Talk:Rape culture/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Survivors or victims?

I recently edited a section to remove multiple uses of the word "survivor", referring to a person who has been raped. There are two reasons not to use that word. First, it's just inaccurate: Wiktionary: survive. Death by rape is very rare, so it's an extreme exaggeration to imply that rape is a life threatening event.

I'm not saying rape isn't serious, or that no person has ever died after a rape.

Second reason is that it implies that this article is discussing specifically the type of rape that does constitute a life threatening event. In reality, the information in this article applies to all types of rape (as confirmed by the indiscriminate occasional use of the much broader term "sexual assault").

Since "survivor" is so clearly a clumsy term, I guess the author used it as a last resort in an effort to avoid the word "victim". To avoid being reverted, I didn't use the word "victim", but it really does seem the most accurate word. I understand why a rape counsellor would avoid that term, but an encyclopedia should use accurate terms. So, although I didn't use the word "victim", I suggest that it should be used. Gronky (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There is abundant literature from rape survivors and their advocates that disagrees with this. When describing a community we should use the terms that they use to refer to themselves in their literature.

Additionally, wiktionary is non-RS. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clearer, I'm not saying that we should use the "survivor" terminology in every case, but any changes needs to be done with a bit more discussion and explanation. I also find the characterization of the phraseology as "overly dramatic" to be quite offensive, just for the record. There was a bit of knee-jerkiness there, but I'm sure we can work through that. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written from the internal point of view of the groups it documents. Wikipedia uses the word that is correct, not necessarily the word that advocates within a domain want it to use.

Wiktionary's definition of survivor is the same as all other dictionaries. I can't link to my paper dictionaries but if you consult any dictionary you'll find that surviving something means avoiding death.

You say yourself that "survivor" isn't right for every case. This makes my point. That article section uses "survivor" as a generality, to refer to every case. That's simply wrong.

I'm going to reinstate my edits. If you think any uses of the word "survivor" should be left in that section, can you say why it's the most accurate word? Gronky (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The burden of demonstrating the utility of a change lies with the editor who makes the change. Many of your changes to the terminology result in ambiguous wording. the term "survivor" it is indeed warranted in many, perhaps most, situations. Your attempts to completely remove it are, again, frankly offensive.

Although Wikipedia "is not written from the internal point of view of the groups it documents", that is different from saying that individuals and groups should be referred to by the terms they prefer. I would refer you also to the current ArbCom case about the Chelsea Manning article.

In my view, it was also inappropriate for you to simply reinstate your changes without substantial further discussion. Please do not do so again; I would interpret that as edit warring.

If you wish to start an RfC on the terminology, in order to determine community standards for use of "survivor" or other terms such as "victim", then I would support this.

I would also support further exploration of why these changes should be made, on a per-instance basis, through discussion here on the talk page. When we come to consensus on a particular instance, then by all means change it, but not before. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 20:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've explained my edits twice already. You've reverted twice and given no explanation at all other than that you are offended. Please explain why "survivor" is appropriate for any of the cases which you've reverted. Gronky (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As i noted, the burden of proof is on you, per WP:BRD. I find your characterizations to be offensive and i've explained why. if we can get to the case-by-case discussions, or the RfC, or other appropriate mechanism, then let's do so. You start. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "rape survivor" has quite a few hits on google scholar. the term itself seems to be fairly widespread. This is why it's important to discuss each instance you wish to change; with enough discussion we can probably come up with a guideline about when the term is most appropriate and when it is least so. This is much different from characterizing the use of the term itself as "overly dramatic" or attempting to remove all mentions of the term. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to change all the uses of "survivor" to "victim". Rape is a violent criminal act and the person who is victimized is termed the victim, not the survivor. In the same way, if one were to be attacked and beaten, knifed, shot, etc., they would be said to be victims who survived the attack, not survivors. Note that the first two sources use the term victim and only the third, the advocacy source, sometimes uses the term survivor. As an encyclopedia, we would use the encyclopedic term, victim, not the one sometimes used by advocacy groups in their discussions about rape. Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I take it you didn't look at any of the >30k results for "rape survivor" on google scholar, in the link i posted?

I maintain that this should be done on a case-by-case basis. If there are questions or disagreement, we should take it to DRN or start an RfC. But I've already said this more than once. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 12:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked at a decent number of abstracts and articles, and it seemed to me like "rape victim advocate" was more consistently used to describe that role, so I changed some of the contentious wording to reflect this. "rape victim" and "rape survivor" were sometimes used interchangably, though more recent papers seemed to used "survivor" quite a bit more. I was unable to find any papers on the differences in use of the two terms, or guidelines for their use. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 13:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have time to give this the attention it needs right now, but I will note that by GS hits, "rape victim" is more prevalent than "rape survivor". This said, I wouldn't use that as cause to change the instances in the article. Particularly to accommodate more contemporary rhetoric about victimhood in rape, I'd instead favor a nuanced approach to each instance (e.g., "victim" when referring to rape as a crime, "survivor" when referring to the corporeal aspects of rape), but I don't think it helps to refer to this population uniformly as survivors. I'll try to check back later in the week unless someone pings me sooner. czar ♔ 13:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The question for me is this: was the change of language done in the public sphere for advocacy reasons or accuracy reasons? If it's the former, we should use "victim." If the latter, "survivor" is appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict and reply to TCL) I'm going to revert your edit as this is an egregious use of the term survivor. It is not surprising that a google search would turn up with multiple uses of the term rape survivor because advocacy groups do use that terminology in discussing the effects that rape has on the victim. However, one of women's advocacy group's core demands is that rape be seen as a violent crime and that the victims be seen as victims, not women who, through their behavior, etc., were somehow responsible for the rape. Note that, for instance, of the three refs used in the first para, two use the term victims and of the third, the principle source, SANE, open their proclamation with, "A multidisciplinary response is needed to serve victims of sexual assault, and OVC anticipates that individuals from many disciplines, not just forensic nursing, will use this guide to aid their efforts in establishing and operating a SANE program." Frankly, only an editor that has little to no understanding of woman's issues would insist that Wikipedia use the term survivor rather than victim for a person that has been raped. Gandydancer (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Thargor: I agree with your question, and since no one disputes that surviving means avoiding death, and no one argues (neither here nor elsewhere) that rape is generally considered lethal, the survivor-is-accurate option is impossible and thus excluded, right? Gronky (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

offtopic
@Gronky: please see Mansplaining. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 01:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC) That's off topic. I just wanted to confirm that Thargor's question was rhetorical (or at the least that the implication was clear). Gronky (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I dispute that "surviving" always has a 1:1 mapping to "avoiding death". Is that clear enough for you? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, WP:BRD is just an essay with no authority. You shouldn't be citing it to people as if it were policy. Gronky (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

offtopic
Please feel free to file a complaint at the noticeboard of your choosing, but this discussion does not belong here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 21:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC) I won't file a complaint. It's just a note for you and for anyone who joins the discussion. Gronky (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"Victim" certainly communicates better and is less confusing.

More importantly, the version favored by UseTheCommandLine has a very sudden and unexplained shift in terminology. This would be confusing to any reader not already familiar with the topic and its jargon.APL (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, most of what I favored was additional discussion from other editors, rather than a particular version. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. APL (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I think that "victim" is a much more appropriate term than "survivor" for all the reasons listed above. In addition to the reasons well stated above, victims involve those who did not survive, so it is more inclusive. Someone who has had a crime committed against him or her is a victim. I think the advocacy community has tried to use terms like survivor because it may make victims feel stronger due to connotations of victimhood being a sign of weakness. There is merit to this approach in encouraging women to speak out against the violence they've endured, however, for the purposes of the encyclopedia, "victim" is the more appropriate term. —Zujine|talk 18:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Cat being edit warred over

What exactly is wrong with a violence against men cat? Anyone here ever been in prison? A lota guys get raped inside. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism p 239 & Coercive Control:How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life p 29 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

'Violence against men' suggests that people are being put through this violence because of their gender. You would say prison rape is a gendered issue? It is true that men are raped significantly more frequently in prison than outside of it, where male rape numbers are very low in comparison. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the first uses of the term "rape culture" was a film about prison rape (overwhelmingly male-on-male). Rape within militaries is often male-on-male as well. "Rape culture" encompasses any culture in which rape is normalized, regardless of gender. It is not a great category, but it is the best category available, and it should be there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

According to one survey 2% men in China were raped. 9% in USA. 2% in India. Category must stay. OccultZone (Talk) 05:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A recent study found that rape in prison is more common than rape outside of prison. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html. DGAgainstDV (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I would argue Daily Mail is a poor source --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The best solution is to put this in Category:Rape, which is itself in both violence against men and women. then we don't have to debate this further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not even a solution. OccultZone (Talk) 18:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: broader discussion on this topic here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Opinions_needed_re:_subcats. Please weigh in there. My feeling is, there are so many articles about Rape (~1381), it is better to just follow WP:SUBCAT and not edit war over each article whether its really about VAW or VAM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Kinda agreed this time. Rape is not limited humans either, but this article specifically focuses on 'rape culture'. OccultZone (Talk) 18:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms Section April 2014

On Saturday I placed some new text in the criticism section. It was simple reporting of the criticism by Sommers, Gilbert, etc. of the Mary Koss “1 in 4” campus rape statistic. I was having trouble with the references, so planned to work on them and add them on Sunday. When I got back on on Sunday, I found I had a template warning from User:Drowninginlimbo telling me not to put original research or synthesis in articles (my inclusion was neither), and on this article I found my addition had been deleted by Drowninginlimbo. At 18:21, I reverted his deletion, stating that my inclusion was not OR or SYN, was supported in the previously cited Sommers reference, which it was. At 18:22, my inclusion was deleted again by User:Scarlettail, at 18:24, Drowninginlimbo put another template on my userpage warning about unsourced material, and then at 18:27, Drowninginlimbo put a very strongly worded template on my userpage accusing me of edit warring and threatening a block. I can see now why this article has a “neutrality disputed” template on it and the talk page archives are littered with contentious arguments about the neutrality of various sections here. I see that Drowninginlimbo is a fairly new editor, so I would like to offer some friendly advice:

1. You really need to read and understand the policies about original research, synthesis, and edit warring, really get a better understanding than you currently have of what does and does not constitute these things before going around accusing people of them and templating people for them. I see from your user talk that you have been recently accused of edit warring, just this very month. Now thoroughly chastened, I trust, you may be a little hyperaware of the whole concept of edit warring and a little too quick to assume it in others. So let me help you out. One single revert in 24 hours does not an edit war make. Generally, three reverts in 24 hours is the standard, but in general, if someone has made one revert, you should really wait and see if they are going to revert again before you start accusing them of edit warring. Indeed, prematurely accusing someone of edit warring, as you did here, is in itself a kind of edit warring.
2. Go easy on the templating. Read WP:DTTR to get an understanding of why being so heavy-handed on templates on peoples’ user pages can be counterproductive and come across as less that courteous. Personal, kindly worded messages are much more effective, as DTTR says: “Note, however, that templating at all – to regulars or newcomers – may be taken as rude by being impersonal (biting the newbies). No one likes to feel they are being bureaucratically processed. Templates cannot help but inherently convey that feeling. That is why writing what the template says in your own words, with reference to the particular situation, is more likely to communicate well (if the editor is amenable to reason).”
3. There is kind of an unwritten rule here that it is more courteous not to be so heavy-handed about deleting peoples’ edits just because they haven’t properly sourced them. It is far better to give people a chance to come back and provide sources for unsourced text than immediately deleting it, especially when the person’s addition is only 24 hours old. In fact, Wikipedia provides ways to tag information as needing a citation, which is this: . I recommend using that, plus a note to the editor, before just deleting.

These suggestions were directed to USER:Drowninginlimbo, but I am saying them here publicly because User:Scarlettail was also a little quick to delete, and we can all use a reminder from time to time that there is a way to edit on this project that won’t rub people the wrong way as much as being a little too bold and being a little too officious. Especially in an article like this, which over the years has obviously proved very contentious, when there have been accusations back and forth of being pointy, being too eager to delete others’ new edits, and being too eager to slap warning templates on others’ talk pages could easily be interpreted as having a pointy motivation, and in general just further escalates the tension on this page. I have added citations to all the facts I stated in my addition, so that should lay to rest any concerns about them being either unsourced or OR or SYN. 198.0.82.2 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the Sandbox exists explicitly so people can work on edits before adding them to the page. Your inclusion was unreferenced, and considering the possibility of pointy motivations concerning edits to this article, it would be better to complete your edit with references before adding it to the page. I apologise for adding the second and third templates, I had been reverting vandalism from editors earlier and I jumped the gun. I am also a new editor myself so I do make mistakes. That said, it would have been better to have waited for sources to appear before re-adding the content. I did act preemptively, mostly because you are an IP editor with few previous edits trying to add potentially controversial content to an article without references. Anyway, my point stands, please use the Sandbox in future until your edit is ready to add to the article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think as you spend more time here you will see that editors do tend write text in articles and spend the next 24 hours improving on it, including adding references, and few people use the Sandbox except for true "experiments", and thus most experienced editors take more of a "wait and see" approach on a new edit. And again, if there is a concern, there is always the tag, which was created for a reason. And even if there was "a possibility of pointy motivations concerning edits to this article," you still have to assume good faith and not assume that an edit is POV-pushing just because it is not yet referenced. Also, just a word of advice on jumping to conclusions about IP editors, or otherwise treating their edits differently than you would registered users: WP:IPHUMAN. I do appreciate the apologies, and would like to say if any of my edit summaries from this weekend came across as snarky to you (one particular I was feeling snarky when I wrote it), I apologize for that. 198.0.82.2 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have seen that done, but I do think when you are editing sensitive or controversial articles like this it is best to be cautious and make sure the edit you wish to make is properly referenced before adding it. The sandbox is very useful for this. The way I see it, once an edit is in the article, it is there for all the world to see, however briefly it lasts. It is better to be sure that your edit is correct, otherwise it has a direct negative impact on the entire article (that is, if it is later proved to be incorrect) for the duration that it is up. That is why the sandbox is useful. You can revise your edits before you make them away from the eyes of readers, and be certain you are making good edits due to this. Either way, it is properly referenced now, so this debate is pretty moot. Also, that's okay, I don't get offended easily. Glad this is all sorted anyway --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard of this unwritten rule. When you add something contentious, you have to provide sources right away. There's no accepted clemency period, especially when you were referring to sources but not providing and when the information is controversial. Readers need to know right away where you're getting the information from. There was nothing wrong with the reverting at all. Scarlettail (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it is an unwritten rule, more of a cultural thing that those of us who have been here a long long time have picked up. As I say up above, Wikipedia has a tag for a reason, and it is generally more courteous to use that first, rather than jumping immediately to a delete. If reverting any text just because it wasn't yet cited was the best course of action, there would be no need for the tag. It's a "catch more flies with honey than vinegar" kind of thing. Sometimes being too rigid about being technically "right" impedes your ability to get things done here because it comes off as pedantic and rubs others the wrong way.198.0.82.2 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The revert was entirely appropriate. The material is too contentious to keep unsourced material of such length on the page. The Citation Needed tag is best used for single claims or sentences, not a full paragraph making a lot of claims like yours. We want to avoid having to tag things, anyway, and it's better to ask for a source first before it's added. It entirely looked like a personal opinion without the sources, and there's no way to accept that in the article. Scarlettail (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

if you say so.107.107.191.81 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Scarlettail, it wasn't the right thing to do, and 198.0.82.2 / 107.107.191.81 is being incredibly indulgent of behavior that, to describe as "officious", one could say was to be charitable and put it mildly. And the penitentiary warden-like pronouncement that "There's no accepted clemency period..." only serves to highlight why a hyper-confrontational approach based on mistaken belief in the rightness and righteousness of deleting/reverting immediately non-contentious material in a non-WP:BLP context is questionable and may even be of concern as possibly uncivil and incompatible with the practice of assuming of good faith. As explained to you in patient detail above, there is a way to edit on this project that won’t rub people the wrong way as much as being a little too bold and being a little too officious. That you don't seem willing (able?) to even acknowledge this is disappointing. You might do well to remember that:

"Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles, and do not agonize about making mistakes."

While it's true that every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes in an article can be easily corrected, we never get a second chance to make a first impression. Azx2 23:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit, from my perspective, looked like a personal opinion, as it had no references whilst making a number of claims. I was not the only one to revert it, as we have seen. It's totally fine now that it has references. I think it's an exaggeration to say it was reckless, when there truly was a valid issue with the content. You say it was non-contentious, but it looked rather contentious without the references, and there's no doubt this article's subject is contentious. I did assume good faith, as it looked like he had some sort of source available, but I simply requested he provide it before adding it to the article. Your response seems a touch rash, as the issue is resolved and it took no further troubling. Clearly there is no issue of righteousness or disliking the content, as it's acceptable now. There's nothing wrong with asking for a source for a large insertion of text before it's inserted, and we're free to remove content we think is unsourced. Your claim to incivility is too harsh, as I have in no way attacked the IP or said anything against them. Scarlettail (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the lack of sources, the sensitivity of the topic, and the frequent POV vandalism that occurs on feminist related articles, I don't understand why the reversion is seen as a matter of incivility. As I said earlier, the sandbox exists so users can finalise their edits before inserting them into the article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Needs Work

There is a lot of redundant rambling in this article, especially in the "Theory and Manifestations" section. That section could easily be half as long, and still present the same amount of information. Many of the cited works are saying the EXACT same thing, and it's almost as if a bunch of different people/editors tried to shoehorn in their source of choice, even if there was already a paragraph saying the exact same thing from another source. Perhaps it's the nature of the subject, but another issue with this article is that it has zero organization, and it tries to touch on many subjects without really going into any depth about why they were mentioned. The more I look at it, the more I realize how much of a disaster the "Theory and Manifestations" section really is. It's rambling and incoherent. Oh and manifestations is uncapped in the title. Are we even trying here? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.74.21 (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

While "entire societies have been alleged to be rape cultures" sounds better from a grammatical standpoint than "entire countries have been alleged to be rape cultures", I think it might be better to simply name the countries where rape culture has been described as widespread (if someone can locate the active links for the refs, and actually locate that information). If this info is located, it seems "alleged" should be replaced with "described" per WP:ALLEGED.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BoboMeowCat. I'll see if I can get to this this week. I think Peggy Sanday's work would be appropriate here, but she users "rape prone" and predates "rape culture" a bit (though is clearly a basis for it). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Serious issue with the word "normalized" in lede

Head on over to Merriam-Webster or any other major English dictionary. Try and find a definition of "normalize" that makes the opening sentence of this article meaningful. First def is "to make conform to or reduce to a norm or standard". Are proponents of the concept of rape culture suggesting that societal pressure makes rapists commit their rapes in a manner that conforms to a norm or standard? I don't know, but it seems like an odd thing to say.

Other uses of the word normalize refer to mathematical operations and audio engineering (such as when a sound technician cleans up a sound recording to make the final result smoother and more pleasant to listen to). It seems doubtful that proponents of the concept of "rape culture" are talking about that either.

So what on Earth are they talking about? And more importantly, do you have a reliable lexical source that verifies that the word "normalize" has the meaning you are imputing to it?

Perhaps the word has a common "street" meaning in the USA that does not appear in lexical reference works. But I'd remind editors that the vast majority of fluent English speakers were born outside the USA and therefore are unaware of many aspects of US slang.

Does wikipedia have policies about the use of non-standard English that is absent from dictionaries? If none of the major lexical sources contain the meaning that is intended, should an encyclopedia really be using that word without a specific definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramble window (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a common term in academics, mostly sociology. I linked it to Normalization (sociology) to avoid confusion. Woodroar (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an improvement. It begs a question for the proponents of the concept, though. The process of "normalization" referred to in the link presupposes a time before the process began. According to the link, when a person says "X is normalized" that automatically includes the presupposition that "in the past, X wasn't normal". Ergo, a person who believes in the existence of rape culture must also believe there was a specific moment in the past when rape was abnormal. If "normalized" is an inherent part of RC as a concept, then belief in this past where rape was an abnormal occurrence is a given. Am I wrong somewhere?Bramble window (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably sometime in the past 50 kya, but that's a question you'd have to research in reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Prevalence section needs work

The prevalence section needs work. The citations are all over the place and link to forum posts and articles that don't exist. Also when talking prevalence, keep in mind that it is a statistical conceptualization.--137.229.82.84 (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That section requires citations. Moreover you can hover over the citations & click on the links, or copy those links & paste on the browser's new tab to open them. it is about "prevalence of rape culture" & not "rape" in particular, so you have to keep that in mind. --117.208.113.206

countries

you can't put countries like india in it , just because some authors want to make a name of them, by writing astounding but unreal on the highlighted topic, or by those people who want to defame the country.

because india never supported the rape culture, india is so large (by it variety, it's diversity, by it's society, by it's land area, by it's climate, by anything you can think of) that those number of rapes are done by the people who have been the outcasts of society. the problem of rape is with every country, if you want to put india on "rape culture" page, then you'll have to put other countries too.

we have to low rapes, & gradually stop them -totally agreed, that's why you've already put india's name on other pages related to rapes - & i don't have a problem, because i agree that we have to stop it. but putting india's name on "rape culture" is totally opposite of what wikipedia's aim is - that is providing correct info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.19.45 (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. And they say India is a rape culture. Moreover, read this essay: WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you know anything at all about India? It doesn't have anything like what might be considered a common culture. It has much more linguistic diversity than Europe. India is not a culture. It is a continent, it is a nation, but using the singular "culture" with relation to India is beyond ludicrous and ignorant in the extreme. I'll quote from "Politics and Post-colonial Theory: African Inflections" By D. Pal S. Ahluwalia:

"To talk of a unified Indian culture is to miss the point that cultures are not static but dynamic. Finally, it is important to point out that, while the Indian nation might appear as unified, it faces its own problems it faces its own problems and challenges from diverse competing ethnicities which are demanding secession, as in the case of Punjab and Kashmir."

It really shouldn't be necessary for me to provide sources for a statement so self-evidently true that India is not one single culture but rather an immensely rich and stunningly varied patchwork of cultures. Every educated person on Earth should know that already. But I decided that obvious and verifiable though it is, it's best to provide the citation. Bramble window (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

means your reliable sources can also say all other countries as rape culture too. i really could put all countries name with citation by your reliable sources, but the time taken by it will be huge :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.19.45 (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fake Rape accusation effect on Rape Culture Politicization

Some news article to consider regarding the veracity of the Rape Culture internet meme, note fake-rape terminology in articles.

Brian Banks (16) falsely accused by Wanetta Gibson (15) 5 years in jail, http://nypost.com/2011/03/10/fake-rape-suit/ William McCaffery falsely accused by Biurny Peguero 4 years in jail. Lena Dunham Fake Rape Accusations boil over: Publisher pays... http://www.people.com/article/lena-dunham-publisher-legal-fees-former-student additionally, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394111/uva-gang-rape-wasnt-jonah-goldberg and, http://riversong.wordpress.com/yellow-journalism-and-the-meme-of-rape-culture/

Unfortunately, promoters of the "rape culture" meme like Lena Dunham and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, have brought it complete discredit. There needs to be a section about over zealous activism and its negative effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:9BAB:74F6:93FE:96EF:854D (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Study of college men about whether they would rape if there were no consequences - relevant?

This research was reported in the media recently and it's relevant to the topic at hand but not sure whether it could be included in the article? It found that a lot of the men in the sample said they would force a woman to have sex if there were no consequences but that they wouldn't rape a woman if there was no consequences, even though forced sex and rape are the same thing. Shiningroad (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't. It was a notoriously poor study which only rehashed the age old Ring of Gyges discussion presented by Plat in the Republic. While not quite a meme, it's close, as it's been used countless times and is an example of confirmation bias. Take social issue X, combine with survey answers that a shockingly high number of people would commit a morally reprehensible act involved in X if there were no consequences, then conclude that X is true. The next step is to draw (further confirmation bias) conclusions that social issue X is in fact based upon assumptions which the survey confirms. For example, the section regarding hostility towards women. You can use this formula to conclude everything from a rape culture, to a murder culture, to an assault culture and on. Quite a number of respondents have replied in previous 'studies' that they would commit murder if there were no consequences, therefore, we can conclude there is hostility towards people in general. This is, unfortunately, an old gimmick that resurfaces every now and again and has been debunked countless times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.129.82 (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead, "studied by feminists"

@Pi.1415926535:I'd like to discuss this diff here if we could. [1] Yes, IP's reasoning is faulty, and your rv warranted, but this sentence has always seemed fairly awkward to me. When I see "________ is studied academically by ________" its more like "fossils are studied academically by paleontologists". Is the study of 'rape culture' only studied by feminists? Is it the largest topic studied by feminists? I'm not denying that it's part of feminism (and we have the feminism nav box right next to the lead), but I think the sentence might flow better as "Rape culture is studied academically, but there is...", as it's a topic spanning multiple disciplines (sociology, criminology, psychology, anthropology?, etc.). Feminism also isn't really a discipline. "social scientists" wouldn't bother me though. Thoughts? ― Padenton|✉   20:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What is your source for the idea that feminism isn't a discipline? EllenCT (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Discipline (academia) provides a decent definition of discipline. That's not to detract from it, just that it's the wrong word. Feminism isn't a field of study. Sociology is. Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies. ― Padenton|✉   23:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

i earned my blackbelt in feminism after defeating my sensei in a duel to the death. feminism is "a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women." [2] women's studies is an interdisciplinary field within gender studies. [3] eh, the start of that sentence could be better. a feminist isn't inherently an academic, but there are probably very few who study the rape culture hypothesis who don't also self identify as feminists. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Feminism certainly is a discipline, but that doesn't answer the original question posed here. It seems strange to place the idea only within feminism, as if it's a feminist problem. Rape culture is a social problem, a world problem. I'd suggest talking about the real issues, and I'd also suggest changing the opening sentence. How about "Rape culture is a concept in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality." Pangurban22 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Socially Appropriate Terminology

In a rape culture, there are no men, only rapists and potential rapists. It would be more fitting for an article explaining rape culture, if any instances of the word "men" were replaced with the word "rapists", or to accommodate gender neutrality and avoid any possibility of libel "potential rapists".

Feminists are constantly in receipt of rape threats from men who perpetuate rape culture, it would only be fair to recognize things as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.9.250 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This article does not assume the existence of rape culture (though I would wager that most users who have constructively contributed to it do); as with the rest of Wikipedia, it descriptively summarizes research and critical writings elsewhere without automatically adopting their conclusions. Adopting a hardline reductionist vocabulary (there is no benefit in a descriptive article of reducing broad groups to single characteristics, regardless of how correct those characteristics are or are not) is wholly against the policy of neutral point of view - a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP is referring to this revert by me and this revert by Denisarona. We both reverted the IP's inappropriate changes. The sources are noting men, not "potential rapists," as if discussing people predisposed to being rapists. And the IP stating above "[i]n a rape culture, there are no men" is silly. Rape statistics show just how many men there are. Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

POV of article

Hey everyone, I'm the guy back in April 2011 who templated this article questioning the neutrality of its tone. I've gotta say, after not having been involved in the article for a long time, the tone is great now, very neutral, very encyclopedic, treats "rape culture" as the academic construct it is rather than an assumed reality like it used to. Kudos to everyone who worked to make it better. Kaldari, Pi and I did some work on it at the time in 2011 to make it more neutral, but it was still "on the edge" when I moved on to other stuff, so I am very pleasantly surprised to see what a neutral, balanced article it is now. Good job everyone! Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a theory though, but rather a concept within feminist theory. I'm having trouble finding other wikipedia articles on theories within academic disciplines that point out that they are "theoretical" in the first sentence. I don't edit very often, so please excuse me if this is a standard convention that I am somehow missing. Anyway, I am about to change it and since you suggested the article (thank you), I wanted to explain my reasoning. --Xttina.Garnet (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember Rape Culture being called a theory, I know until recently it was called a "theoretical concept" (I have called it an "academic construct"), I'm not sure I see an important distinction between that phrase and "concept within feminist theory," either phrase is inoffensive, so I have no problem with your changes. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad. I changed it because the term "theoretical" is often used to discredit an idea and what it actually means is very specific in to any individual discipline. When I clicked on the page link for "theoretical concept" it led to the theoretical definition page. I've since completely reorganized that page (because a "conceptual definition" is actually really important in my field). While the initial version did make the point that theories existed in the context of a discipline, it was followed by a bunch of non-cited ramblings including "Like Stipulative definitions, it is not a valid criticism to say that a theoretical definition is "wrong about how most people use the word" nor that "the definition itself is false" . Instead one might say that a theoretical definition is unhelpful."

Full disclosure: I'm mostly here to edit neuroscience (I'm a neuroscientist) and brain things, but I found my way to this article while reading something on sexism on wikipedia and the fact that "rape culture is a theoretical concept" was the first sentence was cited as an example of sexism on wikipedia. I was definitely predisposed to think of it in that light. The use of the term theoretical to discredit ideas is also a common scientist pet peeve However, linking concepts and theories to their fields can give information about how they should be interpreted. Xttina.Garnet (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

References

I don't mind the change much, but, like Mmyers1976, I also don't see what distinction you are trying to make by stating that "It isn't a theory though, but rather a concept within feminist theory." Like the lead of the Feminist theory article currently states, "Feminist theory is the extension of feminism into theoretical or philosophical discourse." As for the term theoretical being a dirty word of sorts, I don't see it that way; if something is theoretical, then it is theoretical. If people think that "theoretical" discredits the idea, then that is on those people. The Big Bang, for example, is theoretical, but it is a widely accepted theory; the vast majority of scientists believe that the Big Bang is what happened. And as for "a concept within feminist theory," people could argue that you are trying to discredit the theory by indicating that only feminists believe in rape culture.

On a side note: I considered that you are this IP, since you showed up soon after I reverted that IP, and your edit history was generally inactive until that point. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Since no one has commented on it, I am noting here that the "concept within feminist theory" part was removed by Sofia gerlach (talk · contribs). Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mmyers1976, Xttina.Garnet, and Flyer22. I commented on this below, but I'd like to do the same here addressed to you for the sake of understanding. It seems strange to place the idea of rape culture only within feminism, as if it's a feminist problem. I understand your point that the term was coined by feminists, but in addition to feminist and women's studies, the study of rape culture falls within criminology, education, law, psychology, social work, socio-legal studies, and sociology. The opening sentence you have is actually quite good, but I'd like to suggest making it less political and more neutral (and more correct) by changing it to "Rape culture is a concept in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality." I also suggest changing "The sociology of rape culture is studied academically by feminists" to "Rape culture is critically investigated in diverse academic fields including feminist/gender/women's studies, criminology, education, law, psychology, social work, socio-legal studies, and sociology." Cheers! Pangurban22 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Pangurban22, since EvergreenFir re-added the "concept within feminist theory" part, maybe EvergreenFir has something to state on the matter in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Since rape culture is part of feminist theory and rooted in it (and Peggy Sanday's rape-prone cultures), it seemed like an accurate descriptor. I don't care much one way or the other, but it made sense to me to include it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with EvergreenFir, I think context needs to be provided, partly since it is not a universally accepted theory, but also because generally when discussing a theory, you mention the larger discipline it is in. If it is cross-disciplinary, then sources should be provided showing that it is a significant theory within other disciplines. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, EvergreenFir, Flyer22, and Mmyers1976. Your comments are reasonable. I'm too busy at the moment, but I hope to get back to this soon. Pangurban22 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

World map really lacks clarity

I feel that the colored world map should really be re-done.

• First, we should use much more distinctive colors, and not simply shades of orange-y red. Even if we wanted to stay in the same color scheme, we should make 4 distinctive colors: bright yellow, orange, red, and very-dark red.
• Secondly, the break-points of 95, 31, 8, and 1 seem pretty weird. First of all, the graph only says that rapes in Sweden and South Africa are >95, but it doesn't give an upper-bound. That should be put on the graph. If Sweden has the most rapes at 140, then the upper-bound should be added as 140. Secondly, the break-points should be readjusted to, say, 80 and 40 and 10. And the lower limit should probably be changed from 0.1 to 0.

Armadillo1985 (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This info graph is claims to be a statement of fact and as such needs to be supported with data and citations. Actually, I'd go further and state that this page is about rape culture and so presenting rape rates in isolation is misleading at best. What people are gong to understand is that the deeper the red, the worse the rape culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.82.50.153 (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, India must get a higher rating on this! Steliokardam (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with a draft?

I'm going to be posting this in several different areas, but I was wondering if anyone could help out with the draft Draft:Rape joke. I think that this could be independently notable outside of rape culture, but the draft needs a lot of work and it'd stand a better chance of holding up to scrutiny (since let's face it, this would get a ton of scrutiny once it was accepted) if we had multiple editors working on it. Anyone interested? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality: Criticisms

I have marked a section of the article using ((())) that shows a strong political bias. Would it be beneficial for the article to remove biased sources? 2.97.9.92 (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the ((())) marking - this is not appropriate markup for Wikipedia articles. Instead, feel free to quote here the text you wish to discuss, with any proposed changes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

- I don't know if it's correct to say that this article shows a strong political bias, but I do think it lacks neutrality. The entire article points toward rape culture being a negative thing; it is!! But there are many biased statements about what causes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbaumgartner928 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

″In a 2013 interview, professor Camille Paglia[94] described concerns about rape culture as "ridiculous" and "neurotic", an artifact of bourgeois liberal ideologies that people are essentially good and that all social problems can be remedied by re-education. This rape culture concept is much to the detriment of young college-educated women, Paglia argues, because they are ill-prepared to anticipate or cope with the small minority of deeply evil people in the world who simply don't care about following laws or obeying social convention. Moreover, Paglia says, feminist proponents of rape culture tend to completely ignore male victims of sexual assault.

"Caroline Kitchens, in a 2014 article in Time Magazine titled "It's Time to End 'Rape Culture' Hysteria" suggested that "Though rape is certainly a serious problem, there's no evidence that it's considered a cultural norm. ...On college campuses, obsession with eliminating 'rape culture' has led to censorship and hysteria."[95] Heather MacDonald suggested that "In a delicious historical irony, the baby boomers who dismantled the university's intellectual architecture in favor of unbridled sex and protest have now bureaucratized both."[96] According to Joyce E. Williams, "the major criticism of rape culture and the feminist theory from which it emanates is the monolithic implication that ultimately all women are victimized by all men."[97]

Christina Hoff Sommers has disputed the existence of rape culture, arguing that the common "one in four women will be raped in her lifetime" claim is based on a flawed study, but frequently cited because it leads to campus anti-rape groups receiving public funding. Sommers has also examined and criticized many other rape studies for their methodology, and states, "There are many researchers who study rape victimization, but their relatively low figures generate no headlines."[3]

Sommers and others[98] have specifically questioned Mary Koss's oft-cited 1984 study that claimed 1 in 4 college women have been victims of rape, charging it overstated rape of women and downplayed the incidence of men being the victims of unwanted sex. According to Sommers, as many as 73% of the subjects of Koss's study disagreed with her characterization that they had been raped,[99] while others have pointed out that Koss's study focused on the victimization of women, downplaying the significance of sexual victimization of men,[98] even though its own data indicated one in seven college men had been victims of unwanted sex.[100] Sommers points out that Koss had deliberately narrowed the definition of unwanted sexual encounters for men to instances where men were penetrated.[101]″

Text is dismissive of female victims of sexual violence and creates an inflated image of male "victims". There is an obvious anti-Feminist political bias in every one of these sources and they misinform about rape in order to push the agenda. For WP:NPOV these need to be removed. 2.97.9.92 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism

This article is biased towards a primarily American academic interpretation of western rape culture. A "by country" section and more points of view to elaborate on this issue would be appreciated.

37.219.60.51 (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

* Agreed. There's no mention of places such as Iran or Congo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.110.203 (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 

I agree. This article talks only about Westernized cultures, and refuses to acknowledge the effects of rape elsewhere. All it does is give a small mention to them when it is helpful to solidify their point. "For example, in South Africa the overriding "war culture", which emphasized masculinity and violence, led to a culture in which rape was normalized." - This statement is followed not by more detailed statements of what caused the normalization of rape, but continued the narrow-minded conversation about Western rape culture. It's important to remember that rape culture is present throughout the world and we need to examine the causes of it in all different societies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbaumgartner928 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

More Sources, Clearer Structure, and Expanded Information Needed

I found the article interesting; however, there were many statements where there were no sources indicated to back up some of the text making it seem like it was a thought or conclusion made by the offer. I want to try to add more information and citations to these sections to improve this article.

I also found that the way the article is structured was a little hard to read. Some of the titles were a bit too broad. Obviously I understood what the paragraphs were about once I began reading them but the titles sometimes did not clearly state what that section was to be about. I think some of the sections, especially the overview section could be broken up into smaller sections that highlight more specifically the issues being brought up or have there be some type of flow between the ideas of the section. The section felt a bit all over the place and I felt like the authors had good ideas but it also felt like I was reading many different posts rather than one cohesive and connected section.

There were also a number of topics that were briefly mentioned that I feel could be expanded on including the origin section, fluidity of rape culture and what that means, the involvement of the justice system, and the effects of the victims of rape, both men and women versus just the effects of society's as a whole. It would also be interesting to find more information on how people are affected in different countries mentioned. I recognize what was being said to affect first world countries, but it would be beneficial to include how that differs from the societies of Africa and Pakistan.

Delvine101 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

By all means... Be bold!. Regards, Kleuske (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello again! So I am beginning to work on a bibliography of texts I can use to try to update this page for a class. Here is the bibliography so far:

 ::Bell, Susan T., Peter J. Kuriloff, and Ilsa Lottes. "Understanding attributions of blame in stranger rape and date rape situations: An examination of gender, race, identification, and students social perceptions of rape victims." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24.19 (1994): 1719-1734.

Bohner, Gerd, et al. "Rape myths as neutralizing cognitions: evidence for a causal impact of anti‐victim attitudes on men's self‐reported likelihood of raping." European Journal of Social Psychology 28.2 (1998): 257-268.

Burt, Martha R. "Rape myths." Confronting rape and sexual assault (1998): 129-144.

Herman, D. "The rape culture." Culture 1.10 (1988): 45-53.

Thornhill, Randy, and Craig T. Palmer. A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2000. Print.

Vogelman, Lloyd. The Sexual Face of Violence: Rapists on Rape. Johannesburg: Ravan, 1990. Print.

These seem like interesting articles and reliable sources but I have not fully dived into reading the entirety of each article. If any of these seem bias or unreliable, please let me know!

Thank you for the help.

Delvine101 (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

So I have done some more research on the article and I have certain sections I would like to add but I also made additions to pieces that were already there. In order to keep the integrity of wikipedia, I have not deleted anything that was already written but just added and expanded to the sections. Here is what I have and any feedback would be great! Thank you!

• please note that I copied and pasted everything from my sandbox and the link and citations did not paste correctly into the talk page; however everything is properly sited in my sandbox and that is what would be going on the active wikipedia page. I am mostly looking for critique on content.

Don't dump entire article drafts on the talk page, link to your sandbox instead.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, ORIGINS and USAGE Historically, women have been considered second-class citizens who were not thought to deserve the same rights as their male counterparts. Rather, women were seen as property belonging to men from the moment they were born. Up until marriage, they were considered property of their father until eventually were "sold" to their husbands. A rape done to a woman was not seen as an attack on the victim but a personal attack on her father or husband and she was considered "irreparably damaged."[1] As early as the 19th century, American women were criticized if they "stray[ed] out of a [dependent] position...fought off [an] attacker...[or] behaved in too self reliant a manner..." in which case "the term rape no longer applied..."[2]. Similar to rape myths and double standards applied to women today, description of rape in the 1800's depicted women who needed to behave or else face the inevitable consequences. In the 1930's rape was considered a sex crime that was always committed by men and always done to women. From 1935-1965, a shift from labelling rapists as criminals to believing them to be mentally ill "sexual psychopaths" began making its way into popular opinion. Men caught for committing rape were no longer sentenced to prison but admitted to mental health hospitals where they would be given medication for their illness.[3] Because only "insane" men were the ones committing acts of rape, no one considered the everyday person to be capable of such violence. Transitions in women's roles in society were also shifting, causing alarm and blame towards rape victims. Because women were becoming more involved in the public (i.e. searching for jobs rather than being a housewife) many people believed that these women were "loose" and looking for trouble. Giving up the gender roles of mother and wife was seen as defiant against traditional values while immersing themselves within society created the excuse that women would "not [be] entitled to protection under the traditional guidelines for male-female relationships."[3] As rape was more commonly studied, different research sanctions were hypothesizing why rape was such a common phenomenon. According to Susan Brownmiller, evolutionary biologists claimed that this was how men had evolved over time which perpetuated the stereotype and excuse "men will be men." From a biological desire, neo-darwinists theorized rape was used as a mechanism to spread genes quickly and efficiently. By having multiple partners in a short amount of time, the desire for sex was engulfed by the need to strategically reproduce but with little to no risk of parental involvement. [4] (After Edits) The term "rape culture" was first coined in the 1970s in the United States by second-wave feminists, and was applied to contemporary American culture as a whole.[9] During the 1970s, second-wave feminists had begun to engage in consciousness-raising efforts designed to educate the public about the prevalence of rape. Previously, according to Canadian psychologyprofessor Alexandra Rutherford, most Americans assumed that rape, incest, and wife-beating rarely happened.[10] The concept of rape culture posited that rape was common and normal in American culture, and that it was one extreme manifestation of pervasive societal misogyny and sexism. Rape was defined as a crime of violence rather than a crime of sex as it had been before and the focus of rape shifted from desire for sexual pleasure to one of male domination, intimidation and a sense of control over gender norms.[3][4][5] Rape also started to be reexamined through the eyes of the victims rather than the perpetrators. [3] The first published use of the term appears to have been in 1974 in Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women, edited by Noreen Connell and Cassandra Wilson for the New York Radical Feminists.[11] In the book, the group stated that "our ultimate goal is to eliminate rape and that goal cannot be achieved without a revolutionary transformation of our society."[12] This book, along with Susan Brownmiller's 1975 Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, was among the earliest to include first-person accounts of rape. Their authors intended to demonstrate that rape was a much more common crime than previously believed.[13] In the book, Brownmiller comments upon the idea that women never spoke about rape because women would never want to be open about a "crime against their physical integrity" which explained the general public's ignorance over how often rape was occurring and to whom.[4] Brownmiller, a member of the New York Radical Feminists, argued that both academia and the general public ignored the incidents of rape.[14] She helped spark psychologists to begin observing and studying what sparked this "rape supportive culture." [3]Her book, Against Our Will, is considered a landmark work on feminism and sexual violence, and it is one of the pillars of modern rape studies.[15][16] OVERVIEW (Added information) Rape culture perpetuates particular rape myths that are codified into law. Feminists and gender activists conceptualize rape cultures that encourage gender violence, as well as perpetuate "rape myths", ranging from treating rape as merely "rough sex", to blaming the victim for inviting rape. Such "rape myths" are social messages that command women to assume predefined gender roles concerning sexual behavior.[23] A 2015 meta-analysis found that overall men perceived rape victims more negatively than women did and this sex difference was moderated by the acceptance of rape myths.[24] One explanation for the commonality of these myths is that only certain "bad" or "misbehaved" women are raped. This creates a category of women separated from the general population which encourages an "otherness" and reduces the idea that anyone is vulnerable to being raped. [1][6]Another reason for the acceptance of rape culture is the "just-world" hypothesis which claims that what happens to an individual in life is inherently tied to his or her actions and thus seen as justly deserved. People who believe in this theory would also be more likely to believe women who are raped deserved it in some way. Finally, rape can be attributed to ways women were treated historically, as a factor used to oppress and create control over women.[1] Brownmiller, in Against Our Will, discusses three important ideas that helped bring awareness and attention to some clearly defined rape myths of the early to mid 20th century. First, any woman can be a rape victim regardless of age, size, shape, ethnicity, or status. Second, any man can be a rapist, not just "evil" or "mentally ill" men as thought in previous decades. Finally is that rape can occur in many different forms besides the classic case of a violent, forceful rape done by a stranger.[4][5] The idea any women could be raped was a new proposition that called attention to the notion of victim blaming. Now that rape could affect anyone, there would not be a proper way for men and women to avoid it. Some rape myths that were widely accepted on the basis of what kind of women would be raped were ideas that the victim was always "young, careless [and] beautiful" or they are "loose" women who "invite rape" by provoking men." [7][8] Although Brownmiller's idea about victim blaming was supposed to expose rape myths thus eradicating victim-blaming, blaming the victim in rape circumstances is still a common practice. Rape culture can manifest when third parties separate the sexual violence of select individuals and cast them off as deviant perverts rather than acknowledging that anyone can be capable of rape. As believed in the 1960's and still sometimes today, rapists were seen as mentally ill or deviants in society.[3] Highly influential scholars and feminists, such as J. Ann Tickner, have stressed the importance of understanding that because individuals are a part of broader society, they cannot be explained apart from society. By focusing only on deviant individuals who commit sexual violence, researchers and observers can overlook or forget that society influences and reinforces the mindset of such individuals.[27] As related to Brownmiller's final point about different forms of rape, a common non-believed "rape myth" was the idea of spousal or partner rape. Rape myths had suppressed the incidence of such events now known as 'intimate partner rape'[25] or 'marital rape'; at one time, the view was that women could never claim to be raped by a spouse. Rape cases in which both parties previously knew one another has been coined "acquaintance rape", a term first coined by Robin Warshaw in 1988, and subsequently used by prominent academics such as Mary P. Koss.[26] EFFECTS ON WOMEN According to Ann Burnett, the concept of rape culture explains how society perceives and behaves towards rape victims and rape perpetuators.[7][9] For example, a number of rape myths that are held are "no means yes", women can resist rape if they really wanted to, women who are raped are promiscuous therefore "asking to be raped" and many women falsely report rape to protect their own reputations or because they are angry at the "perpetrator" and want to create a type of backlash[1][4][5] [7][9]. A theory for why rape myths are so common in society is because they are perpetuated by norms already present in society. Researchers claim that communication and language is created by the dominant patriarchy. In positions of power, men control how women are portrayed in the media, women's censorship of body and voice, etc. which forces women to submit to the gender stereotypes formed by the dominant culture. The dominance of the male language in society creates the concept of a "slutty woman" and forces women to begin to monitor their behavior in fear of how they will be perceived within the rape culture[9]. One effect rape culture has on women is their lack of understanding or a feeling of ambiguity surrounding the idea of consent and rape. Burnett's study followed college women's experiences of rape revealing that many students could not define what the term rape really meant, did not believe consent had to be verbal and felt sexual consent was always vague and hard to pinpoint.[3][9] Along with this was people viewing women who had "allegedly been raped" were "asking for it" because of how they were dressed or their flirtatious behavior. [6][7][8][9] Women in the study also assumed that men expected sex in exchange for drinks or dinner bought earlier for the woman.[9] Because of their lack of awareness of what rape was and because of how they were acting/what they were wearing, women believed they had in some way provoked the rape to happen. [7][8][9] Some women also did not report the rape if it did not fit the stereotypical version of rape, physically injury and force committed by a stranger. When raped by someone the individual knew, women felt less inclined to label the assault as rape.[4][5][9][10] They could not, therefore, report the incident or rape because they were either confused about what had happened or believed it to be their own fault.[6][9] After a rape has already occurred or after the victim acknowledged that she has been raped, women still did not report the incident because they felt it would ultimately hurt or punish them. Some reasons that women did not report their rape is because they did not want to bring attention to themselves, psychologically, they did not want to have to remember what had happened to them, and they did not want people to find out and gain a negative reputation.[3][9] Because of the existing rape myths mentioned above, women knew that reporting rape could potentially make them out to be a "slut" or "easy" and garnish a reputation that would affect how others perceived them.[3][11] Many women noted that they felt that they could not even admit the rape to friends and family they trusted most because they were so afraid of the repercussions.[6] Women felt that they would not be supported, would have their validity questioned or be blamed for the incidents that happened. The affect of rape on women could lessen women's trust with others because of these beliefs and later felt very isolated.[9] Another affect rape culture has on young women is a victim's self reflection. After a rape, women reported feeling dirty, thought of themselves as slutty, and believed that they had "used or damaged goods." Women felt ashamed of themselves for what had happened and felt that they no longer fit the ideal "pure and virginal" stereotype that men want.[11] Women's belief that they were somehow rotten and their feelings that no one would want to be with them after the rape created feelings of depression and anxiety amongst victims[9]. If women do choose to share their rape with others, many still remain under scrutiny unless it is proven that they are telling the truth.[3][7][9] Men belonging to the college study, reported that they felt the rape was validated if the woman had taken the accusation to court and then won. Only then, was the rape taken seriously by men. Men were also more likely to victim blame than women for the rape, especially if the case was not reported. Women who chose not to tell or chose to tell only people who were close to her were often deemed liars or exaggerators when others found out about the rape.[8] Because no legal action was attempted, onlookers often believed that the rape was "not a big deal" or "must not have happened."[6][9] Without some kind of validation from a person in authority, rape, according to college students in the study, was believed to not be as prominent or affect as many women as was the reality. EFFECTS ON MEN (After Edits) The term used to define what men undergo in a rape culture is "toxic masculinity". This is a gender stereotype burdening the men in society, depicting men as sexually driven, violent beings.[66] A consequence of toxic masculinity is that most male rape victims would not come forward to the police or in a survey, out of feelings of shame. The male gender stereotype suggests that men should be tough enough to avoid rape, if raped by a man, or sexually driven enough to enjoy it, if raped by a woman. Men were less likely to report rape because they felt reporting it would undermine their masculinity. This was related to characteristics of submissiveness and weakness attributed to rape victims, opposite of gender stereotypes pertaining to men which focus on dominance and aggressiveness. [3][12][13] Like female victims, male victims also fear the stigmatization associated with rape. When they do report, they are often met with disbelief, dismissiveness or blame from police and other services. [13][14] In response to this, men are less likely than women to reveal the nature of the assault having been sexual or fail to mention any genital contact. They are also more likely to deny and hide how the attack affected them emotionally.[15] Male rape victims, in proportion to female victims, are more likely to be blamed for the incident because they are thought to be more capable of fighting back or getting away from their attacker. [13] Victims are also more likely to blame themselves for these same reasons.[14] A study done by Michelle Davies and Samantha McCartney discusses why men are often blamed or stigmatized for their rape. They found that heterosexual men were more likely to blame the victim, show less empathy for the victim, deny or diminish the seriousness of the attack, and were more likely to belief rape myths than heterosexual women and homosexual men.[13] One reason for this is the societal pressure placed on men to be strong, tough, and assertive rather than passive, gentle and "feminine" as mentioned earlier. [3][12][13] Another cause for negative reaction toward male rape victims is linked to homophobia. Davies and McCartney and previous research has found a correlation between male victim blame and homophobia, since male rape involving a male rapist is (nonconsensual) sex between two men. The study also revealed that heterosexual men were more likely to be against the victim if the victim was perceived to be homosexual rather than heterosexual. [13] Homosexual men, similar to heterosexual women, were made to feel like they had "asked for it" based on their behavior.[14] Men are more likely to believe myths about rape, dismiss the situation, or become assailants themselves because of the emphasis of what it means to be masculine in society.[3] [6][12][13] Dianne Herman found that date rape was most likely to occur when a man had requested or initiated the date, the man paid for the date, the man drove, when drinking took place and when the couple found themselves alone. Because of the effort put into the date, men often felt entitled to some payment in the form of sexual gratification. When this did not happen, men felt it was more acceptable to rape. Herman claims that the American dating system emphasizes men as possessors of females, who can be seen as sexual objects ready to be "paid for." [6] To dismantle rape culture would require the undoing of more than just the normalization and tolerance of sexual assault and rape. It would require addressing gender stereotypes in a patriarchal (male-dominated) society and relieving both genders from their pressures.[67] In a patriarchal society, men are expected to be dominant: strong, violent, sexual, and controlling. Women are expected to be submissive: weak, passive, decorative, and controllable. Men are socialized to believe they need to prove their masculinity by taking this control and dominating women. This is not only enforced by expectations of men to be dominant but also society's discouragement of men showing any emotions, vulnerability, or sensitivity.[6][12][13] Emma Watson, the UN Goodwill Ambassador for Women, said at the launch of HeForShe that enabling women to take control and be strong will allow men to relieve themselves of that responsibility, imposed on them by the toxic masculinity in a rape culture.[68] This expectation is often traced back to cultural values of masculinity.[69] In the United States, for example, traditional concepts of masculinity are valued in men, considered to be based in the western frontier culture, as in America's ideal cowboy who uses violence and a tough persona to achieve respect. Jason Katz explores this concept in the widely acclaimed documentary "Tough Guise 2."[70] It analyzes the factors contributing to and the effects of gender violence. Part of American culture teaches boys that in order to be men, they must conform to this "box of masculinity," which perpetuates mantras such as: be tough, don't be emotional, don't be disrespected, be sexually aggressive, or take a hit. If a boy steps out of this box, especially in the tender years of puberty, he is shamed by peers as soft or weak, which teaches him that being feminine is wrong.[6] Filmmaker Thomas Keith explained his thoughts on this with the his film The Bro Code: How Contemporary Culture Creates Sexist Men. Keith focuses on the sexual objectification of women that has occurred in America for decades. He states the American male culture teaches boys and men to dehumanize and disrespect women. Keith addresses several different forms of contemporary media, mainly focusing on movies and music videos that show womanizing as positive and acceptable behavior, pornography that glamorizes the brutalization of women, comedians who make jokes about rape and other forms of sexual assault, and a plethora of men's magazines, books, TV shows that portray their own archaic view of American masculinity and manhood. Keith posits that men's level of violence towards women has reached epidemic levels, and the media coverage and advertising suggest that it is not only normal, but it's cool, for boys and men to control and humiliate women.[71] RAPE CULTURE IN OTHER COUNTRIES While research about rape culture has been mostly conducted in Westernized countries, particularly the United States, there are a number of other countries that are considered to be, by the rest of the world, "rape supportive" societies. These places have similarities to Western countries in terms of beliefs and gender stereotyping, but there are some significant differences that explains the high percentage of rape and sexual assault that occurs in these less developed parts of the world. RAPE CULTURE IN SOUTH AFRICA In a study conducted by Rachel Jewkes, Yandina Sikweyiya, Robert Morrell and Kristin Dunkle, men from the three districts in the Easter Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces of South Africa were surveyed about rape. The prevalence among the men was high; about 1 in 4 men had raped another person, mostly young women.[16] Men claimed that had raped for a number of different reasons. Many raped women and young girls for "fun" or out of boredom. Gang rapes were also quite common amongst the men, about 1 in 5 men had participated in one, which reflected the society's belief that it was common and "what boys do." Drinking was another common reason for raping or pressure to do so from friends. A majority claimed they had raped because they were punishing the women, either acquaintances or girlfriends, for having made them angry. Sub-areas and communities saw rape as a legitimate punishment for women and reasonable under certain circumstances.[16][17] Some men also had sex with very young women or virgins in order to "cleanse themselves of diseases."[18] Young women were often targeted because they were virgins and because the men believed they were easy to overpower and would not report it. Men were not afraid of repercussions.[17] Researchers have attempted to explain the high percentage of rape happening in South Africa and have connected it to the traditional and cultural norms embedded within the society. Certain norms like the belief of rape myths, the inequality between men and women, and the need to express their dominance made the rape appear justified to the assailants. Many began raping when they were young teenagers for entertainment also reflecting the notion that rape is a pastime for young men and boys.[16][17] Rape and sexual violence is also prevalent in South Africa because of the confusion of what is to be regarded as rape. Certain acts of sexual coercion may be indistinguishable from legal standings and laws regarding the subject. While the criminal offense of rape is condemned by the society, many rapes or sexual assaults might not be recognized as such and thus are not thought to be unacceptable behavior.[16] Cultural values stemming from traditional practices still influence South African rape culture. Ukuthwala, also known as wife abduction, is a traditional marriage practice in which a man kidnaps a young woman with intent of convincing the girl and her family to agree to marriage. Another belief, kusasa fumbi or sexual cleansing, is the idea that having sex cleans the body, specifically for illnesses. A more specific type cleaning would be virgin cleansing, which is the belief that having sex with a virgin will eliminate deadly diseases such HIV. Kusasa fumbi is a reflection of the indigenous medical views of the country. [16][18] RAPE CULTURE IN PAKISTAN Pakistan is another underdeveloped country in which rape is prominent throughout the country. Violence against women is typical and the norm, especially marital abuse, as is seen as a private matter not believed to be "appropriate for intervention or policy changes." Due to cultural beliefs, spousal abuse and especially rape is rarely considered a crime. This is due to Pakistan's patriarchal society and role expectations that support men to be violent and dominant while women to be fragile and weak. Religious norms familiar to Pakistan also embrace violence and discrimination toward women, emphasizing that women would not be able to live without men. Normalization of violence and rape against women continue to reflect high percentages of rapes in Pakistan.[19] Two main types of rape that are prevalent are political rapes and honor (izzat) rapes. Beyond the typical type of assault for dominance and control, comes rape with the intention of revenge. Because women are not seen as individuals but rather as objects or possessions, rape is sometimes a political move to seek revenge against an enemy. Fights and feuds are settled by raping the rival's mother, wife, daughter or sister. According to Khaled Ahmed, a noted Pakistani journalist, "...women are gang raped, then paraded naked in the streets to show to the society that terminal revenge has been taken."[20] Honor rapes are used as a tactic to take away sometime of value belonging to the woman. Because women are seen as objects for men to possess, taking away her honor through rape diminishes her worth.[19][20] Rape is rarely reported in Pakistan due to the inequality between the two genders.[19] Women do not speak out about rape because they want to uphold their family's honor. Similar to the honor rapes where value is taken from someone's wife, rapes can dishonor entire families. Women who's rapes are found out fear being ostracized or abandoned and disowned by their families. Victims of rape that are discovered might lose their families, their husbands and their homes. They think of themselves as bayghairate, a person without honor or someone who has lost self-respect, because of what has happened and do not want to be stigmatized or humiliated by their society. Women are highly discouraged from talking or reporting about their rape because of these reasons. [20] One ambiguity that perpetuates the negative stereotype and reaction toward women rape victims is the blurred understanding between rape and adultery. When a married woman is raped by another man, if she reports it, the women herself has the high possibility of being charged with the crime of adultery and sent to jail.[20] Because women are thought to be submissive and obedient to their husbands, the Pakistani culture emphasizes the need and expectation for a wife to be faithful to her husband in all circumstances.[19] Fear of being charged and punished for their own rape makes women keep quiet about their assaults. Women who do decide to report also face the possibility that they were raped by a government official or other law enforcement officer, thus diminishing the chance of the punishment for the perpetrator and increasing the chance of punishment for the victim.[20] 1. Lonsway, Kimberly A., and Louise F. Fitzgerald. "Rape Myths: In Review." Psychology of Women Quarterly 18.2 (1994): 133-64. Web. 2. ^ Hamilton Arnold, Marybeth. "Chapter 3 Life of a Citizen in the Hands of a Woman." Passion and Power: Sexuality in History. Ed. Kathy Lee. Peiss, Christina Simmons, and Robert A. Padgug. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1989. N. pag. Print. 3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Maschke, Karen J. The Legal Response to Violence against Women. New York: Garland Pub., 1997. N. pag. Print. 4. Jump up to: a b c d e f Brownmiller, Susan. Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. Ballantine, 1975. Print 5. ^ a b c d Chasteen, Amy L. "CONSTRUCTING RAPE: FEMINISM, CHANGE, AND WOMEN'S EVERYDAY UNDERSTANDINGS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT." Sociological Spectrum. Vol. 2. N.p.: Taylor & Francis Group, 1982. N. pag. Print. 6. ^ a b c d e f g h i Herman, Dianne F. "Chapter 10 The Rape Culture." Women: A Feminist Perspective. Ed. Jody Freeman. 4th ed. N.p.: n.p., 1989. N. pag. Print. 7. ^ a b c d e f Gordon, Margaret T., and Stephanie Riger. The Female Fear: The Social Cost of Rape. Urbana: U of Illinois, 1991. Print. 8. ^ a b c d Whatley, M. A., and R. E. Riggio. "Gender Differences in Attributions of Blame for Male Rape Victims." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 8.4 (1993): 502-11. Web. 9. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Burnett, Ann. Communicating/Muting Date Rape: A Co-Cultural Theoretical Analysis of Communication Factors Related to Rape Culture on College Campus. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 4th ed. Vol. 37. N.p.: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009. N. pag. Print. 10. ^ Kilpatrick, Dean G., Heidi S. Resnick, Benjamin E. Saunders, and Connie L. Best. "Chapter 10 Rape, Other Violence Against Women, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder." Adversity, Stress, and Psychotherapy. Ed. Bruce P. Dohrenwend. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. N. pag. Print. 11. ^ a b Bell, Susan T., Peter J. Kuriloff, and Ilsa Lottes. "Understanding attributions of blame in stranger rape and date rape situations: An examination of gender, race, identification, and students social perceptions of rape victims." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24.19 (1994): 1719-1734. 12. ^ a b c d Pino, Nathan W., and Robert F. Meier. "Gender Differences in Rape Reporting." Sex Roles40.11/12 (1999): 979-90. Web. 13. ^ a b c d e f g h Davies, Michelle, and Samantha Mccartney. "Effects of Gender and Sexuality on Judgements of Victim Blame and Rape Myth Acceptance in a Depicted Male Rape." Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 13.5 (2003): 391-98. Web. 14. ^ a b c Struckman-Johnson, Cindy. "Acceptance of Male Rape Myths Among College Men." Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. Ed. David Struckman-Johnson. 3rd ed. Vol. 27. N.p.: Plenum Corporation, 1992. N. pag. Print. 15. ^ "Male Rape Victims: Noninstitutionalized Assault." American Journal of Psychiatry 137.2 (1980): 221-23. Web. 16. ^ a b c d e Jewkes, Rachel, Yandisa Sikweyiya, Robert Morrell, and Kristin Dunkle. "Gender Inequitable Masculinity and Sexual Entitlement in Rape Perpetration South Africa: Findings of a Cross-Sectional Study." PLoS ONE 6.12 (2011): n. pag. Web. 17. ^ a b c Jewkes, Rachel, Yandisa Sikweyiya, Robert Morrell, and Kristin Dunkle. "Why, When and How Men Rape: Understanding Rape Perpetration in South Africa." South African Crime Quarterly SA Crime Q. 34 (2016): n. pag. Web. 18. ^ a b Leclerc-Madlala, Suzanne. "On the Virgin Cleansing Myth: Gendered Bodies, AIDS and Ethnomedicine." African Journal of AIDS Research 1.2 (2002): 87-95. Web. 19. ^ a b c d Ali, Parveen Azam, and Maria Irma Bustamante Gavino. "Violence against women in Pakistan: a framework for Analysis." JOURNAL-PAKISTAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 58.4 (2008): 198. 20. ^ a b c d e Afsaruddin, Asma, and Anan Ameri. Hermeneutics and honor: negotiating female" public" space in Islamic/ate societies. Vol. 32. Harvard CMES, 1999.

Delvine101 (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Examples of societies without rape culture

More information about societies without rape culture. How is their culture? What happens when someone gets raped? How does the poeple react? And the police? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanca Lap (talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)