I have a very hard time believing "she asked for it" is enshrined in our culture.
The other two yeah, they're accepted.
Nowadays, "she asked for it" is more likely expressed as, "what did she expect?" "sometimes you have to be more careful," or other claims that survivors need to be or should have been "more responsible". Anything that puts the onus of preventing rape on people other than rapists, or that suggests that people can control whether they are raped or not, is a part of rape culture.
I worry when I see "what did she expect" called out like this. Obviously, victim blaming is really bad, but I also think it is important to keep in mind that, given the state of the world there are some things a woman probably should not do, like walking into a biker bar alone in a short skirt. While her doing that does not in anyway excuse or mitigate the fact of the rape, I think we do want to enforce the norm that this behavior is a bad idea, just like it would be a bad idea for me to go walking around alone at night in a bad part of Harlem.
Ideally we would live in a world where anyone can go anywhere they want.
This is classic blame the victim thinking, SKFM, and it's a good example of how we all do it without even thinking. Drives the point home that constant vigilance is the price we pay for democracy and all that.
Ideally we would never have war, we could travel space, and no one would be poor. Unfortunately we live in the real world.
Herein we see a post which has completely missed the point.
You don't blame the victim, if you do, you're a dick. All "what did she expect" does is let rapists off the hook. People like Liz Trotta who trot that chestnut out make me sick and they're a cancer on our national discourse. Because a woman wore a short skirt does not mean that rapists can be absolved. The woman is never at fault when she gets raped. Full fucking stop.
Of course it doesn't make rape acceptable, but it also doesn't make it acceptable to be intentionally thick and mind numbingly naive.
I feel like Heisenberg is performing some type of performance art to provide the perfect example of rape culture which he claims to be arguing against.
Either that or he's being intentionally thick and mind numbingly naive.
Why is finding rape horrible and having common sense mutually exclusive? People are bad and will do bad things given the opportunity. Don't give them the opportunity. Spacekungfu already said it: "walking into a biker bar alone in a short skirt. While her doing that does not in anyway excuse or mitigate the fact of the rape, I think we do want to enforce the norm that this behavior is a bad idea, just like it would be a bad idea for me to go walking around alone at night in a bad part of Harlem."
Yes, but you should be encouraging smart behavior on its own right.
You don't do it by saying "What was she expecting". Don't blame the victim.
I'm actually explicitly not blaming the victim. What I am saying is we should not talk about how bad it is to say "she should not have gone to x dangerous place" so much that we make it sound like going to dangerous places is not bad.
The problem is that in saying "she should not have gone to x dangerous place", you're positing onto the victim a foreknowledge that rape was a possible consequences of her actions, since x was a dangerous place. By phrasing it this way, you're saying, in effect, "She knew she could be raped if she did X, and she did X anyway."
That's problematic.
I think we can justifiably communicate a causal, factual, story of what transpired, and then posit counter-factuals regarding that causal story to express a possible world in which a rape did not occur: "If she had never gone to the location at which the rape occurred, then she would not have been raped at that location."
Factual descriptions do not place blame on the individual.
When you go beyond the facts, and incorporate an idea that a particular location is more rape-prone than others, and the victim must have known that, then you’re in “blaming the victim” territory.
If the point is that we must own the language we use, even beyond its intention, then why purposefully choose terminology that both does not quite mean what it purports to, and has the side effect of making others not want to talk reasonably with you?
I take ownership of the words I use, which means I try to plainly explain what I mean and clear up any illusions about my intent.
It doesn't mean I stop using a particular set of words forever because some people misunderstood me.
"Sorry, I didn't mean to (promote any sort of rape or rape culture with my bawdy song) / (imply that you actually approve of or seek out rape when I said you promote rape culture). You must have misunderstood me. Please try not to misunderstand me when I (sing that song) / (use those words) in the future."
Put the alternative words in parentheses into the sentence as you see fit, it doesn't matter - you're saying that despite what your words could reasonably say on their face, you're intent was something different... so we're back to square one. When do our words seem to carry some non-verbal, contextual cultural impact or make an environment hostile (and thus make us responsible for their perception by others, not just their content and intent), and when do our words only mean what we intend they do?
I have no sensibilities. I am pretty much near unflappable, so I'm not offended by frank discussions of these things. At the same time, remarking how there seems to be a curious choice of language at work is not about me being offended - when I first heard some accuse someone else of promoting "rape culture" my automatic response wasn't "How offensive!", it was "What the Christ, at what point did someone advocate a culture of rape?". Not a culture where the act of rape is criminal but robbed of its criminality insidiously, not a culture where we'd rather look the other way, or make it hard on the accuser - no, a culture of rape is a culture that holds rape as an ideal or a value to be aspired to. When I think of a culture of rape, I think of US prisons.
It's interesting that you chose the construction "culture of rape" rather than "rape culture". I assume that you did that because you agree that while "rape culture" admits the interpretation "culture of rape", it also admits other interpretations. If that is the case, then I am sure you would also agree that there is no phrase more succinct and attention-grabbing than "rape culture" to describe a culture with some aspects that make rape too easy to perpetrate without consequences.
No, I chose that because it highlights the natural interpretation of the term - the noun adjunct "rape" modifies the noun "culture" (like "dog collar" means a collar for dogs, or "grass field" means a field of grass). The term implies a culture wherein rape plays a predominant role - like if I said the Vikings were a "sea culture" I surely wouldn't mean they were a culture that facilitated seagoing even though it was illegal for them, and likewise if I said the US South was a "slave culture" I'm not implying that slavery was illegal and broadly looked down upon but said criminality and disgust were often undermined. If I wanted to say those things, I'd have to come right out and say them since the natural language of (act) + culture does not imply that.
Ultimanecat on
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
The precise point of using the term "rape culture" is to make the person you're talking to uncomfortable. Everyone is against rape in the abstract, because society has done a decent job of making everyone aware that "rape = bad", the same way that "racism = bad"; this leads to secondary justifications of "I'm not a racist, but..." and "What, that? That wasn't rape! It was just nonconsensual sex!" Plenty of people can easily fully believe "rape = bad" while keeping that thought in a box that has nothing to do with them, their friends, their family, their politics, or their entertainment. The only way to fix this is to use the "= bad" word that people already believe, to force them to confront the notion that maybe culture and rape do have something to do with one another. That's going to be an uncomfortable experience for people, because nobody likes being told that the people and the things that they like are associated with something they've been conditioned to know is bad. If saying "rape culture" didn't make people upset and uncomfortable, if it didn't make them have a cognitive experience that they didn't want, you wouldn't need the term.
Edit:
Also, perhaps the chief the problem with the whole "but we just want to remind women that dark alleys are dangerous" thing is that nobody EVER enters these discussions to say, "Just a reminder, men who go down dark alleys at night should try to resist raping the women they meet there." Not because they're explicitly pro-rape (who could be pro-rape? rape = bad!), but because they assume rapists are "other" people, evil criminal people whose attitudes won't be changed and who will just go on raping and we have to accept that. If you'll notice, those are all ideas that contribute to rape culture.
Sure, but can you see how that sort of inflammatory language would turn away someone who wasn't already aware of the issue of cultural misogyny?
Yep. However, there isn't a more accurate or less inflammatory term for it.
See, I've been reading your comments trying to figure out if you have a problem with the "rape" half or the "culture" half of "rape culture." Since "culture" isn't an inflammatory word, I have to presume that it's "rape."
The chant in the OP is describing rape. it's not just describing misogyny, the lyrics explicitly wish that women were unable to fight back against unwanted intercourse. What it describes is exactly, completely, unequivocably rape.
The concept of rape culture is that there are aspects of culture that facilitate or trivialize thanks, Arch! rape. Not kinda-sorta-metaphorical rape, but actual rape. That there are more women who are being forced against their will to have sex because the people doing it are particularly sensitive to cultural messages telling them that it's not that bad. That when women are forced against their will to have sex, they feel shamed and helpless because of cultural messages telling them that it wasn't that bad, or that they deserved it.
What you are railing against is not inflammatory language. You are railing against the concept itself. You find the idea objectionable.
Which is fine. You don't have to agree with me. Plenty of people disagree with me. But they actually come out and say it. 'I don't think that rape culture is a thing.' That's fine. You don't think it's a thing.
But your premise that the term 'rape culture' is needlessly inflammatory rhetoric is a red herring. "Rape culture" is a precise, though short, descriptor for the concept we're talking about.
I'm not sure we disagree on any particular points about the culture itself. I think that our culture is permissive towards misogyny and, in some situations, permissive towards rape. I think culturally we often view rape as something that happens to 'bad' people, and that some cultural norms in our society support this. I think we often react to rape of women by blaming them, react to rape of men by doubting them, and react to rape of criminals by ignoring them. This is the culture we live in. As near as I can tell, you and I don't disagree on any particular cultural point.
I object to tying all of those things together into the phrase "rape culture" for the same reason I object to calling abortion 'infanticide', calling video games 'murder simulators', and calling reasonable discussions about how to allocate medical resources 'death panels.' In every case it's an inflammatory sound bite designed to silence people who disagree. I'm not even convinced that you need one phrase to tie all of those things together, because they're very different issues and I haven't ever seen anyone draw a common thread between them, beyond the fact that rape is involved. For example, I think the impulses that make us demand "justice" for criminals are probably different than the impulses that make people ignore male victims, and those cultural norms will be changed in different ways. Just high-end embezzlement on wall street is a different cultural issue than liquor-store robbery.
The fact that so many people even in this thread have misunderstood the language you're using (and taken it to mean something far more inflammatory and extreme than it actually means) suggests to me that we should use a different term, if we must use one at all.
The huge giant elephant of difference in the room is that rape is terrible and videogames, the right to abortion and medical treatment are not. So what you describe as 'inflammatory' terms are perhaps entirely appropriate.
'Rape culture' is a new term which is at odds with widespread accepted behaviour in our culture. It will be misunderstood, just as 'feminism' is. It will remain contested until the time that it becomes useless due to the disappearance of the problem.
Right. And to understand why it's an awful term, look at how the other side sees their arguments. Obviously infanticide is terrible, and abortion is a form of infanticide so it must be equally bad. Socialism is really just an economic system where the government owns everything, so clearly any attempt to make the government own anything is a step towards a more socialist culture. Clearly a disproportionate number of video games have you murdering people, so it's not unreasonable to say that many of them are "murder simulators." It's all just language, right? If the definition is technically correct, what does it matter what you call it? Clearly all of these terms are entirely appropriate, even though they also happen to tar the other side as a bunch of hateful criminals.
Remember, no rape actually occurred here. So you're using the extreme reaction people have to rapes to demonize a student for singing a dumb misogynist song. As if singing a misogynist song is somehow not sufficient on its own.
That kind of language doesn't convince people, it polarizes them. You shouldn't have to resort to inflammatory soundbites to get your point across.
Squidget0 on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
We need to balance avoiding victim blaming and discouraging bad and dangerous decisions.
My best friend was raped by a cab driver who she called to take her home after drinking.
"If you've been drinking, call a cab," is typically held to be good advice.
My ex-girlfriend was raped by an ex-boyfriend who she'd been dating for a few months.
"Don't spend time alone with your boyfriend" is not a typical safety tip.
Here's the thing - the idea that you can reduce rape by "discouraging bad and dangerous decisions" is a load of crap. The majority of rapes aren't stranger rapes, they are acquaintance rapes, committed by people who the victim was in a position to reasonably trust.
Women already know that they shouldn't be in dangerous situations. You know - without being told! - not to walk down dark alleys in the ghetto alone. I know it too, without being told. Why? Because we have common sense.
Now, to presume that young women don't actually know this, that they don't actually know that situations can be dangerous, implies that they are either stupid or ridiculously sheltered. On an individual level, either of these things may be true - there are stupid and sheltered young women out there, as there are stupid and sheltered young men. But that's a thing to be assessed in a 1-on-1 conversation with a specific person. On a social level, it's a bit insulting to women as a group to insinuate that inability to identify dangerous situations is a primary driver of rape rates, and that if women were just a little more careful, they wouldn't get raped as much.
I don't often disagree with you, but I have to here. There is one very simple thing that women could do on college campuses to cut down on rapes: not get drunk at frat/sports house parties. Is it fair to say that women should not be able to drink as much as they want to at parties? No. But I think it is good, sensible advice, and I worry about giving the impression that these types of concerns don't carry weight.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
We need to balance avoiding victim blaming and discouraging bad and dangerous decisions.
My best friend was raped by a cab driver who she called to take her home after drinking.
"If you've been drinking, call a cab," is typically held to be good advice.
My ex-girlfriend was raped by an ex-boyfriend who she'd been dating for a few months.
"Don't spend time alone with your boyfriend" is not a typical safety tip.
Here's the thing - the idea that you can reduce rape by "discouraging bad and dangerous decisions" is a load of crap. The majority of rapes aren't stranger rapes, they are acquaintance rapes, committed by people who the victim was in a position to reasonably trust.
Women already know that they shouldn't be in dangerous situations. You know - without being told! - not to walk down dark alleys in the ghetto alone. I know it too, without being told. Why? Because we have common sense.
Now, to presume that young women don't actually know this, that they don't actually know that situations can be dangerous, implies that they are either stupid or ridiculously sheltered. On an individual level, either of these things may be true - there are stupid and sheltered young women out there, as there are stupid and sheltered young men. But that's a thing to be assessed in a 1-on-1 conversation with a specific person. On a social level, it's a bit insulting to women as a group to insinuate that inability to identify dangerous situations is a primary driver of rape rates, and that if women were just a little more careful, they wouldn't get raped as much.
I don't often disagree with you, but I have to here. There is one very simple thing that women could do on college campuses to cut down on rapes: not get drunk at frat/sports house parties. Is it fair to say that women should not be able to drink as much as they want to at parties? No. But I think it is good, sensible advice, and I worry about giving the impression that these types of concerns don't carry weight.
There's one simple thing that men could do on college campuses to cut down on rapes: stop raping women at frat/sports house parties.
There is one very simple thing that women could do on college campuses to cut down on rapes: not get drunk at frat/sports house parties.
This is what we call "blaming the victim".
Rather than argue that men oughtn't rape women, you're arguing that women ought to try to be less rapeable.
This is a problem.
I am saying deal with the world as it is, instead of suffering harms in protest that it isn't the world we want it to be. Obviously we need to get this message to men. I case you did not see, earlier in the thread I literally advocated banning frats altogether (as some universities have done) because of the rapes at parties. But if there is something we can do to cut down on rapes while waiting for men to stop being assholes, then why shouldn't we do it?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
There is one very simple thing that women could do on college campuses to cut down on rapes: not get drunk at frat/sports house parties.
This is what we call "blaming the victim".
Rather than argue that men oughtn't rape women, you're arguing that women ought to try to be less rapeable.
This is a problem.
I am saying deal with the world as it is, instead of suffering harms in protest that it isn't the world we want it to be. Obviously we need to get this message to men. I case you did not see, earlier in the thread I literally advocated banning frats altogether (as some universities have done) because of the rapes at parties. But if there is something we can do to cut down on rapes while waiting for men to stop being assholes, then why shouldn't we do it?
Because the onus isn't on women to stop getting raped. It's on rapists to stop being raping.
And, most rapes are committed by people that the woman trusts.
But if there is something we can do to cut down on rapes while waiting for men to stop being assholes, then why shouldn't we do it?
Any move we make the place the responsibility / causal efficacy on women detracts from the fact that the male who rapes is the one who is engaged in wrongdoing.
But if there is something we can do to cut down on rapes while waiting for men to stop being assholes, then why shouldn't we do it?
Any move we make the place the responsibility / causal efficacy on women detracts from the fact that the male who rapes is the one who is engaged in wrongdoing.
I think that's the reply.
So we shouldn't tell women to avoid known dangerous situations? This literally sounds like you are saying we should accept more real, actual harms in pursuit of the goal of reducing those exact same harms.
The reason you don't see posters like that (although you probably should) is because much of that is assumed - do you really need a warning to NOT rape people or to know it is wrong? Is there really someone socially adjusted who simply doesn't understand that assault is a bad thing?
To the topic at hand; juvenile conversation from mental juveniles. Shocking. The Professor's response, which is entirely couched in the idea that words ARE actions (thought included), is beyond stupid ESPECIALLY naming and shaming those involved. If these folks were talking about actually raping someone - sure, put their name and business out there. That they are engaging in childish internet conversation that the Professor disagree's with is NOT a reason to put someone shit out there (or at least call attention to it if it's not a private group) as the Professor did.
He may have felt he did the right thing in a civic minded view, but god damn did he fail all kinds of academic conduct.
"Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
I just happened across this article that looks at actual research (surveys and interviews with college students and unreported rapists) to determine how rapists work. Turns out, they look to the people surrounding their victims--friends, family, the support network--for victim blaming, misogyny, rape apology, and other aspects of rape culture, because the women surrounded by those people won't have the support she needs in order to report and prosecute later.
Lisak doesn’t actually say this, but having read some of his work in depth now, I really think the major difference between the incarcerated and the non-incarcerated rapists are that the former cannot or do not confine themselves to tactics that are low-risk to them. The undetected rapists overwhelmingly use minimal or no force, rely mostly on alcohol and rape their acquaintances. They create situations where the culture will protect them by making excuses for them and questioning or denying their victims. Incarcerated rapists, I think, are just the ones who use the tactics that society is more willing to recognize as rape and less willing to make excuses for.
It is the modus operandi that keeps the undetected rapist undetected: they correctly identify a methodology that will put them under the protection of the rape culture. They are unlikely to be convicted because the story doesn’t fit the script. In fact, they are unlikely to be arrested because the story doesn’t lead to easy convictions. In fact, they are unlikely to be reported because rape survivors know that the tactics these men use leave them with little real recourse. In fact, these rapists may put the victim in a position where she is so intoxicated or terrified or just isolated and defeated that she never even says “no,” and because the culture overwhelmingly refuses to call these tactics what they are, even the victims themselves may be unable to call it rape for a very long time afterward, if ever.
This research shows that rapists aren’t just testing the boundaries of their victims, but they’re testing the boundaries of the entire social group and support structure that surrounds the victim. A potential rapist might find a potential victim who does not respond well to his attempts to invade her boundaries and otherwise wouldn’t be a good target, but if that potential victim is surrounded by friends that laugh at rape jokes, don’t speak up when the potential rapist goes on sexist screeds, and doesn’t offer support when the potential victim says that guy is really creeping her out, that potential rapist (or serial rapist) is going to make an accurate assumption that when he rapes your friend, you won’t help her prosecute. You probably won’t even believe her, which — good news for the rapist! — means he can rape all your other friends now, too, before moving on to a new social circle.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the research is that it strongly suggests that majority of rapes are carried out by a small group of repeat offenders (who seem to average about 6 rapes each), roughly 4% of the population. It's the rest of us who end up protecting them by excusing, redefining, or de-emphasizing their actions in favor of victim blaming.
Astaereth on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So we shouldn't tell women to avoid known dangerous situations?
I think it's quite patronizing to assume that we'd need to tell them.
But if all you do is talk about how it is wrong to say "she shouldn't have gone to x dangerous place, then I worry that the message becomes "women should not worry about going to dangerous places.". Like I said before, I'm scared of increasing real harms in service of an ideal.
The precise point of using the term "rape culture" is to make the person you're talking to uncomfortable. Everyone is against rape in the abstract, because society has done a decent job of making everyone aware that "rape = bad", the same way that "racism = bad"; this leads to secondary justifications of "I'm not a racist, but..." and "What, that? That wasn't rape! It was just nonconsensual sex!" Plenty of people can easily fully believe "rape = bad" while keeping that thought in a box that has nothing to do with them, their friends, their family, their politics, or their entertainment. The only way to fix this is to use the "= bad" word that people already believe, to force them to confront the notion that maybe culture and rape do have something to do with one another. That's going to be an uncomfortable experience for people, because nobody likes being told that the people and the things that they like are associated with something they've been conditioned to know is bad. If saying "rape culture" didn't make people upset and uncomfortable, if it didn't make them have a cognitive experience that they didn't want, you wouldn't need the term.
That's really the only way to fix this - to use loaded language and appeal to emotional reactions? Because if it is fine to intentionally make people uncomfortable to convince them there is something wrong with their beliefs, then I'm not sure why it isn't fine to unintentionally make others uncomfortable with no prescriptive motive whatsoever.
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I have a very hard time believing "she asked for it" is enshrined in our culture.
The other two yeah, they're accepted.
Nowadays, "she asked for it" is more likely expressed as, "what did she expect?" "sometimes you have to be more careful," or other claims that survivors need to be or should have been "more responsible". Anything that puts the onus of preventing rape on people other than rapists, or that suggests that people can control whether they are raped or not, is a part of rape culture.
I worry when I see "what did she expect" called out like this. Obviously, victim blaming is really bad, but I also think it is important to keep in mind that, given the state of the world there are some things a woman probably should not do, like walking into a biker bar alone in a short skirt. While her doing that does not in anyway excuse or mitigate the fact of the rape, I think we do want to enforce the norm that this behavior is a bad idea, just like it would be a bad idea for me to go walking around alone at night in a bad part of Harlem.
Ideally we would live in a world where anyone can go anywhere they want.
This is classic blame the victim thinking, SKFM, and it's a good example of how we all do it without even thinking. Drives the point home that constant vigilance is the price we pay for democracy and all that.
Spacekungfuman is the guy who wants people to take their hats off indoors because he views hat indoors as the height of rudeness. What did you expect.
So we shouldn't tell women to avoid known dangerous situations?
I think it's quite patronizing to assume that we'd need to tell them.
But if all you do is talk about how it is wrong to say "she shouldn't have gone to x dangerous place, then I worry that the message becomes "women should not worry about going to dangerous places.". Like I said before, I'm scared of increasing real harms in service of an ideal.
I'd hope that persons are not stupid enough to ignore reasonable threats to their person.
I don't think anyone is arguing, "Women can go anywhere they want, and do anything they want, without fear of being harmed in any way."
The reason you don't see posters like that (although you probably should) is because much of that is assumed - do you women really need a warning to NOT rape people or to know it is wrong go somewhere dangerous? Is there really someone socially adjusted who simply doesn't understand that assault is a bad thing going out alone can be dangerous?
No, I chose that because it highlights the natural interpretation of the term - the noun adjunct "rape" modifies the noun "culture" (like "dog collar" means a collar for dogs, or "grass field" means a field of grass). The term implies a culture wherein rape plays a predominant role - like if I said the Vikings were a "sea culture" I surely wouldn't mean they were a culture that facilitated seagoing even though it was illegal for them, and likewise if I said the US South was a "slave culture" I'm not implying that slavery was illegal and broadly looked down upon but said criminality and disgust were often undermined. If I wanted to say those things, I'd have to come right out and say them since the natural language of (act) + culture does not imply that.
All this shows is that you have to take claims about Culture A being a "[Something] Culture" in context and not automatically prefer the interpretation that fails to reflect reality. If [Something] is not obviously illegal and ostensibly frowned-upon, then the culture probably out and out supports [Something]. If, on the other hand, [Something] is obviously illegal and ostensibly frowned-upon, then the culture can't support [Something] outright, but it might contain elements that undermine the outward displays of condemnation.
No, I chose that because it highlights the natural interpretation of the term - the noun adjunct "rape" modifies the noun "culture" (like "dog collar" means a collar for dogs, or "grass field" means a field of grass). The term implies a culture wherein rape plays a predominant role - like if I said the Vikings were a "sea culture" I surely wouldn't mean they were a culture that facilitated seagoing even though it was illegal for them, and likewise if I said the US South was a "slave culture" I'm not implying that slavery was illegal and broadly looked down upon but said criminality and disgust were often undermined. If I wanted to say those things, I'd have to come right out and say them since the natural language of (act) + culture does not imply that.
All this shows is that you have to take claims about Culture A being a "[Something] Culture" in context and not automatically prefer the interpretation that fails to reflect reality. If [Something] is not obviously illegal and ostensibly frowned-upon, then the culture probably out and out supports [Something]. If, on the other hand, [Something] is obviously illegal and ostensibly frowned-upon, then the culture can't support [Something] outright, but it might contain elements that undermine the outward displays of condemnation.
I already said that I didn't immediately jump to the the latter interpretation when I first heard the term. Your contextual approach didn't even enter my mind. Apparently, neither did it for the operators of this website, or any number of other people whom I can point to. Are you arguing that we were being willfully obtuse, or is it perhaps more reasonable to say that the term, prima facie, does not always and necessarily mean the same as its academic definition?
I don't have facebook, so I can't read the comment. I have no idea why you wouldn't just copy and paste it if you intend for people to read it anyway. Now I don't know if what I'm saying is even relevant or not.
In any case I cant stand this mentality where people act like if you make enough jokes about something then it happens more often. No amount of Jew jokes is going to lead to another holocaust. No amount of rape jokes is going to make somebody just one day decide "Oh hey, I think I'll rape somebody today."
People are terrified of the things they can't laugh at being laughed at by others, and its a fearful mentality, which is to say one that distorts one's perception of reality for the worse.
Edit: it's in the article actually:
Guy:I wish that all the women
Group: I wish that all the women!
Guy: Were statues of Venus
Group: Were statues of Venus!
Guy: Cuz then they`d have no arms
Group: Cuz then they`d have no arms!
Guy: To push away my penis
Group: To push away my penis!
Yeah now that I heard that (really lame) joke, rape seems pretty harmless, we should legalize it.
Getting so upset about this asinine bullshit that you write an article about it and drag a student before the ethics committee is so incredibly unproductive it blows my mind.
If you want to make some kind of impact on "rape culture," which I am willing for the sake of this argument to stipulate exists, start by kicking the Pikes off every campus in the nation.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The precise point of using the term "rape culture" is to make the person you're talking to uncomfortable. Everyone is against rape in the abstract, because society has done a decent job of making everyone aware that "rape = bad", the same way that "racism = bad"; this leads to secondary justifications of "I'm not a racist, but..." and "What, that? That wasn't rape! It was just nonconsensual sex!" Plenty of people can easily fully believe "rape = bad" while keeping that thought in a box that has nothing to do with them, their friends, their family, their politics, or their entertainment. The only way to fix this is to use the "= bad" word that people already believe, to force them to confront the notion that maybe culture and rape do have something to do with one another. That's going to be an uncomfortable experience for people, because nobody likes being told that the people and the things that they like are associated with something they've been conditioned to know is bad. If saying "rape culture" didn't make people upset and uncomfortable, if it didn't make them have a cognitive experience that they didn't want, you wouldn't need the term.
That's really the only way to fix this - to use loaded language and appeal to emotional reactions? Because if it is fine to intentionally make people uncomfortable to convince them there is something wrong with their beliefs, then I'm not sure why it isn't fine to unintentionally make others uncomfortable with no prescriptive motive whatsoever.
First off, really? "It's okay to do x if you have a good reason" == "it's okay to do x for no reason at all"?
Second, it's both that teaching somebody about rape culture is going to be uncomfortable no matter what words you use (the very idea, when new, can be scary and depressing and it is often uncomfortable to question our assumptions) and that sometimes the best way through the mental barriers (in the defense of which people will often equivocate, justify, redefine) is to be as direct and clear as possible. And maybe throwing in a little shock value for good measure can make it harder for people to brush the idea aside without considering it.
Or they can do what happens to everyone and just habituate to the shock
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The concept of rape culture is that there are aspects of culture that facilitate or trivialize thanks, Arch! rape. Not kinda-sorta-metaphorical rape, but actual rape. That there are more women who are being forced against their will to have sex because the people doing it are particularly sensitive to cultural messages telling them that it's not that bad. That when women are forced against their will to have sex, they feel shamed and helpless because of cultural messages telling them that it wasn't that bad, or that they deserved it.
I won't speak for Squidet, but as I think I've in D&D before, I don't think rape culture is an appropriate descriptor for North American or European culture because:
a) All judicial institutes recognize that rape is criminal behaviour, and this is likewise recognized by a majority of the general public. Enforcement of the governing laws is carried-out in a pretty disheartening fashion, but the foundational value is that rape is a crime with severe legal consequences, which in turn means that we should be able to move forward simply by improving law enforcement.
b) Instances of rape, alongside all other forms of violent crime, are at all time lows and continue to decline year by year, decade by decade. If we really are encouraging or trivializing rape, we would expect to see a trend in the opposite direction.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
B: A term that does itself a disservice by being overly provocative.
C: Often applied so broadly as to be meaningless. If we apply the term on a nationwide scale then it applies to every country and culture in the world. I'd say that's a bit broad to have a great deal of meaning.
As a result of this, nearly every time the word is used that becomes the topic, which is a waste of time. Whereas if you're a little more circumspect and apply the term to individual groups and subcultures you stand a much greater chance of getting somewhere.
Fraternities are a very good example. They often have a huge subculture that excuses many forms of rape, mostly date/party rape involving non-consent. The idea that, "That's what these girls come to parties for!" or, "We were making out and practically there already," counts as consent is super prevalent.
This song is a very good example of something that normalizes rape. The message is, "We would all be happier if girls couldn't stop us from having sex with them." The entire reason it's funny is it's saying, "It's so true that we all feel this way even though we would never act on it because we know it would be wrong." Which makes you feel more normal if you would like to bang a couple of chicks even though they want you to stop. And more justified if you end up acting on it. You're maybe just the guy that has the balls to do what everybody else would like to, but won't.
We need to balance avoiding victim blaming and discouraging bad and dangerous decisions.
My best friend was raped by a cab driver who she called to take her home after drinking.
"If you've been drinking, call a cab," is typically held to be good advice.
My ex-girlfriend was raped by an ex-boyfriend who she'd been dating for a few months.
"Don't spend time alone with your boyfriend" is not a typical safety tip.
Here's the thing - the idea that you can reduce rape by "discouraging bad and dangerous decisions" is a load of crap. The majority of rapes aren't stranger rapes, they are acquaintance rapes, committed by people who the victim was in a position to reasonably trust.
Women already know that they shouldn't be in dangerous situations. You know - without being told! - not to walk down dark alleys in the ghetto alone. I know it too, without being told. Why? Because we have common sense.
Now, to presume that young women don't actually know this, that they don't actually know that situations can be dangerous, implies that they are either stupid or ridiculously sheltered. On an individual level, either of these things may be true - there are stupid and sheltered young women out there, as there are stupid and sheltered young men. But that's a thing to be assessed in a 1-on-1 conversation with a specific person. On a social level, it's a bit insulting to women as a group to insinuate that inability to identify dangerous situations is a primary driver of rape rates, and that if women were just a little more careful, they wouldn't get raped as much.
This is generally true. Few and far between are the cases where some woman strolls around dowtown topless for a couple hours around three A.M. and then, predictably to everyone except her, she gets assaulted.
However I think the disconnect between you and SKFM here is that he's talking about a rare case where it does kind of happen. It's as true as I go through college now as it was the first time. A ton of freshman and sophomore girls get invited to, and go to, frat parties thinking it'll be flirting and free drinks and a lot like high-school. Or that the cute and/or popular boy that invited them is asking them on a normal college-ey date. And they have absolutely no clue how horrible and predatory some of those parties can be until it's much too late.
Hmm... however it's not like the solution is some campaign to better educate these girls. What a waste of resources. If you were going to spend time or money at something it should probably be to, as he said, shut down frats entirely. Well not exactly I guess. More like a campaign to make people aware of how horrible and rapey these places are. Which would go towards both of those causes at the same time. This is all a bit stream of conciousness, but that sounds good to me.
All sorts of terms can apply to every nation in the world, but that doesn't make them useless, because they don't apply to every person or group in that nation. Sexism, homophobia, discrimination generally, happen in every nation, but they are very useful terms.
Also, I think my post about Jewish people in the ghetto was a good rebuttal of SKFM's point, but it seemed to be ignored...
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
In fact, these rapists may put the victim in a position where she is so intoxicated or terrified or just isolated and defeated that she never even says “no,” and because the culture overwhelmingly refuses to call these tactics what they are, even the victims themselves may be unable to call it rape for a very long time afterward, if ever.
This is one of the deeper rabbit holes in the argument. Excluding intoxication, how do we demonstrate that someone acquaintance rapes someone else if not even the victim can admit that they didn't indicate unwillingness to the rapist? How do we prosecute if all we have is an assertion from the victim that they felt pressured into saying yes or not objecting? This one is so far reaching; for example, if we replace 'isolated, terrified/defeated' with 'pressured to conform', we have the mirror image of males having sex that they are unwilling to have simply because it is expected of them to be 'always ready', a stereotype that is pretty entrenched in 'patriarchal' social contract.
This is not to deny that this happens; I guess most people here are familiar with The Implication, but how the hell do you actually act on it in a meaningful way?
The reason you don't see posters like that (although you probably should) is because much of that is assumed - do you really need a warning to NOT rape people or to know it is wrong? Is there really someone socially adjusted who simply doesn't understand that assault is a bad thing?
We've had people on this very board insist it's impossible to physically harm a woman by raping her. That it literally CANNOT hurt to be raped.
To the topic at hand; juvenile conversation from mental juveniles. Shocking. The Professor's response, which is entirely couched in the idea that words ARE actions (thought included), is beyond stupid ESPECIALLY naming and shaming those involved. If these folks were talking about actually raping someone - sure, put their name and business out there. That they are engaging in childish internet conversation that the Professor disagree's with is NOT a reason to put someone shit out there (or at least call attention to it if it's not a private group) as the Professor did.
He may have felt he did the right thing in a civic minded view, but god damn did he fail all kinds of academic conduct.
100% wrong. This idiot did his shit in public, the Professor did too. If he doesn't want to be publically shamed, then he shouldn't do shameful things in public. The Professor was completely in the right.
All sorts of terms can apply to every nation in the world, but that doesn't make them useless, because they don't apply to every person or group in that nation. Sexism, homophobia, discrimination generally, happen in every nation, but they are very useful terms.
Also, I think my post about Jewish people in the ghetto was a good rebuttal of SKFM's point, but it seemed to be ignored...
I'm not saying the term is useless. I'm saying that one ought to be circumspect about how one uses it because it is a very provocative term that often leads the conversation astray.
I have a very hard time believing "she asked for it" is enshrined in our culture.
The other two yeah, they're accepted.
Nowadays, "she asked for it" is more likely expressed as, "what did she expect?" "sometimes you have to be more careful," or other claims that survivors need to be or should have been "more responsible". Anything that puts the onus of preventing rape on people other than rapists, or that suggests that people can control whether they are raped or not, is a part of rape culture.
I worry when I see "what did she expect" called out like this. Obviously, victim blaming is really bad, but I also think it is important to keep in mind that, given the state of the world there are some things a woman probably should not do, like walking into a biker bar alone in a short skirt. While her doing that does not in anyway excuse or mitigate the fact of the rape, I think we do want to enforce the norm that this behavior is a bad idea, just like it would be a bad idea for me to go walking around alone at night in a bad part of Harlem.
The very important difference here is that all humans should rationally avoid dangerous places, but you also think women should avoid dangerous places for women. When it's a subset of the population that you're talking about, and particularly a group which is discriminated against, then you're enabling the oppression.
Imagine a Jewish person in a Polish ghetto - their parents might want them to stay away from anywhere anti-semites might be, and that's OK because they're part of the oppressed group trying to manage their problems. But an outsider who said, 'There are some things a Jewish person should not do, like walking into a coffee shop that contains Germans alone with a hat on' would be just one more attacker. Those words are almost exactly the same as yours, of course.
This kind of thing is one aspect of rape culture - that our cultural values for responsibility and blame are so skewed that we can feel like we are trying to help but actually be part of the problem. One of the things that always helps me notice this is linguistics and the concept of a speech act - that when we speak we are acting, and we have a purpose. We can't just 'state the facts' - we are always pursuing a course of action, consciously or not. And in this case, the statement of what you think is a helpful fact has an unconscious effect that is particularly difficult for you to notice, due to the pervasiveness of 'rape culture'.
Oh, and the people saying 'rape' is a loaded word - what does that even mean? How is it 'loaded'? It's emotive, because it's a terrible terrible thing. That isn't the same thing at all - or do you prefer we don't discuss terrible things, only nice things?
Again, I think this is generally true. I think the difference is that in this particular case you really do have a large group of young women that are getting heavily victimized because they are not aware of the very real danger of those situations.
Although again, I think the response shouldn't be, "Be carefule young woman," it should be, "Hey! These places are super rapey, and no one is doing much about it!"
edit: I would similarly argue that while sexism, homophobia, and discrimination are useful terms talking about America's (or anywhere's) "homophobia culture" "sexism culture" or "discrimination culture" is most often counterproductive. Because suddenly instead of critisizing a specific act or type of act you're indicting the entire culture. Which is where a ton of the defensiveness comes from. Joe Schmo goes, "Man that college kid's an asshole" and then you use a term that implies he's in the same boat and he gets defensive. That's a bad strategy.
MentalExercise on
"More fish for Kunta!"
--LeVar Burton
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I have a very hard time believing "she asked for it" is enshrined in our culture.
The other two yeah, they're accepted.
Nowadays, "she asked for it" is more likely expressed as, "what did she expect?" "sometimes you have to be more careful," or other claims that survivors need to be or should have been "more responsible". Anything that puts the onus of preventing rape on people other than rapists, or that suggests that people can control whether they are raped or not, is a part of rape culture.
I worry when I see "what did she expect" called out like this. Obviously, victim blaming is really bad, but I also think it is important to keep in mind that, given the state of the world there are some things a woman probably should not do, like walking into a biker bar alone in a short skirt. While her doing that does not in anyway excuse or mitigate the fact of the rape, I think we do want to enforce the norm that this behavior is a bad idea, just like it would be a bad idea for me to go walking around alone at night in a bad part of Harlem.
The very important difference here is that all humans should rationally avoid dangerous places, but you also think women should avoid dangerous places for women. When it's a subset of the population that you're talking about, and particularly a group which is discriminated against, then you're enabling the oppression.
Imagine a Jewish person in a Polish ghetto - their parents might want them to stay away from anywhere anti-semites might be, and that's OK because they're part of the oppressed group trying to manage their problems. But an outsider who said, 'There are some things a Jewish person should not do, like walking into a coffee shop that contains Germans alone with a hat on' would be just one more attacker. Those words are almost exactly the same as yours, of course.
This kind of thing is one aspect of rape culture - that our cultural values for responsibility and blame are so skewed that we can feel like we are trying to help but actually be part of the problem. One of the things that always helps me notice this is linguistics and the concept of a speech act - that when we speak we are acting, and we have a purpose. We can't just 'state the facts' - we are always pursuing a course of action, consciously or not. And in this case, the statement of what you think is a helpful fact has an unconscious effect that is particularly difficult for you to notice, due to the pervasiveness of 'rape culture'.
Oh, and the people saying 'rape' is a loaded word - what does that even mean? How is it 'loaded'? It's emotive, because it's a terrible terrible thing. That isn't the same thing at all - or do you prefer we don't discuss terrible things, only nice things?
I fully understand what you are saying, but I think the inquiry needs to be "is the behavior prompted by these words a net good" first and foremost. Even if it is the worst antisemite on earth saying Jews should not go to coffee shops, and even if his intent in saying those words is to keep Jews away because he hates them, I think that is still the better message than making it sound like there is nothing wrong with putting yourself in a dangerous situation. I think the best way to think about this may be to adopt a contributory negligence type approach. Under contributory negligence, the person causing the harm is regarded as wrong, and the victim recovers against them, but their recovery is limited by the extent to which they were also negligent, even though their negligence was not the cause of the harm. Likewise, I think we should always blame the rapist, not the victim, but I think we should acknowledge that there is a difference between the careful victim and the victim that drank enough to pass out at the party. Neither victim deserved to be raped, but the second did behave in a reckless manner, and they may not have been raped if they had been more careful. I know this sounds like victim blaming, but I also don't think we should ignore the reality of the situation or refrain from teaching about these dangerous situations just because the words sound like victim blaming language. I just don't see how anyone (other than the rapists) is benefitted by backing off on the "be careful" education and focussing solely on trying to stop the rapists from raping.
On the terrible language issue, I think that advocates often make a mistake by insisting to use a word that people object to, even though the word itself is an impediment to fostering understanding. Even if the point you want to make is "things you dont think are rape are rape," you might be better served by using a less objectionable term like sexual assault or noconsensual sex if it makes people more receptive to the message that having sex with people who don't want to have sex with you is bad. I think another great example of this is feminism. The word has become so loaded, that just saying you are making a feminist argument may turn people away, even if they would support the message.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I have a very hard time believing "she asked for it" is enshrined in our culture.
The other two yeah, they're accepted.
Nowadays, "she asked for it" is more likely expressed as, "what did she expect?" "sometimes you have to be more careful," or other claims that survivors need to be or should have been "more responsible". Anything that puts the onus of preventing rape on people other than rapists, or that suggests that people can control whether they are raped or not, is a part of rape culture.
I worry when I see "what did she expect" called out like this. Obviously, victim blaming is really bad, but I also think it is important to keep in mind that, given the state of the world there are some things a woman probably should not do, like walking into a biker bar alone in a short skirt. While her doing that does not in anyway excuse or mitigate the fact of the rape, I think we do want to enforce the norm that this behavior is a bad idea, just like it would be a bad idea for me to go walking around alone at night in a bad part of Harlem.
The very important difference here is that all humans should rationally avoid dangerous places, but you also think women should avoid dangerous places for women. When it's a subset of the population that you're talking about, and particularly a group which is discriminated against, then you're enabling the oppression.
Imagine a Jewish person in a Polish ghetto - their parents might want them to stay away from anywhere anti-semites might be, and that's OK because they're part of the oppressed group trying to manage their problems. But an outsider who said, 'There are some things a Jewish person should not do, like walking into a coffee shop that contains Germans alone with a hat on' would be just one more attacker. Those words are almost exactly the same as yours, of course.
This kind of thing is one aspect of rape culture - that our cultural values for responsibility and blame are so skewed that we can feel like we are trying to help but actually be part of the problem. One of the things that always helps me notice this is linguistics and the concept of a speech act - that when we speak we are acting, and we have a purpose. We can't just 'state the facts' - we are always pursuing a course of action, consciously or not. And in this case, the statement of what you think is a helpful fact has an unconscious effect that is particularly difficult for you to notice, due to the pervasiveness of 'rape culture'.
Oh, and the people saying 'rape' is a loaded word - what does that even mean? How is it 'loaded'? It's emotive, because it's a terrible terrible thing. That isn't the same thing at all - or do you prefer we don't discuss terrible things, only nice things?
I fully understand what you are saying, but I think the inquiry needs to be "is the behavior prompted by these words a net good" first and foremost. Even if it is the worst antisemite on earth saying Jews should not go to coffee shops, and even if his intent in saying those words is to keep Jews away because he hates them, I think that is still the better message than making it sound like there is nothing wrong with putting yourself in a dangerous situation. I think the best way to think about this may be to adopt a contributory negligence type approach. Under contributory negligence, the person causing the harm is regarded as wrong, and the victim recovers against them, but their recovery is limited by the extent to which they were also negligent, even though their negligence was not the cause of the harm. Likewise, I think we should always blame the rapist, not the victim, but I think we should acknowledge that there is a difference between the careful victim and the victim that drank enough to pass out at the party. Neither victim deserved to be raped, but the second did behave in a reckless manner, and they may not have been raped if they had been more careful. I know this sounds like victim blaming, but I also don't think we should ignore the reality of the situation or refrain from teaching about these dangerous situations just because the words sound like victim blaming language. I just don't see how anyone (other than the rapists) is benefitted by backing off on the "be careful" education and focussing solely on trying to stop the rapists from raping.
On the terrible language issue, I think that advocates often make a mistake by insisting to use a word that people object to, even though the word itself is an impediment to fostering understanding. Even if the point you want to make is "things you dont think are rape are rape," you might be better served by using a less objectionable term like sexual assault or noconsensual sex if it makes people more receptive to the message that having sex with people who don't want to have sex with you is bad. I think another great example of this is feminism. The word has become so loaded, that just saying you are making a feminist argument may turn people away, even if they would support the message.
I think you need to think long and hard about what you just wrote here.
No, I chose that because it highlights the natural interpretation of the term - the noun adjunct "rape" modifies the noun "culture" (like "dog collar" means a collar for dogs, or "grass field" means a field of grass). The term implies a culture wherein rape plays a predominant role - like if I said the Vikings were a "sea culture" I surely wouldn't mean they were a culture that facilitated seagoing even though it was illegal for them, and likewise if I said the US South was a "slave culture" I'm not implying that slavery was illegal and broadly looked down upon but said criminality and disgust were often undermined. If I wanted to say those things, I'd have to come right out and say them since the natural language of (act) + culture does not imply that.
All this shows is that you have to take claims about Culture A being a "[Something] Culture" in context and not automatically prefer the interpretation that fails to reflect reality. If [Something] is not obviously illegal and ostensibly frowned-upon, then the culture probably out and out supports [Something]. If, on the other hand, [Something] is obviously illegal and ostensibly frowned-upon, then the culture can't support [Something] outright, but it might contain elements that undermine the outward displays of condemnation.
I already said that I didn't immediately jump to the the latter interpretation when I first heard the term. Your contextual approach didn't even enter my mind. Apparently, neither did it for the operators of this website, or any number of other people whom I can point to. Are you arguing that we were being willfully obtuse, or is it perhaps more reasonable to say that the term, prima facie, does not always and necessarily mean the same as its academic definition?
I would agree that the sense of "rape culture" that people mean in these discussions is not necessarily obvious. All I'm suggesting is that anyone who can't get over their initial surprise regarding the term and consider its use in a calm and dispassionate way, probably lacks the rational footing to be a useful or insightful participant in the discussion.
Posts
The problem is that in saying "she should not have gone to x dangerous place", you're positing onto the victim a foreknowledge that rape was a possible consequences of her actions, since x was a dangerous place. By phrasing it this way, you're saying, in effect, "She knew she could be raped if she did X, and she did X anyway."
That's problematic.
I think we can justifiably communicate a causal, factual, story of what transpired, and then posit counter-factuals regarding that causal story to express a possible world in which a rape did not occur: "If she had never gone to the location at which the rape occurred, then she would not have been raped at that location."
Factual descriptions do not place blame on the individual.
When you go beyond the facts, and incorporate an idea that a particular location is more rape-prone than others, and the victim must have known that, then you’re in “blaming the victim” territory.
"Sorry, I didn't mean to (promote any sort of rape or rape culture with my bawdy song) / (imply that you actually approve of or seek out rape when I said you promote rape culture). You must have misunderstood me. Please try not to misunderstand me when I (sing that song) / (use those words) in the future."
Put the alternative words in parentheses into the sentence as you see fit, it doesn't matter - you're saying that despite what your words could reasonably say on their face, you're intent was something different... so we're back to square one. When do our words seem to carry some non-verbal, contextual cultural impact or make an environment hostile (and thus make us responsible for their perception by others, not just their content and intent), and when do our words only mean what we intend they do?
No, I chose that because it highlights the natural interpretation of the term - the noun adjunct "rape" modifies the noun "culture" (like "dog collar" means a collar for dogs, or "grass field" means a field of grass). The term implies a culture wherein rape plays a predominant role - like if I said the Vikings were a "sea culture" I surely wouldn't mean they were a culture that facilitated seagoing even though it was illegal for them, and likewise if I said the US South was a "slave culture" I'm not implying that slavery was illegal and broadly looked down upon but said criminality and disgust were often undermined. If I wanted to say those things, I'd have to come right out and say them since the natural language of (act) + culture does not imply that.
Edit:
Also, perhaps the chief the problem with the whole "but we just want to remind women that dark alleys are dangerous" thing is that nobody EVER enters these discussions to say, "Just a reminder, men who go down dark alleys at night should try to resist raping the women they meet there." Not because they're explicitly pro-rape (who could be pro-rape? rape = bad!), but because they assume rapists are "other" people, evil criminal people whose attitudes won't be changed and who will just go on raping and we have to accept that. If you'll notice, those are all ideas that contribute to rape culture.
Right. And to understand why it's an awful term, look at how the other side sees their arguments. Obviously infanticide is terrible, and abortion is a form of infanticide so it must be equally bad. Socialism is really just an economic system where the government owns everything, so clearly any attempt to make the government own anything is a step towards a more socialist culture. Clearly a disproportionate number of video games have you murdering people, so it's not unreasonable to say that many of them are "murder simulators." It's all just language, right? If the definition is technically correct, what does it matter what you call it? Clearly all of these terms are entirely appropriate, even though they also happen to tar the other side as a bunch of hateful criminals.
Remember, no rape actually occurred here. So you're using the extreme reaction people have to rapes to demonize a student for singing a dumb misogynist song. As if singing a misogynist song is somehow not sufficient on its own.
That kind of language doesn't convince people, it polarizes them. You shouldn't have to resort to inflammatory soundbites to get your point across.
I don't often disagree with you, but I have to here. There is one very simple thing that women could do on college campuses to cut down on rapes: not get drunk at frat/sports house parties. Is it fair to say that women should not be able to drink as much as they want to at parties? No. But I think it is good, sensible advice, and I worry about giving the impression that these types of concerns don't carry weight.
There's one simple thing that men could do on college campuses to cut down on rapes: stop raping women at frat/sports house parties.
This is what we call "blaming the victim".
Rather than argue that men oughtn't rape women, you're arguing that women ought to try to be less rapeable.
This is a problem.
I am saying deal with the world as it is, instead of suffering harms in protest that it isn't the world we want it to be. Obviously we need to get this message to men. I case you did not see, earlier in the thread I literally advocated banning frats altogether (as some universities have done) because of the rapes at parties. But if there is something we can do to cut down on rapes while waiting for men to stop being assholes, then why shouldn't we do it?
Because the onus isn't on women to stop getting raped. It's on rapists to stop being raping.
And, most rapes are committed by people that the woman trusts.
Frat boys are not going to stop raping women until someone becomes Batman and starts systematically beating the shit out of them for being scumbags.
Any move we make the place the responsibility / causal efficacy on women detracts from the fact that the male who rapes is the one who is engaged in wrongdoing.
I think that's the reply.
Or until it's demonstrated to them in terms they can understand that their behavior is wrong.
How exactly do you think cultural change usually happens?
Physicality are the only terms they can understand.
So we shouldn't tell women to avoid known dangerous situations? This literally sounds like you are saying we should accept more real, actual harms in pursuit of the goal of reducing those exact same harms.
I think it's quite patronizing to assume that we'd need to tell them.
*saved for future use
To the topic at hand; juvenile conversation from mental juveniles. Shocking. The Professor's response, which is entirely couched in the idea that words ARE actions (thought included), is beyond stupid ESPECIALLY naming and shaming those involved. If these folks were talking about actually raping someone - sure, put their name and business out there. That they are engaging in childish internet conversation that the Professor disagree's with is NOT a reason to put someone shit out there (or at least call attention to it if it's not a private group) as the Professor did.
He may have felt he did the right thing in a civic minded view, but god damn did he fail all kinds of academic conduct.
(Emphasis mine.)
Some analysis of the article from Fugitivus:
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the research is that it strongly suggests that majority of rapes are carried out by a small group of repeat offenders (who seem to average about 6 rapes each), roughly 4% of the population. It's the rest of us who end up protecting them by excusing, redefining, or de-emphasizing their actions in favor of victim blaming.
But if all you do is talk about how it is wrong to say "she shouldn't have gone to x dangerous place, then I worry that the message becomes "women should not worry about going to dangerous places.". Like I said before, I'm scared of increasing real harms in service of an ideal.
That's really the only way to fix this - to use loaded language and appeal to emotional reactions? Because if it is fine to intentionally make people uncomfortable to convince them there is something wrong with their beliefs, then I'm not sure why it isn't fine to unintentionally make others uncomfortable with no prescriptive motive whatsoever.
Spacekungfuman is the guy who wants people to take their hats off indoors because he views hat indoors as the height of rudeness. What did you expect.
I'd hope that persons are not stupid enough to ignore reasonable threats to their person.
I don't think anyone is arguing, "Women can go anywhere they want, and do anything they want, without fear of being harmed in any way."
Since that's entirely false.
All this shows is that you have to take claims about Culture A being a "[Something] Culture" in context and not automatically prefer the interpretation that fails to reflect reality. If [Something] is not obviously illegal and ostensibly frowned-upon, then the culture probably out and out supports [Something]. If, on the other hand, [Something] is obviously illegal and ostensibly frowned-upon, then the culture can't support [Something] outright, but it might contain elements that undermine the outward displays of condemnation.
I already said that I didn't immediately jump to the the latter interpretation when I first heard the term. Your contextual approach didn't even enter my mind. Apparently, neither did it for the operators of this website, or any number of other people whom I can point to. Are you arguing that we were being willfully obtuse, or is it perhaps more reasonable to say that the term, prima facie, does not always and necessarily mean the same as its academic definition?
Getting so upset about this asinine bullshit that you write an article about it and drag a student before the ethics committee is so incredibly unproductive it blows my mind.
If you want to make some kind of impact on "rape culture," which I am willing for the sake of this argument to stipulate exists, start by kicking the Pikes off every campus in the nation.
First off, really? "It's okay to do x if you have a good reason" == "it's okay to do x for no reason at all"?
Second, it's both that teaching somebody about rape culture is going to be uncomfortable no matter what words you use (the very idea, when new, can be scary and depressing and it is often uncomfortable to question our assumptions) and that sometimes the best way through the mental barriers (in the defense of which people will often equivocate, justify, redefine) is to be as direct and clear as possible. And maybe throwing in a little shock value for good measure can make it harder for people to brush the idea aside without considering it.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I won't speak for Squidet, but as I think I've in D&D before, I don't think rape culture is an appropriate descriptor for North American or European culture because:
a) All judicial institutes recognize that rape is criminal behaviour, and this is likewise recognized by a majority of the general public. Enforcement of the governing laws is carried-out in a pretty disheartening fashion, but the foundational value is that rape is a crime with severe legal consequences, which in turn means that we should be able to move forward simply by improving law enforcement.
b) Instances of rape, alongside all other forms of violent crime, are at all time lows and continue to decline year by year, decade by decade. If we really are encouraging or trivializing rape, we would expect to see a trend in the opposite direction.
I'm guessing plenty of them know it's wrong.
They just don't care.
Well here's a solution that solves several problems!
A: Real.
B: A term that does itself a disservice by being overly provocative.
C: Often applied so broadly as to be meaningless. If we apply the term on a nationwide scale then it applies to every country and culture in the world. I'd say that's a bit broad to have a great deal of meaning.
As a result of this, nearly every time the word is used that becomes the topic, which is a waste of time. Whereas if you're a little more circumspect and apply the term to individual groups and subcultures you stand a much greater chance of getting somewhere.
Fraternities are a very good example. They often have a huge subculture that excuses many forms of rape, mostly date/party rape involving non-consent. The idea that, "That's what these girls come to parties for!" or, "We were making out and practically there already," counts as consent is super prevalent.
This song is a very good example of something that normalizes rape. The message is, "We would all be happier if girls couldn't stop us from having sex with them." The entire reason it's funny is it's saying, "It's so true that we all feel this way even though we would never act on it because we know it would be wrong." Which makes you feel more normal if you would like to bang a couple of chicks even though they want you to stop. And more justified if you end up acting on it. You're maybe just the guy that has the balls to do what everybody else would like to, but won't.
This is generally true. Few and far between are the cases where some woman strolls around dowtown topless for a couple hours around three A.M. and then, predictably to everyone except her, she gets assaulted.
However I think the disconnect between you and SKFM here is that he's talking about a rare case where it does kind of happen. It's as true as I go through college now as it was the first time. A ton of freshman and sophomore girls get invited to, and go to, frat parties thinking it'll be flirting and free drinks and a lot like high-school. Or that the cute and/or popular boy that invited them is asking them on a normal college-ey date. And they have absolutely no clue how horrible and predatory some of those parties can be until it's much too late.
Hmm... however it's not like the solution is some campaign to better educate these girls. What a waste of resources. If you were going to spend time or money at something it should probably be to, as he said, shut down frats entirely. Well not exactly I guess. More like a campaign to make people aware of how horrible and rapey these places are. Which would go towards both of those causes at the same time. This is all a bit stream of conciousness, but that sounds good to me.
--LeVar Burton
Also, I think my post about Jewish people in the ghetto was a good rebuttal of SKFM's point, but it seemed to be ignored...
This is not to deny that this happens; I guess most people here are familiar with The Implication, but how the hell do you actually act on it in a meaningful way?
100% wrong. This idiot did his shit in public, the Professor did too. If he doesn't want to be publically shamed, then he shouldn't do shameful things in public. The Professor was completely in the right.
I'm not saying the term is useless. I'm saying that one ought to be circumspect about how one uses it because it is a very provocative term that often leads the conversation astray.
Again, I think this is generally true. I think the difference is that in this particular case you really do have a large group of young women that are getting heavily victimized because they are not aware of the very real danger of those situations.
Although again, I think the response shouldn't be, "Be carefule young woman," it should be, "Hey! These places are super rapey, and no one is doing much about it!"
edit: I would similarly argue that while sexism, homophobia, and discrimination are useful terms talking about America's (or anywhere's) "homophobia culture" "sexism culture" or "discrimination culture" is most often counterproductive. Because suddenly instead of critisizing a specific act or type of act you're indicting the entire culture. Which is where a ton of the defensiveness comes from. Joe Schmo goes, "Man that college kid's an asshole" and then you use a term that implies he's in the same boat and he gets defensive. That's a bad strategy.
--LeVar Burton
I fully understand what you are saying, but I think the inquiry needs to be "is the behavior prompted by these words a net good" first and foremost. Even if it is the worst antisemite on earth saying Jews should not go to coffee shops, and even if his intent in saying those words is to keep Jews away because he hates them, I think that is still the better message than making it sound like there is nothing wrong with putting yourself in a dangerous situation. I think the best way to think about this may be to adopt a contributory negligence type approach. Under contributory negligence, the person causing the harm is regarded as wrong, and the victim recovers against them, but their recovery is limited by the extent to which they were also negligent, even though their negligence was not the cause of the harm. Likewise, I think we should always blame the rapist, not the victim, but I think we should acknowledge that there is a difference between the careful victim and the victim that drank enough to pass out at the party. Neither victim deserved to be raped, but the second did behave in a reckless manner, and they may not have been raped if they had been more careful. I know this sounds like victim blaming, but I also don't think we should ignore the reality of the situation or refrain from teaching about these dangerous situations just because the words sound like victim blaming language. I just don't see how anyone (other than the rapists) is benefitted by backing off on the "be careful" education and focussing solely on trying to stop the rapists from raping.
On the terrible language issue, I think that advocates often make a mistake by insisting to use a word that people object to, even though the word itself is an impediment to fostering understanding. Even if the point you want to make is "things you dont think are rape are rape," you might be better served by using a less objectionable term like sexual assault or noconsensual sex if it makes people more receptive to the message that having sex with people who don't want to have sex with you is bad. I think another great example of this is feminism. The word has become so loaded, that just saying you are making a feminist argument may turn people away, even if they would support the message.
I think you need to think long and hard about what you just wrote here.
I would agree that the sense of "rape culture" that people mean in these discussions is not necessarily obvious. All I'm suggesting is that anyone who can't get over their initial surprise regarding the term and consider its use in a calm and dispassionate way, probably lacks the rational footing to be a useful or insightful participant in the discussion.