To be fair, what would a "study or anecdote" that aligns with his claim look like? He expressed an opinion, and although I strongly disagree with it, it seems pretty clear that it's just an opinion... like mine. Asking him for evidence in favor of his opinion on this matter seems a bit misguided.
Every opinion that anyone has in an opinion that other people disagree with. I'm afraid that if I look too hard, I'll find that Glenn Beck also does not like the term and then people will assume that I didn't do some bad things in 1990.
I'm sure there have been studies done on the subject of whether rhetorical framing of this issue or that issue makes it more or less likely to influence the beliefs, actions, voting patterns, fiscal behavior, etc of individuals or groups within this demographic or that demographic. Whether those studies are credibly applicable in the real world is another question, of course, but it would be a worthwhile place to start. As it stands, my experience is that people who claim that they would [be progressive on blaming rapists for raping women rather than blaming the women] if those darned [feminists] didn't use hurtful language like [Rape Culture] are just flat-out lying, if to themselves. They'd find another excuse, and do, if one bothers to actually engage on the issues themselves.
I wasn't trolling. The correct response to the MRA side, which is a bunch of fucking crazies, is most definitely not changing your tone so as not to pick a fight with them.
Aaron, I get your point, and that might be a valid rule of thumb, but I think it's that at best. I heard (read) the term for the first time today. If you approach was correct for me, I'd have been non-"progressive" on the matter for my previous conscious life. Citation is needed but wikipedia mentions that the term was not well known until last year's Slut Walk (something my mother participated in). (I'd be lest me-centric but I don't want to speak for others I don't know).
Alright guys, settle down now. Bloo's a pretty alright fella, he just doesn't like the term. I didn't like it either when I first heard it. It sounded too confrontational to me too, and then I started reading the reasons it's the term that's used and it almost got to be not fucking enough for me. It's not an old term for most people, but it's not an old concept for them either. The recognition of the cultural leanings that normalize this is something that a LOT of people still haven't come across, and the term rape culture is calling it what it is, a culture of rape. It SHOULD be an uncomfortable thing to hear and to think about, because it IS an uncomfortable thing to hear and think about. If hearing "rape culture" makes someone stop and look up what that means because the term sticks and makes that uncomfortable, then hopefully it'll cause them to reflect on WHY that term exists and make a change. Until we're in a place where we don't laugh and pat a guy on the back for fucking a drunk chick or groping a girl who passed out or blame the victim when she reveals she was assaulted, we live in a rape culture. Hell, it's still something people are throwing around to silence women (did you see the shitstorm that hit Anita Sarkeesian at TEDxWomen 2012 today? Because that's the kind of thing that went on in the comments). It's a painful reality that has to be faced head on. Maybe we'll even reach a point where people recognize that there's a rape going on in a video game trailer and that has unfortunate implications.
Remember what I mentioned right back at the start of this thread, though, that some people react as if you are directly blaming them. I'm coming round to the position that it's an inability to empathise correctly - specifically, to properly picture a point of view of someone else. We say lazily "put yourself in their shoes" and some people do that literally - "If I was a homeless drunk I'd stop drinking and resume my successful software engineering career." Further, I suspect this has some transitive properties, such that when you say generally that society is sexist it seems to this mindset that you are literally calling them sexist. Which means when we try to discuss rape culture, some people react as if you are calling them rapists. Being able to acknowledge and reason about a point of view based on different principles than your own is an important skill whose difficulty is often understated.
bloo at times like this, it's useful to consult The Rock. And The Rock says: "It doesn't matter what you think." Apparently you find the term "rape culture" uncomfortable. That's OK in and of itself. But from there, there are two paths you can go down: 1) you can try to explore why it makes you feel uncomfortable, why it gets used anyway, what it means, &c, &c. Or you can just assert that it shouldn't be used. The first is the path of a decent human being. The latter is the path of a MRA shitheel. As of last night, when I posted my pleasure that you were apparently feeling driven away, you were walking the path of MRA shitheeldom. You find the term "rape culture" disgusting? You know what's disgusting? The fact that rape culture exists. The fact that we've normalized sexual violence against women throughout our culture. As uncomfortable as you are with the term rape culture, the fact of rape culture makes women throughout our society about a bazillion times more uncomfortable. So get over yourself because it's not about you. Shut your mouth, open your ears. Ask questions. Try to learn something.
In another thread recently, I think it was BaconTastesGood who said that some folks on this forum can turn on you in a second. A couple of you need to back off on this attack-dog reaction, you're not helping anyone. AaronSofaer and jeffd - you accuse bloo of being unable to empathize simply because he's hearing a phrase for the first time and trying to get his head around what it means and why. In doing so, you might be more effective if you exhibited some empathy yourself. "Shut your mouth?" Seriously? What the fuck is wrong with you? In the space of what, three brief posts (?) you've decided that bloo hates women and likes rape, just because he didn't react correctly to the phrase "rape culture." I first heard that term myself just a couple years ago and I didn't understand it at first either. At some point, all of you learned this shit. Bloo is at that point right now. Attacking him because he didn't learn it early enough to suit your preferences is shitty and counterproductive.
I said nothing of the sort and think nothing of the sort. I think that his objection is unsound, that his second post was somewhat incomprehensible, that Zeke offered a substantive criticism with which he did not engage, and that his tone was whiny; that is the limit of my criticism of his beliefs or positions thus far in the thread. As a completely straightforward pedant, believe me, if I felt that his post necessarily implied a lack of empathy I would have said so. You're missing my point. My claim is not that everyone who dislikes the term is non-progressive on the matter; my claim is that everyone (or nearly everyone) who claims to be non-progressive on the matter because of the term is lying (or just such a terrible human being that they're beyond hope anyway).
I don't think the term "rape culture" is offensive - I think it's inaccurate because it implies that the only facet of the culture is rape. Might as well say "shoplifting culture" or "vandalism culture" - not trying to equate rape with misdemeanors, just saying that those are all pervasive elements in society and we shouldn't define culture by their presence. That being said - whatever you call it, perhaps an offensive and confrontational term is necessary to draw attention to the pervasive attitudes. Like jeffd said, as long as we're celebrating the marginalization of sexual assault, the attitudes are perpetuated. I'd go a step further and say that we don't need to celebrate it to perpetuate it, even ignoring it or dismissing it helps perpetuate it. The thread reminds me of a discussion I had about the trailer when it first came out: I disagree with the argument that people can't become stronger by getting beaten up and injured and whatnot. I tend to think that's the only thing that makes someone stronger. Any good self-made hero (as opposed to those whose strength comes from an innate source like Superman or an external force like Spider-Man) has a tragedy in their background to motivate them, and it's only effective if it happens directly to them. I find it much more believable to have Lara Croft become a harder, tougher badass by enduring and overcoming trauma rather than "I'm rich and I practice a lot" - the former makes her a hero, the latter makes her just an entitlement fantasy. With that in mind, though - I think it's insensitive at the very least to try and throw sexual violence into the mix for no purpose other than to push people's buttons. Because that's all it is - people have extreme emotional responses to portrayals of rape, and that's why it was included in the trailer. I think it's unnecessary and I'm less inclined to pick up the game because of it - which is sad, because everything else would combine to have made this game a likely buy.
SuperJay it might be useful if you tried to accurately characterized what happened, instead of just jumping in to chide people while making shit up. Here is what actually happened: bloo objected to the term rape culture. His specific objection: "Reading these two words next to each other makes me nauseous." In and of itself that's OK. Not great but OK. Rape culture is disgusting; right thinking people should feel uncomfortable about it. However, bloo made it clear it's not the concept of rape culture he necessarily finds disgusting (other than trying to flag some liberal/feminist creds based on where he went to school he's basically silent on that front). It's the fact that we're using that exact phrase. Because it makes him uncomfortable we shouldn't use it, because we might alienate him or something. Which is total bullshit. The term exists as an accurate description of a social problem. The fact that it makes bloo (or anyone else) uncomfortable is irrelevant because - as I said - it's not about bloo (any more than it's about you, or me, or any individual). bloo didn't approach this subject as someone "trying to get his head around" a new concept. If that was the case, then people like Aaron and I would have engaged with him in good faith and with empathy because it's a hard concept to get your head around. I myself struggled with it for a long while. But - again - that isn't what happened. bloo came in here and chided us for using the term, and concern-trolled about how it might alienate people. Hence I stand by what I said: if that's all he's got to offer, then he should shut his mouth. If he's actually interested in learning something and exploring this issue, then by all means he should ask questions. And most importantly he should listen. As for you: you don't know what I think of bloo. I don't know how you get the idea that Aaron and I think he "hates women and likes rape," but that's a pretty awful thing to accuse us of. You should shut your mouth too, if that's all you're going to contribute to this thread.
"rape culture" as a phrase isn't meant to imply that rape is the only or defining characterization of our culture; obviously our culture involves more than rape. It's meant as a label to a specific social problem.
No, it doesn't. If I said America had a rap music culture, no one would infer that all American culture is rap music culture. If I said America had a culture of entrepreneurship, no one would infer that all Americans are entrepreneurs. Etc.
I think it would imply that - and that's why it's used. It doesn't have to be accurate to be effective. "Rape culture" parses as "a culture of rape", not "a culture that includes rape". But that's just me being pedantic. I don't have a problem with the term's usage because hell, it gets MY attention focused on the issue. Sort of like how the RAINN organization tends to garner my attention because my brain first reacts by going "YOU MISSPELLED THE WORD RAIN AAAAARGH... oh wait, there's a reason."
Nute I think you just need to take people's word that the term doesn't imply that all of American culture boils down to rape. Nobody uses it that way, and almost nobody sees it that way except you. :)
It's this "Before you've learned anything about what I'm about to rage about, you must choose between being Saver of Puppies or Hitler's Lackey -- WHICH IS IT?" attitude that makes the undecided recoil in horror when a topic comes up. ....and, yeah, you've now just drawn a parallel between someone uncomfortable with a term and the sexual oppression and assault of millions of women throughout history. THAT WILL TOTALLY MAKE HIM SEE YOUR POINT OF VIEW. You don't educate people who seem to be decent people (and I don't recall any offensive posts by bloo in the past that made me toss him into the bozo bucket) by fucking berating and shaming them. You don't win people to your side by showering them with you're either a good guy or a shit bird, and guess where you are right now?!@!?!! Whenever a marginalized group defends their position antagonistically against those they are trying to sway, it causes more harm than good, because between the two extremes of "rape culture is a terrible thing for society we should fix" and "Who here knows how to cook rohypnol?" there is a vast group of people who have never heard the term and are neither informed about or affected by the problem. They also, for better or worse, have never had a reason to give a shit in the grand scheme of things because they have a million other things to be concerned about, because the world is full of shittiness and we have to pick and choose which specific things we crusade about. So now you got this guy going "This is gross" and eliciting standard dubiousness about the topic -- which happens with all cases when explaining marginalization to someone who is not marginalized -- and you have a perfect textbook sales opportunity to win someone over to your point of view by saying "Oh, I didn't realize you hadn't heard this, it's kind of a big topic, here's the general breakdown" and have them think "Shit, never really thought about it that way" and, hey, we have a convert! But instead bloo's first opinion on the subject is will now be "those people are a bunch of shrill judgmental assholes". And of course, that will be framed as his fault. WELL PLAYED. ====
BTG your post would be appropriate if bloo's posts were those of someone exhibiting "standard dubiousness about the topic." They're not, they're posts by someone who is specifically objecting to the term because he finds it alienating. Specifically: "There's a point where preaching at the target drives the choir away." This is not the reaction of someone who is not marginalized struggling to understand marginalization. There's no attempt to understand what's happening, it's just an assertion that the term shouldn't be used. That's a very different reaction, and IMO one worthy of dismissal. If bloo came in here and said "Why are you using that term, I find it really uncomfortable," then we'd be having an interesting discussion and exploring marginalization and all that good stuff you talk about. But again: that is not what actually happened.
If the upside to a term's pointedness is that it starts discussions and unsettles people's thinking on an issue, the corollary is that one should be ready to unpack the term and help that discussion be a good one.
I'm more than willing! But the starting point needs to be something other than "don't use that term."
That was exactly my reaction when confronted with the term. Initially my response is "Well, that's an overreaction, it's not like that at all!" which got me to try and look for some counter-examples, which led me to realize "Oh, it's kind of like that. Maybe they have a point."
On the other hand, I have seen you ( jeffd) and others give better and more when others have given worse and less. That this topic is particularly inflammatory is no reason to be perpetually on guard and looking for targets. I take the overarching point of BaconTastesGood 's post to be that bloo could understand the concept and could be an ally, probably all ready is and might still be in the way "you" want him to be, but by immediately going Full Santorum you have ensured that he thinks less of you and people who use the term. In other words, even if he was trolling, which I do not think he was, it doesn't mean you need or even should respond to it in kind. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is not only about how they come to perceive you, it's about how others come to perceive you, too. You might not care, but if you bludgeon whatever goodwill you have into the ground through overuse, for no other reason than because you think you are in the right and that history is on your side, well, see how far your movement will get, eh? Ask some older feminists sometime.
I think we just have a different reading of what happened. ZekeDMS offered bloo the chance to have the discussion you're talking about. Go read posts 1072 and 1073.
This is as good starting point as any -- the response can be "no, i will keep using this term because (list the reasons)".
Things had already started to get tetchy by that point. I read, as I suspect you and Zeke and Aaron did, a tone of "pshaw that's ugly polemical language" from Bloo's initial replies. Before anyone else replied I thought "well, this won't go well." And I for my part reacted by not posting at all, so no points for me. I think theoretically the best idea would be for the sort of explanation in post 1072 to have been the lead-off reply in a friendly discussion way not a "this is why you need to back the fuck up" way. At any rate I didn't mean to threadcop which is why post 1100 was blandly non-specific. *backs into hedge*
jeffd, where in this exchange was bloo offered the chance to have a hostility-free and completely open exchange? Opinion. Not the right way to go about stating it (edit: to clarify, I say this knowing that it'll put people on edge because discussions surrounding this term are so iffy; it is a fine opinion to express otherwise), but bloo can be kind of short sometimes. That's fine with me. Educate the man if you want to. Opinion. How is this more of a quality post than bloo's? He states it is the point but puts in absolutely no effort until his second post to expand upon why. This is not education, but it is an equally valid response to an equally short post. Opinion. Is equally as lacking in information or context as Zekedms 's post above. Fair enough. Context. Fantastic! bloo can directly respond to the questions in the first paragraph, but he's better off not doing so as it is antagonistic. The second paragraph is mixed. The first sentence is debatable, based on whether or not the United States has one (don't attack me, people, I am not making that argument); the first half of the second one is debatable as to whether or not it "should" be bothersome is desirable and the second half is pure conjecture. The last paragraph is non-sense and factually incorrect as the term evolved due to medical understanding of the condition. You could have made the same point, and you did in your first paragraph, without trying to link "rape culture" to science and medicine. Not the reaction I would have had, but, then, I have tried to become a more diplomatic person in all aspects of my life. I am also not a stressed out lawyer type (iirc) who just had someone infer that I can't understand (vs simply dislike) why a term is being used. I also know how these discussions go and do everything I can to disengage from any misunderstandings before they arise. bloo might not. His first paragraph was a dismissal of Zeke acting as if bloo, again, doesn't understand the concept. This seems to be an incredibly common theme in discussions surrounding the term. I can see why bloo would be pissed off. Again, I wouldn't have written it, as I know it to be a counterintuitive way to go about things, but, then, I avoid these discussions altogether. I also take bloo's "target" in this instance to be him and people like him: someone who has never read it before but is all ready on board with feminist ideology. I can see how it would be very easy to miss that, as I almost did, but it makes perfect sense. So, again, what chance did bloo have engage civilly, and in what way was he engaged in completely good faith, before the claws came out? Was it when Zeke claimed that the point was to make the reader nauseous? Was it when bloo then failed to agree? If that is the margin of error any poster has in this discussion - one single post - then any of us could easily fall foul of that.
Honestly at this point I don't think there's much to be gained by unpacking individual posts, and further the thread is becoming more about me and bloo than it is about the subject at hand, which is never a good place to be. If I'm wrong about what happened and bloo really was making a good faith attempt to engage on the subject then I sincerely apologize.
Really? 'cause from my perspective, bloo's entire post there is nothing but an appeal to his apparently superior feminist credentials. But the post is mostly incomprehensible to me, so maybe it's just that I can't understand what he wrote at all. Zeke's post was in worlds better faith than any of bloo's, so between that and the fact that nobody has a fucking obligation to educate, all my tearducts remain dry.
Tone arguments always have problems, but one of them is that they always seem to get asymptotically closer and closer to deploying sentence diagrams.
Especially because "rape culture" is easily googled. General rule of practice: before objecting to something at minimum look that shit up on Wikipedia.
Somebody isn't up on his Carlin! Which is sad, as it's not particularly new Carlin (not that there is any now ;_;) Believe me, that was definitely not claws out by my standards, and was absolutely meant in good faith. There's a reason I elaborated further and jumped in to say "Holy shit guys chill out." If I was attacking, you'd know it. I'd have written a 747 word polemic in the span of 15 minutes. I would have sperged the fuck out eagerly (and probably followed up with heartfelt advice). My argument with Bloo was and is in good faith. I meant it, he's an alright fella and it is an uncomfortable term.
Dammit, I swore I wasn't going to get involved, but no not really. The term is in fact very poorly defined and extremely inconsistently used, and I do instinctively blanch a bit at it because as often as not it's used to refer to whatever beefs the person using it has with society, rape-related or not. In fact, the very first time I encountered it I asked what it was supposed to mean and was presented with a laundry list of absolute nonsense. So actually, if you want someone to take the concept of a culture of rape seriously, telling to just Google it is a pretty bad way to accomplish that.
Great, but if you Google it you can at least make a semi-intelligent point like "this term is vague or inconsistent" rather than complaining about how the words make you feel icky. People need to take at least some responsibility for educating themselves before attempting to make a critique.
This brings up a peripheral point (and hey why not identify it, since this thread is on a total tangent anyway): to what extent do forum posters operate as educators vs. polemicists vs. whatever else. BTG's and Bryce's post both sort of assume the proper role is one of educator, and to an extent I can see how that's a noble ideal to aspire to. It's also one that I don't think is necessary or even appropriate in all cases. There's also the secondary consideration - which Alexb is getting at - regarding how often you keep rehashing basic stuff vs. exploring more advanced concepts. Not that any particular thread on BF is an exemplar of university-graduate-course-level discussion or anything (I don't say that to be insulting btw; I just don't want to intimate that D&D is some hoity toity ivory tower enclave); but at some point if you want to have a discussion that's above a 101-level class you've got to create a certain requirement for self-education on behalf of new posters. Speaking as someone who's primary interest is economics, you see this happen a lot: conversations about - for lack of a better term - more advanced topics get derailed by people coming in with obviously little more than a macro-101 level understanding of the concepts.
*shrug* What's your goal here? To score points against bloo for being such a dummy, or to have some kind of productive discussion? Because if you just want to link people to lmgtfy.com that's cool and all, but if you care about the concept of "rape culture" it makes sense that you would want people to understand it, and in that case googling it is the worst thing for them to do because there's a pretty good chance that they would pull up some dumb blog posts, assume that they were accurate, and conclude that the whole thing was stupid and that they shouldn't give it another thought.
