(emphasis added) This is the best summary of my reaction. Thank's Bryce. I did feel a bit as if I'd stepped on a landmine in my neighborhood and that's at least part of why I didn't go completely flamethrower or have a prepared treatise on why my opinion is right with studies. I tried to signal that with the mention of studying feminist material in college, without being too pedantic about it, that I've been familiar with the idea and on that side of things for over 20 years (I fully admit to become completely clueless and ignorant about such matters, and many others, until then). My specific objection is the words of the label (we're not arguing about the existence of the subject ). Others disagree. But I don't think there's room for much substantive clash at that point. I think it's over the line, others think it's not (or that there is no line). I might change my mind in time. You might change yours. There's a gap between "that term isn't effective" (I tried to imply "could be better" - that clearly didn't come through enough) and "don't you use that term" that I don't think I crossed, which also took me aback at the reactions. When I put down the browser last night, I was regretting saying anything. And then I get upset at that - I tend to have a strong negative reaction against the discouragement of speech in general. But now, I think we're all ok. And I think Bryce's critique of my posts if fair. We cool?
jeffd: Nowhere in my post did I say that educator is the proper role to play. I said that, if one wanted, they could educate bloo. It is a very large assumption, not to mention very large logical leap, to make. There are not only two or three or even four roles and you do not only have to play one at a time. My point was that, if someone found bloo's post objectionable, one possible way to approach it was to educate ("inform" if that would lead to people assuming less about what I am saying) him as to what "rape culture" as a term encompasses. Drop him a LMGTFY link and count that as informing if you want. (And, as an addendum, let's not be ultra condescending while doing it, eh? Who knows if our assumptions about what other people understand or think are correct, and we wouldn't like it if others did the same to us. We're better than that.) The least preferable, in my book, is to initially sledgehammer him into submission - eg, you're either with us or you're against us - which was what was very obviously happening. That forms enemies and more of them, especially out of former/current allies, is not what any social movement needs. If he were to start being overwhelmingly adversarial and antagonistic as opposed to conversational then I would see the dynamics of the conversation changing but, until that point, all of the roles you are playing, regardless of name, involve persuading him to believe whatever ideas you are proferring.
bloo explicitly stated that he's at least 40, and implicitly that he's got some male privilege going on. We're in a transitional period for a lot of cultural mores and attitudes; helping someone to understand and try to sway them to the reason why you've reached your conclusions (in a forum called Debate and Discussion, no less!) is what has to happen in such a time to open minds to a new way of thinking. A lot of people feel comfortable here, with a sense of community, and I think discouraging people from voicing their (non-truly abhorrent) thoughts is a bad idea. Or you can ambush them and close their mind off with a bunch of knee-jerking litmus test chucklefuckery. Either/or.
I don't care about scoring points, it's just exhausting to go over the same stuff over and over again. Further, having an interesting discussion requires that people inform themselves. I don't post here for the good of mankind, I post to have interesting conversations and to test the limits of my ideas. Everyone needs to do the basic ground work for themselves for that to be possible. Imagine how annoying it would be if in every economy thread we had to go over micro 101 every 10 pages in the interests of education.
This happens all the time and it's annoying as shit, especially because intro-level economics is at best a very rough approximation of how the world works. One of the most common econo-troll tactics is to start a statement with "Anyone who understands basic economics knows...." which almost always precipitates a derail of at least several posts and possibly several pages.
Well I take your point, but the problem as it relates to this topic specifically is that it's literally impossible for someone to easily and accurately educate themselves into an understanding of what's being talked about. And that's why I honestly would rather people stopped using the term; it's imprecise and it leads to conversational difficulty like this. You know, Zeke said this kind of snarkily: ...but honestly yes, I would prefer that. That's a precise description of what's being discussed, it makes sense on its face, and it's easy to understand. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that the ugliness of the phrase "rape culture" is a virtue, but the primary function of language is communication, not shock value, and I think it does more harm than good to use a term so broadly defined as to be meaningless without a decoder ring for the speaker's understanding of it.
Then link them to previous discussions, or relevant resources and invite them to come back when they're caught up. I get your frustration, really, but being dismissive just comes off as arrogant and associates a negative emotional response with your position. It sucks, but we're really on the vanguard of a new era of thinking here, and you have to make the decision of either trying to win people over or telling them to fuck off because they're not cool enough for your club.
I think you're stumbling upon a couple of dynamics here. 1) Feminism as area of academic inquiry vs. feminism as political movement. Rape culture stems from the former (in that sense it's a technical term with a precise definition). It's a perfectly precise term, and it has a definition (that ZekeDMS alluded to). Objecting to it as "imprecise" sort of misses the point; it's only imprecise insofar as you don't know the definition. Which gets us into feminism as a political movement / area of advocacy: you can't always take it for granted that everyone knows the definition. 2) What level do forum discussions operate at? This thread sort of segues into that question (LK's post on page 2 is really good), and it's one that alexb and I have posted on in this very thread. Suffice to say, the term does have a definition, and if you object to its use - well, go ahead and ask yourself what The Rock says.
Also, this thread wasn't an interesting next-level discussion about rape culture. It was bumped for high-fives about some fake underpants. So it's not like bloo disrupted anything by not knowing what the phrase meant.
Well, language evolves and not always for the better. I would argue that if so many people who use a term use it incorrectly that you can't even look it up if you try and be confident that the definition you're reading is the same one the guy you're talking to is using, that's the definition of an imprecise term.
I'm sure that this is exactly what would have happened had the discussion begun with a question like "what is this rape culture you speak of?" But if someone wants to jump into a conversation with an ill-informed position, then I'm going to find that pretty annoying and respond accordingly.
We can do that, but I'm not sure what "Stop right there, jabroni, and listen to the most electrifying man in gender politics. If you don't like the term "rape culture" you should find a new term, one that makes you comfortable, and you take that term, shine it up real nice then turn that sumbitch sideways and stick it straight up your roody poo candy ass! Can ya smeeeellllllllllll... what the Rock is cookin'!" adds to the conversation.
First, I like the Sanctum so that's no problem with me, second, posting without first educating one's self is also a pretty Sanctorum approach to discussion, n'est-ce pas?
So do I. I also like playing with my cats* but I don't do it on the train. I mean, do you disagree with me that it's not actually possible to effectively educate oneself about this in the amount of time a forum post is worth? You don't seem to have objected to that but you keep coming back to this, so is that the problem? *See, that sentence is a good example of the difference between subforums; if this were the Sanctorum that would not have been that activity mentioned.
That's sort of a good question, and one that I don't think has any right answer. Or rather, the answer is going to be it depends, specifically on what your intentions are when coming into a thread. Assuming you're operating from a position of ignorance, if you're coming in to ask questions and learn something then I'd say that's OK. It may be disruptive but it's OK. If you're coming in to tell folks what's what (anyone who understands basic economics knows...) then probably you should not hit the "Post Reply" button.
No, the problem is that Bloo didn't ask to be educated, but instead went straight into a critique/concern troll of a topic he didn't understand. My point is that if you want to have a discussion you have to learn first and argue later. If you just want more information, then ask and you shall receive. I do think that the basic concepts behind "rape culture" are easily googleable. I mean, the Wikipedia entry seem pretty legit to me.
When someone uses the term "rape culture", my guy reaction is similar to someone making a Hitler comparison or something. This person has some extreme views, and I don't want to have a conversation with them about this topic. Fair? Apparently not. But it's a confrontational term, and I'm not often in the mood for confrontation. It's basically accusing everyone who is a part of society as being an accessory to rape. I definitely can't see it doing anything but making guys who rape easily super defensive.
Actually, given how beautifully that fits, I wonder if Hanacker just trolled me very skillfully. If so, sir, I tip my hat to you.
If that was a troll, it's so streets ahead troll-jitsu I think he could make a person troll themself.
Well, I never thought I'd see a discussion on this topic that actually made me sympathize with the side objecting to the rape culture term. Nice work. :/
I don't know any straight guys who don't want to indiscriminately fuck most women most of the time on some level. It seems to me that male desire and predatory aggression are pretty closely linked, and that any representation of those drives is going to have to integrate that reality if it's going to authentically resonate. So... I don't know what ideal art looks like to the rape culture people, but don't think we will ever really get there.
Hey bloo You liked my post, so I think you understood what I was getting at, but what I was shooting for was a pithy restatement of Aeon's "shout at them until they go away" style of political persuasion. I sincerely regret bringing up MRA and I wasn't implying in any way that you were one them - they were just an example.
I don't think that "the normalization of sexual violence through media" is a wholly adequate replacement for "rape culture" since it's not just media messages that are covered under that umbrella, though it is part of the equation.
Yes, this. It's more than just media; it is coded into a huge sum of social norms for which the collective term "culture" is pretty apposite. It's visible in everything from the fact that rapists can still utilise a "she was asking for it" defence and obtain sympathy from some juries, to the concept of "blue balls" and "friendzoning", to the way that strange men will approach women they don't know on the street and ask them to smile. As far as bloo in this thread, I think the reception he got was a bit harsh, but I also think that there's two ways to react to a term you don't understand: one is with humility and intellectual curiosity, and the other is with an instinctive fear, ignorance and gut feel. He'd have done better to go with something closer to the former than, as he did, with something closer to the latter. People around here are on an understandable hair trigger for MRA-types, after the famous Thread Which Shall Not Be Named.
I think Mese covers it pretty well. We're all on the same side here I think, except Civilian Apps who probably posted something dumb but I can't be arsed to bother. It's just an argument over the fairness/accuracy/efficacy of the term "rape culture." Obviously opinions run hot on it, and with good reason. But we all see that there is a significant problem and to what level and label is clearly open to debate. It IS a contentious term, it is not one that accuses every man in the room of rape. It does make a statement that our cultural norms are far too accepting of sexual(ized, in the Hitman trailer) violence against women. It is also not the "all men are rapists" straw feminist. To me, it's the most direct, accurate term to describe the problem. I can understand where others would see it as too confrontational, I just disagree. Kumbamotherfuckinya.
Eh. He said it was "contentious" but not "too confrontational." A chippy argument that people backed into from various directions is perfectly consistent with that.
Speaking for myself, I appreciate the phrase now that I know what it's intended to convey, but it's not instantly clear exactly what that is - I realize it's sacrificing some understanding in a shorthand that makes for better shock value, and that's fine. When I first heard it a couple years back, my reaction was "wha?" I wasn't sickened or offended or defensive because I'm a man who felt like I was being accused of rape. I was just confused by it. Phrases like "American culture" or "Japanese culture" or "Youth culture" describe the dominant culture of a population (or a subset of a population). If you hear it without some explanatory context, "rape culture" sounds like the culture of rapists, or... something? Speaking of rapists, I was arguing with some douchey kids on the Internet a while back about some posters that were intended to raise awareness of rape and sexual assault. Their contention was that "rapists aren't going to stop because of a poster" and similar nonsense. I explained that rape isn't solely the province of serial criminals (because I think it's easy to hand-wave those initiatives away if you consider sexualized violence as something only "rapists" do) but nah, they weren't having any of that crazy-talk. "Everyone knows rape is a crime, this is stupid. What's next, fliers for burglary awareness?" *facepalm*
No? Do people think "wine culture" is a culture of sentient wine bottles? "Rape culture" is not a particularly revolutionary term, linguistically. It has unpleasant connotations, but that's pretty much the nature of this particular beast, isn't it?
An apology that starts with "If I'm wrong" doesn't come across as being particularly sincere. Of course not? "Wine culture" is the culture of people who are into wine just like "rape culture" is the culture of people who are into rape. Wait... why are we arguing this when it's obvious what the term means, unless you think it means something else in which case it obviously doesn't mean that so stop being wrong. Anyway, what we actually have is a culture of misogyny, of which rape is a symptom. The term "rape culture" is missing the forest for the trees.
