "bad". "Risk-Carrying" might be better in that it avoids a loaded term.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • ona-whimona-whim Registered User
    edited February 2011
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So, no, commenting that a victim of a rape made bad decisions that put them in that situation is not an evidence of "rape culture" any more than saying playing three card monty on the street is stupid evidence of "fraud culture."

    Does wearing revealing clothing count as a bad decision?

    It's a decision that is more risky, yes. Just like driving over the speed limit is a risky decision.

    Did you just draw an equivalency between choice of clothes and an illegal act?

    Yes. It doesn't matter if one is legal and the other isn't; they are both decisions that carry a hypothetical risk.

    Some people get turned on by red hair. Is dying your hair red a bad decision?

    It's a bad decision if you know you're about to walk into a convention of rapists who have a fetish for dyed red hair, I suppose.

    There's an inherent risk in doing almost anything. In some cases, the risk is greater than others. I personally believe women should be allowed to run naked through the streets no matter what time of day or night without fear of being assaulted in any way at all. Doesn't make it a good idea to do, though.

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Drez wrote: »
    Because where do you draw the line? Did black people contribute to getting beat up by walking through predominantly white neighborhoods in the 60s or whatever?

    Indeed, where do we draw the line?
    Drez wrote: »
    Who fucking cares? It isn't relevant and it isn't interesting. The only thing that actually matters is that someone raped someone else. Period.

    We were discussing victim blaming, and I was trying to make the case that just because someone is a victim doesn't mean that they in no way contributed to their situation.

    I will admit that this issue might be better discussed in its own thread.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Drez wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    I'd like to focus on the "Is wearing revealing clothes a bad decision?" question by posing a similar situation that is slightly less inflammatory due to the absence of sexual assault.

    Let's say that a student is a closeted homosexual male who attends a school with a known homophobic atmosphere. One day, he decides to come to school wearing a dress, make-up, and high heels. He is then beat-up.

    Now, I'm not condoning bigotry against homosexuals, and in an ideal world we wouldn't have people attack others for their differences, but can you really say that the boy in this scenario in no way contributed to the circumstances that resulted in him being physically assaulted? He knew what he was doing was a risky decision, but he did it anyway.

    I feel that part of the argument we're having here is due to the fact that words like "responsibility" and "fault" are loaded terms that prevent people from talking rationally about this issue.

    I feel like this is a red herring designed to draw focus away from the real problem: Bigotry, rapistry (not a word, I know), and the like.

    Because where do you draw the line? Did black people contribute to getting beat up by walking through predominantly white neighborhoods in the 60s or whatever?

    Who fucking cares? It isn't relevant and it isn't interesting. The only thing that actually matters is that someone raped someone else. Period.
    If your sister/female friend/mom or other femal acquaintance got dressed up in an incredibly revealing outift and told you she was going to go alone to party with some bikers/frat boys/gangsters or other unsavory characters that she didn't really know, I take it your response would be "Cool! Have fun! Sounds like a great idea."

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    ona-whim wrote: »
    There's an inherent risk in doing almost anything. In some cases, the risk is greater than others. I personally believe women should be allowed to run naked through the streets no matter what time of day or night without fear of being assaulted in any way at all. Doesn't make it a good idea to do, though.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • mynameisguidomynameisguido Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I hope the person who re-started this proverbial fire doesn't come to PAX (Don't forget this whole thing had died down until they decided to weigh back in on the issue and get the shirts banned). Nothing good can come of doing so.

    I don't think that J&M have been totally in the right on this one, but I think if I had to choose a "side" I'm likely going to side with them over the Shakesville crowd. Like it or not though, they're far likely to get more of the flak from all this due to the nature of being a public figure.

    steam_sig.png
  • ona-whimona-whim Registered User
    edited February 2011
    Deebaser wrote: »
    This whole WRBLGRBL is the direct result of people screaming "rape culture" in bad faith and the questionable reaction of the creators to that WRBLGRBL. Without that ridiculous outrage, there would have been no response, no t-shirt, and no tweets.

    You're going to have to show your work on that one.

    One could make the argument--though not quite prove it--that many of the reasonable emails still came from Shakesville followers who chose to approach the situation in a smarter way than spewing hate.

    That said, I think that as long as anyone, despite their origin or affiliation, is willing to speak reasonably, they deserve to be heard out and it sounds like Mike and the rest of the PA crew decided to listen to those reasonable voices at least on the matter of the shirts being sold.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So, no, commenting that a victim of a rape made bad decisions that put them in that situation is not an evidence of "rape culture" any more than saying playing three card monty on the street is stupid evidence of "fraud culture."

    Does wearing revealing clothing count as a bad decision?

    It's a decision that is more risky, yes. Just like driving over the speed limit is a risky decision.

    Did you just draw an equivalency between choice of clothes and an illegal act?

    Yes. It doesn't matter if one is legal and the other isn't; they are both decisions that carry a hypothetical risk.

    Some people get turned on by red hair. Is dying your hair red a bad decision?

    Probably if you don't like people who get turned on by red hair. It's a risk you still take, even if it's a weird one or you don't think it's topical.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I hope the person who re-started this proverbial fire doesn't come to PAX (Don't forget this whole thing had died down until they decided to weigh back in on the issue and get the shirts banned). Nothing good can come of doing so.

    I don't think that J&M have been totally in the right on this one, but I think if I had to choose a "side" I'm likely going to side with them over the Shakesville crowd. Like it or not though, they're far likely to get more of the flak from all this due to the nature of being a public figure.

    What's most disappointing is that they had the power to end it a long time ago by simply not responding. Like I said 20 pages ago, they got completely trolled.

    And honestly, that's what lost me a lot of respect for them. They just had no clue what to do with this situation and have, at every turn, made it worse.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    ona-whim wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So, no, commenting that a victim of a rape made bad decisions that put them in that situation is not an evidence of "rape culture" any more than saying playing three card monty on the street is stupid evidence of "fraud culture."

    Does wearing revealing clothing count as a bad decision?

    It's a decision that is more risky, yes. Just like driving over the speed limit is a risky decision.

    Did you just draw an equivalency between choice of clothes and an illegal act?

    Yes. It doesn't matter if one is legal and the other isn't; they are both decisions that carry a hypothetical risk.

    Some people get turned on by red hair. Is dying your hair red a bad decision?

    It's a bad decision if you know you're about to walk into a convention of rapists who have a fetish for dyed red hair, I suppose.

    There's an inherent risk in doing almost anything. In some cases, the risk is greater than others. I personally believe women should be allowed to run naked through the streets no matter what time of day or night without fear of being assaulted in any way at all. Doesn't make it a good idea to do, though.

    The problem is having this discussion at all. It's the worst kind of deception, because it is baked in reasonable half-truths. Yes, if I sit at home and never leave my house, very few things can kill me. It would be a terrible, boring life, but I would be as risk-free as a person can be. But it's not something we should really be discussing. I say it is the worst kind of deception because even if it is actually true to point out that not engaging in behavior that puts you in the presence of people that have no respect for other people eliminates some of the risk of those other people hurting you, it is only used to derail conversation about and deflate the reality of what actually matters and what actually should be the focus of discussion: the rapists and how to prevent it.

    Or have we given up on that, and so the only avenue left is to put women in behavior-restrictive boxes lest they get sexually assaulted? See, I'm not just against rape, I'm against the chilling effect rape has on female behavior. I'm not going to say it's as bad as being raped, but is IS another form of gender oppression, and a terrible one. Read ihollaback.org sometime. Women riding the subway in New York City run the gamut between defiant/angry and total avoidance of eye contact at unwanted attention. That's terrible. It seems like most women feel the need to either steel themselves against sexual advances, or to do their best not to engage anyone while on public transportation. I've seen it myself. I have dozens of friends that have dealt with it.

    And that's because of the culture that continues to propagate. Maybe "rape culture" is a bit overblown, I don't know or care, but there is a culture that constantly chips away at a woman's standard feeling of comfort and safety, and comments like "well, this is risky behavior" actively influence and contribute to this culture.

    steam_sig.png
  • ona-whimona-whim Registered User
    edited February 2011
    I hope the person who re-started this proverbial fire doesn't come to PAX (Don't forget this whole thing had died down until they decided to weigh back in on the issue and get the shirts banned). Nothing good can come of doing so.

    I don't think that J&M have been totally in the right on this one, but I think if I had to choose a "side" I'm likely going to side with them over the Shakesville crowd. Like it or not though, they're far likely to get more of the flak from all this due to the nature of being a public figure.

    If I was sure a riot of some sort wouldn't break out and someone would get physically hurt, I would actually want to see panel at PAX hosted by someone involved in all this. I think it would be interesting to see it all happen and would be a great chance to clear the air...

    ...except, again, someone would get pissed and storm off or some idiot in the crowd would throw something at someone, and basically that's why we can't have nice things.

  • ShrikeTheAvatarShrikeTheAvatar Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Sentry wrote: »
    I hope the person who re-started this proverbial fire doesn't come to PAX (Don't forget this whole thing had died down until they decided to weigh back in on the issue and get the shirts banned). Nothing good can come of doing so.

    I don't think that J&M have been totally in the right on this one, but I think if I had to choose a "side" I'm likely going to side with them over the Shakesville crowd. Like it or not though, they're far likely to get more of the flak from all this due to the nature of being a public figure.

    What's most disappointing is that they had the power to end it a long time ago by simply not responding. Like I said 20 pages ago, they got completely trolled.

    It seems to me that they were so frustrated by the Shakesville rants and accusations that they responded by posting the second comic, which only served to make things worse and to probably offend actual readers who were more reasonable than the Shakesville people. Yet because Shakesville was being the loudest and most infuriating, the smaller voices got lost in the fighting and didn't really come up until the t-shirt issue, at which point Mike made it clear he's willing to listen to people with honest concerns.

    They probably shouldn't have made the second comic - even though I will admit I think it was hilarious - but that can't be undone now.

    @Drez:

    I agree with everything that you wrote. I guess when I talk about being aware of whether or not something is risky, I'm thinking of it purely from a pragmatic standpoint, not necessarily from a larger perspective. I think it's possible (and necessary) to be aware of the situations that pose a risk to women without necessarily contributing that culture.

    The question is - how do you change it? I'm not asking that in a rhetorical, 'we can't change it' sense. I'm honestly just thinking out loud.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    You make some fantastic points Drez.

    steam_sig.png
  • suttreesuttree Registered User
    edited February 2011
    Summary of today's discussion:

    The most pressing issues are
    1. The comments of Melissa McEwan six months ago.
    2. Running away from the words "rape culture"
    and
    3. Whether wearing revealing clothes is a bad decision.

    Also Glen Beck.

    I think this summarizes the debate well
    Like I said 20 pages ago, they got completely trolled.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    I'd like to focus on the "Is wearing revealing clothes a bad decision?" question by posing a similar situation that is slightly less inflammatory due to the absence of sexual assault.

    Let's say that a student is a closeted homosexual male who attends a school with a known homophobic atmosphere. One day, he decides to come to school wearing a dress, make-up, and high heels. He is then beat-up.

    Now, I'm not condoning bigotry against homosexuals, and in an ideal world we wouldn't have people attack others for their differences, but can you really say that the boy in this scenario in no way contributed to the circumstances that resulted in him being physically assaulted? He knew what he was doing was a risky decision, but he did it anyway.

    I feel that part of the argument we're having here is due to the fact that words like "responsibility" and "fault" are loaded terms that prevent people from talking rationally about this issue.

    I feel like this is a red herring designed to draw focus away from the real problem: Bigotry, rapistry (not a word, I know), and the like.

    Because where do you draw the line? Did black people contribute to getting beat up by walking through predominantly white neighborhoods in the 60s or whatever?

    Who fucking cares? It isn't relevant and it isn't interesting. The only thing that actually matters is that someone raped someone else. Period.
    If your sister/female friend/mom or other femal acquaintance got dressed up in an incredibly revealing outift and told you she was going to go alone to party with some bikers/frat boys/gangsters or other unsavory characters that she didn't really know, I take it your response would be "Cool! Have fun! Sounds like a great idea."

    First off, there's a difference between individually telling someone you are related to "hmm, you know, let's think about this..." and promoting a chilling effect on female behavior on a collective, societal level. Second, there's a difference between proactive education, and reactive commentary. "It's probably not a good idea to do this" is much different than "you shouldn't have done this." Even if you are talking about the same exact behavior, these are widely different things.

    Would I tell my sister, if she was raped, "I guess you shouldn't have worn that dress"? Never. I don't know how I would act if she decided to go out like that in the first place. But I know I wouldn't make any comments of the like if (god forbid) any such atrocity ever occurred.

    steam_sig.png
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Drez wrote: »
    ona-whim wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So, no, commenting that a victim of a rape made bad decisions that put them in that situation is not an evidence of "rape culture" any more than saying playing three card monty on the street is stupid evidence of "fraud culture."

    Does wearing revealing clothing count as a bad decision?

    It's a decision that is more risky, yes. Just like driving over the speed limit is a risky decision.

    Did you just draw an equivalency between choice of clothes and an illegal act?

    Yes. It doesn't matter if one is legal and the other isn't; they are both decisions that carry a hypothetical risk.

    Some people get turned on by red hair. Is dying your hair red a bad decision?

    It's a bad decision if you know you're about to walk into a convention of rapists who have a fetish for dyed red hair, I suppose.

    There's an inherent risk in doing almost anything. In some cases, the risk is greater than others. I personally believe women should be allowed to run naked through the streets no matter what time of day or night without fear of being assaulted in any way at all. Doesn't make it a good idea to do, though.

    The problem is having this discussion at all. It's the worst kind of deception, because it is baked in reasonable half-truths. Yes, if I sit at home and never leave my house, very few things can kill me. It would be a terrible, boring life, but I would be as risk-free as a person can be. But it's not something we should really be discussing. I say it is the worst kind of deception because even if it is actually true to point out that not engaging in behavior that puts you in the presence of people that have no respect for other people eliminates some of the risk of those other people hurting you, it is only used to derail conversation about and deflate the reality of what actually matters and what actually should be the focus of discussion: the rapists and how to prevent it.

    Or have we given up on that, and so the only avenue left is to put women in behavior-restrictive boxes lest they get sexually assaulted? See, I'm not just against rape, I'm against the chilling effect rape has on female behavior. I'm not going to say it's as bad as being raped, but is IS another form of gender oppression, and a terrible one. Read ihollaback.org sometime. Women riding the subway in New York City run the gamut between defiant/angry and total avoidance of eye contact at unwanted attention. That's terrible. It seems like most women feel the need to either steel themselves against sexual advances, or to do their best not to engage anyone while on public transportation. I've seen it myself. I have dozens of friends that have dealt with it.

    And that's because of the culture that continues to propagate. Maybe "rape culture" is a bit overblown, I don't know or care, but there is a culture that constantly chips away at a woman's standard feeling of comfort and safety, and comments like "well, this is risky behavior" actively influence and contribute to this cultur
    e.

    You articulated this in a way that I could not - thank you very much for doing so...

    sig.jpg
  • ona-whimona-whim Registered User
    edited February 2011
    Drez wrote: »
    The problem is having this discussion at all. It's the worst kind of deception, because it is baked in reasonable half-truths. Yes, if I sit at home and never leave my house, very few things can kill me. It would be a terrible, boring life, but I would be as risk-free as a person can be. But it's not something we should really be discussing. I say it is the worst kind of deception because even if it is actually true to point out that not engaging in behavior that puts you in the presence of people that have no respect for other people eliminates some of the risk of those other people hurting you, it is only used to derail conversation about and deflate the reality of what actually matters and what actually should be the focus of discussion: the rapists and how to prevent it.

    Or have we given up on that, and so the only avenue left is to put women in behavior-restrictive boxes lest they get sexually assaulted? See, I'm not just against rape, I'm against the chilling effect rape has on female behavior. I'm not going to say it's as bad as being raped, but is IS another form of gender oppression, and a terrible one. Read ihollaback.org sometime. Women riding the subway in New York City run the gamut between defiant/angry and total avoidance of eye contact at unwanted attention. That's terrible. It seems like most women feel the need to either steel themselves against sexual advances, or to do their best not to engage anyone while on public transportation. I've seen it myself. I have dozens of friends that have dealt with it.

    And that's because of the culture that continues to propagate. Maybe "rape culture" is a bit overblown, I don't know or care, but there is a culture that constantly chips away at a woman's standard feeling of comfort and safety, and comments like "well, this is risky behavior" actively influence and contribute to this culture.

    I'm not saying we do nothing to stop rapes from happening or do nothing to make women or anyone else feel safe in doing what they want to do (so long as it doesn't harm others). I'm all for championing causes that would make this world a safer, more care-free place to live in. Until we get to that point where women can dress how they want in dark alleys, I think it's fair to advise women or anyone else to protect themselves however they can. If they choose to ignore that advise and get into trouble, I would not personally tell them that it's their own fault because it's not. It's the predator's fault. I'm not going to bathe in blood and then go swimming with sharks, but I'd like that right to do so someday. I just can't safely do it yet.

    Getting assaulted in well-lit public places like subways and such is a different story entirely. There SHOULD be more we can do to stop that stuff from happening. We have the technology and resources right NOW to allow a woman to stand naked in the middle of a subway car without being touched if we really wanted to make that happen. I don't know why more isn't done to stop it and it's horrible. But that's something that someone could do something about. I don't know how to stop guys from taking girls back to their place, drugging them, and raping them, so until we figure out how to make guys stop doing stuff like that, I feel comfortable saying that's it's not a great idea to go to a stranger's home "just for a few drinks".

    I'm not convinced that self-censoring "rape jokes" is going to do anything to deter real rapists.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    ona-whim wrote: »
    I'm not going to bathe in blood and then go swimming with sharks, but I'd like that right to do so someday. I just can't safely do it yet.
    ....Really?

    Oh, wait, metaphor. Never mind.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • ShrikeTheAvatarShrikeTheAvatar Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    ona-whim wrote: »

    I'm not convinced that self-censoring "rape jokes" is going to do anything to deter real rapists.

    It's hard to just make blanket statement and refer to any and all intersections of humor and rape as 'rape jokes,' because I think there really are some jokes that could contribute to rape culture (or whatever we're calling it) in certain contexts. But there are also plenty of contexts where it's not an issue at all.

    Hell - they link to some t-shirts on Shakesville that even I was offended by. Stuff like "Rape - my favorite hobby." That's classless.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    I'd like to focus on the "Is wearing revealing clothes a bad decision?" question by posing a similar situation that is slightly less inflammatory due to the absence of sexual assault.

    Let's say that a student is a closeted homosexual male who attends a school with a known homophobic atmosphere. One day, he decides to come to school wearing a dress, make-up, and high heels. He is then beat-up.

    Now, I'm not condoning bigotry against homosexuals, and in an ideal world we wouldn't have people attack others for their differences, but can you really say that the boy in this scenario in no way contributed to the circumstances that resulted in him being physically assaulted? He knew what he was doing was a risky decision, but he did it anyway.

    I feel that part of the argument we're having here is due to the fact that words like "responsibility" and "fault" are loaded terms that prevent people from talking rationally about this issue.

    I feel like this is a red herring designed to draw focus away from the real problem: Bigotry, rapistry (not a word, I know), and the like.

    Because where do you draw the line? Did black people contribute to getting beat up by walking through predominantly white neighborhoods in the 60s or whatever?

    Who fucking cares? It isn't relevant and it isn't interesting. The only thing that actually matters is that someone raped someone else. Period.
    If your sister/female friend/mom or other femal acquaintance got dressed up in an incredibly revealing outift and told you she was going to go alone to party with some bikers/frat boys/gangsters or other unsavory characters that she didn't really know, I take it your response would be "Cool! Have fun! Sounds like a great idea."

    So, there are actual statistics on people wearing revealing clothing being an increased risk of being rape victims or is this one of those "common sense" things?

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    ona-whim wrote: »

    I'm not convinced that self-censoring "rape jokes" is going to do anything to deter real rapists.

    It's hard to just make blanket statement and refer to any and all intersections of humor and rape as 'rape jokes,' because I think there really are some jokes that could contribute to rape culture (or whatever we're calling it) in certain contexts. But there are also plenty of contexts where it's not an issue at all.

    Hell - they link to some t-shirts on Shakesville that even I was offended by. Stuff like "Rape - my favorite hobby." That's classless.

    Don't bring up Shakesville. Apparently it's not relevant (regardless of the fact that they've been fanning the flames for the past couple of days).

    steam_sig.png
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    zeeny wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    I'd like to focus on the "Is wearing revealing clothes a bad decision?" question by posing a similar situation that is slightly less inflammatory due to the absence of sexual assault.

    Let's say that a student is a closeted homosexual male who attends a school with a known homophobic atmosphere. One day, he decides to come to school wearing a dress, make-up, and high heels. He is then beat-up.

    Now, I'm not condoning bigotry against homosexuals, and in an ideal world we wouldn't have people attack others for their differences, but can you really say that the boy in this scenario in no way contributed to the circumstances that resulted in him being physically assaulted? He knew what he was doing was a risky decision, but he did it anyway.

    I feel that part of the argument we're having here is due to the fact that words like "responsibility" and "fault" are loaded terms that prevent people from talking rationally about this issue.

    I feel like this is a red herring designed to draw focus away from the real problem: Bigotry, rapistry (not a word, I know), and the like.

    Because where do you draw the line? Did black people contribute to getting beat up by walking through predominantly white neighborhoods in the 60s or whatever?

    Who fucking cares? It isn't relevant and it isn't interesting. The only thing that actually matters is that someone raped someone else. Period.
    If your sister/female friend/mom or other femal acquaintance got dressed up in an incredibly revealing outift and told you she was going to go alone to party with some bikers/frat boys/gangsters or other unsavory characters that she didn't really know, I take it your response would be "Cool! Have fun! Sounds like a great idea."

    So, there are actual statistics on people wearing revealing clothing being an increased risk of being rape victims or is this one of those "common sense" things?
    I guess, if you want to be an utter pedant, there's no statistical evidence that dressing in revealing clothing, in of itself, increases your chances of being raped.

    So, if your sister wanted to wear lingerie to a a frat party put on by the Kappa Roofie Rapey fraternity, you'd think nothing of it. Since there's no academic study to prove that doing so is a bad idea.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • ona-whimona-whim Registered User
    edited February 2011
    ona-whim wrote: »

    I'm not convinced that self-censoring "rape jokes" is going to do anything to deter real rapists.

    It's hard to just make blanket statement and refer to any and all intersections of humor and rape as 'rape jokes,' because I think there really are some jokes that could contribute to rape culture (or whatever we're calling it) in certain contexts. But there are also plenty of contexts where it's not an issue at all.

    Hell - they link to some t-shirts on Shakesville that even I was offended by. Stuff like "Rape - my favorite hobby." That's classless.

    But there's a difference between being classless and actually being willing to rape someone. If someone wore a shirt that said "Rape-My Favorite Hobby", I'd probably assume that guy (or gal) was an actual rapist, but reading the shirt isn't going to turn ME into a rapist. If I see a guy high-five that guy and shout, "Yeah, that's my favorite hobby too, bro!", then I'll think that guy might be a rapist as well, but, again, seeing two rapists high-five each other in public doesn't make me think, "Well, damn, I thought rape was for losers, but those guys seem to be having fun with it...so..."

    Yes, I know the main argument isn't that jokes will turn people into rapists. I believe the primary argument is that people who are rape victims or deeply uncomfortable with being around those types of jokes should not be forced to be subjected to them and that's a fair argument, but my disagreement is that as bad as I personally feel for those who have been mentally scarred to the point where words hurt like real physical pain, I don't believe it's ever right to silence someone so long as you're capable of looking away. If I force my jokes on you, that's one thing. I should not do that. If you wander over to my website or my twitter page and see a joke you don't like, then you have the right to be offended, but you also have the right to turn around and walk in the other direction.

    Of course, if I then go to your site or twitter and tell you more jokes you don't like, then that's not so cool.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    I'd like to focus on the "Is wearing revealing clothes a bad decision?" question by posing a similar situation that is slightly less inflammatory due to the absence of sexual assault.

    Let's say that a student is a closeted homosexual male who attends a school with a known homophobic atmosphere. One day, he decides to come to school wearing a dress, make-up, and high heels. He is then beat-up.

    Now, I'm not condoning bigotry against homosexuals, and in an ideal world we wouldn't have people attack others for their differences, but can you really say that the boy in this scenario in no way contributed to the circumstances that resulted in him being physically assaulted? He knew what he was doing was a risky decision, but he did it anyway.

    I feel that part of the argument we're having here is due to the fact that words like "responsibility" and "fault" are loaded terms that prevent people from talking rationally about this issue.

    I feel like this is a red herring designed to draw focus away from the real problem: Bigotry, rapistry (not a word, I know), and the like.

    Because where do you draw the line? Did black people contribute to getting beat up by walking through predominantly white neighborhoods in the 60s or whatever?

    Who fucking cares? It isn't relevant and it isn't interesting. The only thing that actually matters is that someone raped someone else. Period.
    If your sister/female friend/mom or other femal acquaintance got dressed up in an incredibly revealing outift and told you she was going to go alone to party with some bikers/frat boys/gangsters or other unsavory characters that she didn't really know, I take it your response would be "Cool! Have fun! Sounds like a great idea."

    So, there are actual statistics on people wearing revealing clothing being an increased risk of being rape victims or is this one of those "common sense" things?
    I guess, if you want to be an utter pedant, there's no statistical evidence that dressing in revealing clothing, in of itself, increases your chances of being raped.

    So, if your sister wanted to wear lingerie to a a frat party put on by the Kappa Roofie Rapey fraternity, you'd think nothing of it. Since there's no academic study to prove that doing so is a bad idea.

    Frat's have "wear revealing clothing" parties all the time. I mean, that's kind of what they are known for. So, if everyone woman who goes to one of these isn't being raped, exactly what kind of point are you trying to make here?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Yes, I don't see any reason to assume that it's a bad idea. I have serious doubts that everybody else will be in nun outfits and raincoats.

    Edit: He isn't making a point. He's giving a lesson in cum hoc ergo propter hoc to the forums.

  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited February 2011
    ona-whim wrote: »
    I don't know how to stop guys from taking girls back to their place, drugging them, and raping them, so until we figure out how to make guys stop doing stuff like that, I feel comfortable saying that's it's not a great idea to go to a stranger's home "just for a few drinks".

    Roofy rape is something like 6% of rapes in London, only 1% of rapes involve the stereotypical blitz attack in a dark alley. The majority of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim already knows.

    People aren't going crazy and wandering into stranger's homes going "Tra la la la laaaaa nothing bad can happen here", they are being raped in their own homes by people they know and trust.

    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »

    So, if your sister wanted to wear lingerie to a a frat party put on by the Kappa Roofie Rapey fraternity, you'd think nothing of it. Since there's no academic study to prove that doing so is a bad idea.

    Are you saying more rapes happen at lingerie parties than other parties?

  • ona-whimona-whim Registered User
    edited February 2011
    Sentry wrote: »
    Frat's have "wear revealing clothing" parties all the time. I mean, that's kind of what they are known for. So, if everyone woman who goes to one of these isn't being raped, exactly what kind of point are you trying to make here?

    There's a risk even at "wear revealing clothing" parties, especially if it's at a frat with horny drunk dudes. They should be allowed to have those parties, I believe, but everyone involved should also be aware of the risks. If you're comfortable with the risks, then you should absolutely go and have a blast.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    ona-whim wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Frat's have "wear revealing clothing" parties all the time. I mean, that's kind of what they are known for. So, if everyone woman who goes to one of these isn't being raped, exactly what kind of point are you trying to make here?

    There's a risk even at "wear revealing clothing" parties, especially if it's at a frat with horny drunk dudes. They should be allowed to have those parties, I believe, but everyone involved should also be aware of the risks. If you're comfortable with the risks, then you should absolutely go and have a blast.

    No one has shown there is any more risk of being raped at one of those parties then there is of being raped at a church mixer.

    And has been stated over and over again, the stranger rape scenario accounts for like, 1% of all rapes, so is that even relevant to this discussion at all?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Perhaps I missed it in the proceeding 40+ pages, but did anyone actually define "rape culture" yet? Because it seems like a really, really, really stupid term to be using. It doesn't mean anything. I request that people stop using phrases and words that don't mean anything.

    Seriously, does it mean we live in a culture of rape? Where it is an acceptable thing that no one bats an eye at? Because that's wrong. Go find me one bit of news footage from any news station that has ever existed in this country where this happens:

    "A woman was raped in downtown Bakersville today"

    "Ah, good for the perp. He got his. Hahahaha"

    Or does it mean that making jokes about rape makes people more apt to be rapists in the future? If that's the case, are there any studies to back this up? Are people being desensitized and turned into rapists because of a PA comic? If so, I'd love to know so I can stop reading it. Wouldn't want to be a rapist, after all.

    Until someone can find a usable definition and present it to the class, I request people stop using the goosing phrase.

    PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.

    Height: 5' 11" Weight: 225 Goal: 200
  • ona-whimona-whim Registered User
    edited February 2011
    ona-whim wrote: »
    I don't know how to stop guys from taking girls back to their place, drugging them, and raping them, so until we figure out how to make guys stop doing stuff like that, I feel comfortable saying that's it's not a great idea to go to a stranger's home "just for a few drinks".

    Roofy rape is something like 6% of rapes in London, only 1% of rapes involve the stereotypical blitz attack in a dark alley. The majority of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim already knows.

    People aren't going crazy and wandering into stranger's homes going "Tra la la la laaaaa nothing bad can happen here", they are being raped in their own homes by people they know and trust.

    And? That doesn't mean you won't be one of the 6% or 1%, which means the risk is still there, which means it's still worth noting because being raped really sucks. If the 6% or 1% was people getting lightly bumped on the head, then the risk wouldn't be nearly as important to note, but we're talking about rape, so 1% and 6% is enough to note.

    The fact that most rapes happen between people who already know and trust each other is a completely different matter. I don't know how you would prevent that type of behavior between people who know one another because it's really hard to target such a thing because we can't become a police state that monitors people in their own homes.

  • ona-whimona-whim Registered User
    edited February 2011
    Sentry wrote: »
    ona-whim wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Frat's have "wear revealing clothing" parties all the time. I mean, that's kind of what they are known for. So, if everyone woman who goes to one of these isn't being raped, exactly what kind of point are you trying to make here?

    There's a risk even at "wear revealing clothing" parties, especially if it's at a frat with horny drunk dudes. They should be allowed to have those parties, I believe, but everyone involved should also be aware of the risks. If you're comfortable with the risks, then you should absolutely go and have a blast.

    No one has shown there is any more risk of being raped at one of those parties then there is of being raped at a church mixer.

    And has been stated over and over again, the stranger rape scenario accounts for like, 1% of all rapes, so is that even relevant to this discussion at all?

    Fair enough. Now that we know the risk is minimal, it's totally cool if we all go to sexy parties with strangers and drink anything that anyone gives us.

This discussion has been closed.