Talk:Rape culture

	This Gender related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Just a thought

Is the current opening quote for this particular article really such a great pick? No UN/WHO quote or something, considering the article's worldwide perspective? The current quote would seemingly fit better at the Elevatorgate article (or what have you). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Christopher (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Addressing the "not all men" defense (using pseudoscience)

I have many concerns about the section in question. Precisely:

"Rape culture, like all other aspects of culture, impacts people on a subconscious level long before it becomes part of their conscious choices."

How convenient that rape culture starts at a subconscious - hence in a no way verifiable and therefore unscientific - level.

"Discussing the fact that in America, 27.2% of women have been sexually harassed [...] does mean a culture exists which makes it hard for victims to come forward, to talk, or to heal."

How some statistics on rape proves the existence of a culture? Statistics on murders and thefts prove the existence of "murder culture" and "theft culture". Well, in some way yes, but then everything is culture... I would agree that a statistic proves the existence of a rape culture if it was like: "(significative percentage) of men thinks that rape is not bad".

"the very fact that a culture informs the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of a society does mean that all people in a rape culture carry some aspect of it in their personality—despite the desire to say "not me"."

Again: something completely unverifiable and unscientific. How could it be proven that somebody says "not me" because of "rape culture"? McLaghing (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Many guys view bedding a prospective woman as a "conquest." Boys who are raped by their female teachers will often get talked about in bars as being "lucky" that they got to shag a hot woman, despite that they're children and unable to handle the emotional and mental stress of such a thing. Look at the MeToo movement for crying out loud, and how much sexual abuse goes on in the upper echelons of society. Women are often asked what they were wearing when they were raped, as if that somehow justifies it. There is no good reason to treat a crime in this way, unlike murder and theft. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@McLaghing: Welcome to the world of social sciences, a soft science. If you're looking for strong evidence that hard sciences supply (such as Chemistry), you're going to be disappointed. Sociology is just statistics + philosophy + psychology.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 01:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

His use of science is also questionable to the point that it may as well be jargon instead of support for any of his arguments, and prematurely declaring this page worthless because it's "unscientific" is loaded and trying to cut off discussion. James Earl Cash (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Not all black people

Discussing or admitting that black criminality exists does not mean anyone believes black people think criminality is somehow a good or valued thing. Nor does it mean that someone is accusing you of being a criminal. Discussing the fact that in America, 40% of incarcerated population is black does not mean anyone thinks that specifically black people are more to blame. But it does mean a culture of black criminality exists which makes it hard for victims to come forward, to talk, or to heal. And, the very fact that a culture informs the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of a society does mean that it's disturbingly easy to unknowingly participate in such culture

Or in other words, we know that not all black people are criminals but some are, and far too many. Saying "not all black people" just shuts down conversation into meaningless pointing out the obvious and wastes time when we could be discussing a serious issue. Worse, it often works as a way to sidetrack the issue and is sometimes used as a means to shut down discussion of the subject.

Essentially, what happens when changing "men" with "black people" from the section Addressing the "not all men" defense. --Lankaster (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is "when you replace the word 'rich' with the word 'jew', suddenly all the arguments about social inequality sound antisemitic" tier argumentation. We know that when you attack historically marginalized groups, it feels very different from attacking groups invested with fucktons of undue power at the expense of others. No one, not a single goddamn person makes "#notallblackpeople" hashtags to address serious recurring social problems that other people face at the expense of constant undue credit passed to black people. In fact, most research indicates we have the exact opposite problem. Go away, you're rotting your brain with this shit. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the point being made? "Not all men" and "Not all black people" are both overtly obvious statements that sidetrack discussions by implicitly accusing the opposing party of sexism/racism. If people are trying to discuss things, throwing implicit ad hominems around is unhelpful. This should be pretty obvious. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I like logical arguments. Describing specious arguments people make is interesting. But as our bon-ney friend says this is all too obvious.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen you construct a syllogism in your entire time here. "Logical arguments" does not mean "Makes sense to me". OOooooooor...

P1. Logical arguments are constructed in structured form with assumptions and deductions explicit

P2. People make things they like if they're able and have the time.

P3. You are able to construct structured form arguments

P4. You have never posted a structured deduction in your entire time here

P5. You spend lots of time arguing on here

H1. You like logical arguments

D1. P5 You have time to construct arguments.

D2. P1+P3 You have the ability to create logical arguments

D3. D2+H1+P2 You make logical argument

D4. P1+P4 You don't make logical arguments

D5. D3+D4 Contradiction

C1. H1 is invalid. QED

Now obviously, I'm just messing with you. The flaws in that reasoning are pretty apparent to subjective analysis(or even sufficiently rigorous examination of the premises and their synthesis), but I just want to reinforce that I hate when people throw around the word "logical" so easily. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously you are. That's the spirit. But you, perhaps, have conflated logical with valid. If I say an arithmetical argument, it does not imply the arguer know how to add add and subtract, etc.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

(EC) Personally, I get annoyed when people reduce the definition of things to their academic use and associated (symbolic) language. People can discuss the concept of infinity without writing everything down in mathematical formula, for example. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but in the particular case of the colloquial use of "logical" it might as well mean "full of shit and overconfident". Just google "it's just logical that" and you'll find that half the things that come up are anything but broadly sensible and reasonable, and in fact are just the ideological perspective of the particular page in question restated. So when I come attacking people misusing "logical" it's not from a "language can never change" perspective, but rather a deep distress at the seriously bad shit that gets put into that bucket. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair point, I'll admit. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@141.134.75.236 Without tight definitions words can have conflated and equivocated meanings. Symbolic logic is used to keep propositions as objective as possible. For instance, you have no feelings about the proposition "A⊃P", but you may have feelings about "If an apples are tasty, then apple pie is the best pie". You might have feelings about the long-form proposition, but when we pare it down to symbols, you don't have feelings about it. Feelings get in the way of our reasoning. Certainly not Anonymous user, whoever that is.^{[{{#rand:1|4}}][{{#rand:4|10}}]} 17:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying there aren't general advantages to using very specifically defined symbolic language. It just bugs me when people complain about the definitions/language I'm using even when I'm being perfectly clear in my argumentation. For the most part, it's style over substance founded on an argument from authority. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed "This is "when you replace the word 'rich' with the word 'jew', suddenly all the arguments about social inequality sound antisemitic"" So the arguments you know about social inequality are all against rich people... "No one, not a single goddamn person makes "#notallblackpeople" hashtags to address serious recurring social problems that other people face" Not exactly such a hashtag, but the fact that "not all black people are criminals..." is (rightly) stated by many anytime one starts talking about black people and criminality. I precise that in my reply to @141.134.75.236 ""Not all men" and "Not all black people" are both overtly obvious statements that sidetrack discussions by implicitly accusing the opposing party of sexism/racism." It's not so easy. The "not all black people (are criminal)" statement might be obviously true to us, but of course it isn't to many racists. Hence, it makes perfectly sense that - when somebody starts talking about black people and criminality - someone else recalls that this should not be the starting point to racist generalizations (and this indeed is what usually happens); and both people should be listened. The same holds with any category replacing "black people". --Lankaster (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you're just dumb, buddy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed "No, you're just dumb, buddy." That's a hell of an argument! Instead of replying, such call "dumb" your interlocutor. --Lankaster (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say, you repeated your bad argument, without really acknowledging what was incredibly dumb about it. Which seems like a thing a dumb person would do, buddy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed "you repeated your bad argument," False. In this thread I never made an argument before my post of 16:34, 8 November 2018, so I had nothing to repeat. You keep calling other people dumb, but you are not even able to follow a thread. --Lankaster (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Could we keep personal attacks like "you're dumb" and "you aren't even able to follow a thread" to a minimum? Attacks don't strengthen arguments. Ikanreed, could you point out exactly what was dumb and what makes this a bad argument so that we can get on with our discourse? Lankaster, could you be open-minded to the possibility that you're wrong? Koifishdevelopment (swim) 17:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's do that, it's bad because it makes a false parallel with basically nothing else to it that completely disregards all context and connotations, invents strawman arguments like any fucking person is saying "not all black men" to make the stupid false equivalency work, and really the depths of fallacious reasoning is all but infinite. It's an awful argument to make, and I thought I made the underlying problems with doing this form of augmentation clear in my first post. It's totally and completely without merit. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Koidevelopment "Could we keep personal attacks [...] to a minimum?" I have already done my own "crusade" to stop insults on RW talk pages, and it leads to nothing. On the other hand, ikanreed insulted me multiple times and strongly opposed any limitation on personal attacks. So, sorry, but I got tired and I have no incentive to keep myself from saying that ikanreed is not able to follow a thread. --Lankaster (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lankaster I have to admit that your logical substitution of "black people" for "men" in the predicate proves nothing logically. As one varies subjects for a fixed predicate the truth value will also appear to vary. "X is very red" is only true for a restricted universe of objects, though people will haggle about certain shades of pink.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 "I have to admit that your logical substitution of "black people" for "men" in the predicate proves nothing logically." And I agree. I never said it proves something. I wanted to start the thread in a provocative way, and I leave everybody free to make their conclusions. Then, I made my argument. --Lankaster (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed See, you think to be such a well articulated person, but you are really bad at reasoning. @Koidevelopment asked you: "could you point out exactly what was dumb and what makes this a bad argument so that we can get on with our discourse?" and you replied with "it's bad because it makes a false parallel with basically nothing else to it that completely disregards all context and connotations, invents strawman arguments like any fucking person is saying "not all black men" to make the stupid false equivalency work" but this does not point out to specific part of my argument.

The rest of you reply is: "and really the depths of fallacious reasoning is all but infinite. It's an awful argument to make, and I thought I made the underlying problems with doing this form of augmentation clear in my first post. It's totally and completely without merit." where all the parts in bold just consist of saying that my argument is bad, and the rest asserts that you already point out to the problems, ignoring Koidevelopment's question. --Lankaster (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course ikanreed will respond. But you are just being argumentative. Can you cool down?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"Okay, let's do that, [Lankaster's argument is] bad because it makes a false parallel with basically nothing else to it that completely disregards all context and connotations, invents strawman arguments like any fucking person is saying "not all black men" to make the stupid false equivalency work, and really the depths of fallacious reasoning is all but infinite. It's an awful argument to make, and I thought I made the underlying problems with doing this form of augmentation clear in my first post. It's totally and completely without merit."

That, that would be my response pretty much to this entire section walking in circles, but Lankaster is the one sawing off one of its legs and causing it to walk in that manner. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that's clear to you. Honestly I'm not yet certain as to what he is on about.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my reply is broad and general, and approaches presents the case that the whole idea of parallelism by verbal substitution as dumb and asinine, especially regarding social issues with complex contexts. I don't feel like I need to challenge any given sentence, because the whole thing is of that form. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed "Yes, my reply is broad and general," Your reply did NOT answer Koidevelopment's question, and that's all. You're not able to answer it, and now you are dodging it saying that you don't feel the need. After all, you don't even have the reasoning skills to understand that this is my argument, while this is not an argument but a way to start a conversation. --Lankaster (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks for this "conversation", which sure seemed to imply a very bad argument for taking a section out of our article that's just fine on pretty specious grounds. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the point of continuing an argument on ridiculous premises that have been established. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Jokes on rape

It doesn't normalize anything this article is buying into feminist propganda. I'm a liberal and I think this (see my account page).

If I make a joke about 9/11 am I supporting terrorists?Doublethink (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"this article is buying into feminist propganda." Stop. Please just stop. First, it's "propaganda", not "propganda". Second, just stop with the anti-feminist soundbites. Every time someone utters them I get an ulcer listening to or reading the completely idiotic drivel that they have spewed from between their lips. What's worse is whatever defense you have prepared, the one your so proud of emptying into your pants rather than the toilet where it belongs, yeah that one. Odds are not only has it been uttered before, but also debunked and dismissed. And despite what modern society may teach you, I don't have to respect your opinions (especially not the ignorant excuses like this), and neither does anyone else. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to respect my opinions. I never said anyone had to! When did I ever say you had to respect my opinions? Doublethink (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a deeper issue of how society views taboos. It's not a matter of "feminist propaganda" (such a nauseating soundbite) but I think we need to think deeper why murder jokes are all right but rape jokes aren't. I think we can start with how rape is handled throughout history and through countries. Murder victims usually don't get penalized further (I mean indirect victims like family) whereas rape appears to be more acceptable in history (Bible) and victims of rape tend to violate laws. Rape involves power and dominance and exploiting the victim, and it usually involves women (wars kill men but rape and kill women). Again, the issue is pretty complicated. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(EC)The nature of normalization as being effective of rape is mostly substantiated through studies like this one that do in depth interviews with rapists and examine the things that made them feel justified in the moment(and in many cases after conviction), and find a coherent and consistent theme of thinking the things they did "normal". There's obviously a case to be made "well jokes don't promote that", but... reading magazines with rape jokes in them has a strong and demonstrable correlation with believing those same myths that the rapists do this research paper compared the ability of male college students to identify which statements in a set were jokes from a juvenile magazine, and which were justifications by convicted rapists for their crimes. All the while treating quotes falsely attributed to rapists by the authors as more extreme. The ability to differentiate was (inversely) moderated by sexism and benevolent sexism. I don't like freudian stuff, but this is at least empirical: appreciation of rape jokes is positively associated(in men) with rape-related attitudes. A finding that has been repeated. A lot. And seems to apply broadly to most kinds of discriminatory humor.

That's not to say this kind of humor should be banned or prohibited, or that all rape-culture is perpetuated through humor. Just that you're maybe weighting "your opinion" against real, and robust, research. So when you ask us to respect it, that respect has to have a big asterisk. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, for the last time. I didn't ask anyone to respect my opinions. When did I ever say anyone had to respect my opinions. If you want you should tell me I'm dead wrong.Doublethink (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Truth be told, I just misread your post. Welp. Still you're very much wrong. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 03:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will go on a researching pilgrimage and return with a more informed opinion.Doublethink (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely true. This whole article is absolutely ridiculous. There is no rape culture in North America and it is offensively stupid to suggest that there is. It just simply is not so. Rational Wiki used to be such a good page before it got infected by feminists, now it's full of irrational bullshit like almost everywhere else on the web. ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.83.176.136 / talk}

On the reporting of survey results - Worldwide, Australia

This claim caught my attention: '40% (for young Australians) and 42% (for older Australians) excuse rape if "Rape results from men not able to control their need for sex".[27]'

Because wow, that's huge! Nearly 50%. Which seems both outrageous and very odd. So I downloaded the pdf and it seems to me that the actual question that was asked was simply "Rape results from men not able to control their need for sex" and had an agree/disagree option. The question does not specify that this EXCUSES the behaviour, which is the claim this article makes. So saying nearly half of all people believe rape is excused if men can't control themselves is misleading if not outright false.

It is also a clear anomaly among the other questions in the same section (which all specify that it is an excuse) and usually have under 10% agreeing with them.

Thoughts?

--That Guy Over There (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"46% of young Australian men believe "A lot of times women who say they were raped led the man on and later had regrets" and 46% of young Australian men believe that false rape accusations are not rare."

These stats came from Table 6 on p42. The stats between young men and young women are not massively different (for the first, only a couple % points), but the above seeks to portray Australian men = bad. I changed it to show the stat for [all] young Australians.

Also, the survey doesn't explain how "don't know" answers were treated. So for the latter question, I changed it to be in line with the wording of the original question. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)