Talk:Rape culture

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This Sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Contents

[edit] Confucius joke

Does this joke count as rape culture: "Confucius say when lady say no, she mean maybe. When lady say maybe, she mean yes. When lady say yes, she no lady!" Or is Confucius just saying, you might be able to convince her to change her mind and say yes. Fleet (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Also racist culture. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] For your lelz

"Well... shit. What about LessWrong? Are there any other alternatives?" - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please keep the Facebook circlejerk memes to Facebook.
That said, I liked more "It's for the Atheism+ community." (AFAIK, the overlap between RW's community and the members of the A+ forums is about 0. Unless they are using "Atheism+" in the same overbroad way some people use "MRA".) and "The gender-oriented articles are all watched over by Rebecca Watson's crew and have been for years." (Ditto: AFAIK, the overlap with the Skepchick commentariat is about 0. And let's not even mention actual Skepchick contributors.)--ZooGuard (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Has RW taken enough flak from social justice warriors recently? If ideologues of all stripes aren't getting annoyed in equal numbers, we yeah, yeah, I know aren't doing the job right. Flux gate gamma (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The users on r/mensrights wouldn't be happy with the article unless it looked like this: [1]. I think SJWs could possibly have issues with our prejudice plus power article among a few others. Our article on Radfem Hub is also largely critical --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
That article at wikimannia needs some improved spelling/grammar/writing... That said, it shows one of the clearest patterns in any "debate" (in marks because it's usually just people talking past each other) arising from this. Our article has a completely different definition of rape culture than theirs and thus if both sides start discussing without agreeing on what the topic actually is first it just leads to calling each other out on straw-manning the whole time. Nullahnung (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, as it stands, ours is better sourced, and considerably better written. We also touch on how it affects both male and female rape survivors. The WikiMANNia article looks like it's going to take a critical look at the ideology at first but quickly deteriorates into typical MRA slogans like "Rape culture is just drunk college sluts lying" and "Rape culture is nothing but flawed statistics and angry bitches who hate men". There isn't a whole lot of content there, just a collection of quotations --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a half-hearted effort by a couple of editors with little text outside of quotations, seemingly written to preach to the choir a la "I don't need to go in-depth on any of this, just look at the quotations to see what I mean!" I wouldn't pay much attention to it in terms of being able to represent any side in a serious discussion. Nullahnung (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I was posting it to make a point. That is what they think that feminists think rape culture is and why they have such a problem with the article. I imagine most haven't even read it properly. If they came to this article and tried to make the point that male rape survivors are minimalised (which is, as mentioned in article, a huge part of rape culture) then I would have more support for their cause. A legitimate men's rights movement would spend more time trying to support male survivors of rape and domestic abuse rather than form counter arguments to feminist ideas based on strawmanning. The WikiMANNia website even makes this argument concerning rape culture here when they say "One particular form of rape that tends to lack recognition is rape of men by women", they just don't call it that: [2]. When a movement is more interested proving other civil rights movements wrong than helping support those within their cause that need support, then it has significant problems in its thinking --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a gender-neutral rewrite

I think the article would benefit from a more gender neutral rewrite such as using "Victim" and "Rapist" more. Whilst these numbers certainly aren't a solid platform, it should be noted that as of right now As of now, "Male" is said 7 times, "Man" is said twice, "Men" is said 17 times, "Female" is said once, "Women" is said 25 times and "Woman" is said 5 times. Many of these terms are used in quotes, but I suggest we find places to drop the gender to make the place a little more inclusive for everyone here.

Similarly so, if anyone here is from outside the US it'd be great if they could shed some light about the culture in other countries! Thanks everyone :) User:58.106.160.16 07:53, 21 November 2014‎

. . . Why? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Because gendered language is unnecessary and paints females as victims, males as rapists. I support a gender-neutral rewrite in this and all articles. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Rape culture really isn't a gender-neutral phenomenon. It treats men & women very differently, approving certain behaviours in men & disapproving certain behaviours in women. Trying to pretend otherwise is just burying your head in the sand. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
As the article itself says in the lede section, "Modern rape culture is steeped in institutionalized misogyny, having at its core cultural features of a society that is defining, politicizing, and ultimately controlling women's bodies". ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that male and female rape victims are treated differently, with females disproportionately suffering, as a result of the misogyny present in much of modern society. However, I'd like to look at one section from the article:
Victim blaming is a notable feature of a rape culture. If the victim can be shown to be "out of line" at any point, society turns on her, often demanding she at least voice some sense of remorse for her behaviors that led to the rape. Was she dressed "like a slut?" Did she lead the guy on? Had she been out partying? Is she pretty? Was she "friendly" (wink-wink, nudge nudge) with the boys? If so, then shouldn't she have at least expected the likelihood of being raped, and done something to prevent it? Even if a rape victim actually does meet the maximum standards for sympathy, the implication is that the victim's transgression against traditional values and polite society was more important than the actual act of violence done to the victim.
I'm almost certain that victim blaming occurs to males. (In the 2nd bullet point, we say men that are raped are either ignored or labeled as sissy, or gay, or simply weak. If a male is sissy, gay, and/or weak, to list a few factors, then victim blaming can certainly come into blame.) The article does not cover said instances of male victim blaming. Instead of covering specific examples predominantly in from the point of view of victims of one gender or another, we should introduce each concept in gender-neutral language and provide examples of how it applies to both genders (if it applies to both genders).
Rape culture is misogynistic, but that misogyny often hurts males. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're quoting something that's already in the article (that male rape victims are labelled as sissy, or gay, or simply weak etc.) and then claiming that the article doesn't cover it. As for the paragraph about female rape victims' behaviour & whether they were "dressed like a slut" being an issue, this is important to keep because it's a recurring feature in how rape cases are handled by police, courts & the media. A "gender neutral" rewrite of this paragraph would completely miss the point. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Jezebel

Out of curiosity, what is our position on the reliability of Jezebel? My two cents - it's titillating clickbait, but seems to be heavily cited as a source on the gender issues pages. Brenden (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I expect you might have to apply judgement on a post-by-post basis or something tricky like that - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated repeated words words

This article has literally the same sentence twice in a row. This article has literally the same sentence twice in a row. What does it add the second time? What does it add the second time? Calieber (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Calieber (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] CDC report of 2011/2014

Wasn't it debunked? IIRC their questionnary counts unsolicited porn as sexual assault and other more specific stats were dumped in one gross generalized pile.— Unsigned, by: 46.0.12.33 / talk / contribs 16:46, 26 March 2015

  • If by "debunked" you mean, lazily accused of those failings on MRA websites with little-to-no substantiation, then yes. You can find those "debunkings" with google. If by "debunked" you mean academically criticized with real data, withdrawn by the publisher, or any sort of fact-based refuation, then no. It wasn't. If you see someone say a study was "debunked" on the internet, that's shorthead for "I don't believe it because I disagree." Actual refutations are much more substantive, and tend to result in papers being retracted from publication(or for smaller mistakes, having corrections attached). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, debunked was a too strong term here. It's government agency report, selfpublished, do they even retract or correct anything at all? And how could even be refuted self report survey, besided faulty methodology? Which was criticized (questionnare, which arguably bloats violence category). And, I guess, thanks for an urge to revisit report, since I found detailed age data in both reports this time, which, kinda, explains those huge percents, in big part it's pedos victims. Strangely, nobody gave a shit about kids when it was published. 46.0.12.33 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support