stuffI was all set to reply to BNW, but alas it is just a doppleganger.
Nonetheless I shall present the same argument: science does the same thing with language which I get very annoyed by. The cycle goes like this:
1)A word is applied to a general phenomenon, thing, etc. in the vernacular.
2)Science (or social science in the case of privilege) co-opts this word to describe a tangential phenomenon which doesn't wholly overlap.
3)The rhetorical definition used by science becomes rarified.
4)The scientific community insists their term overrule vernacular use.The example I'll use is strawberries.
I mean, they're called strawberries, right? They must be berries.
They were considered berries for a very long time, and a berry is a biological term for a specific phenomena in plants.
Scientists realize that, of all berries as defined by the vernacular, strawberries don't, in fact, fit (nor do some others) so they get pushed out of the category so that the term can have a much more precise meaning in biology.
People correct you when you call strawberries a berry.
On the other hand, all squares are rhombuses, but not all rhombuses are squares. That is, science requires precise language to function. If that bugs you, don't hang out with jerks who correct you when you order a strawberry ice cream cone. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nonetheless I shall present the same argument: science does the same thing with language which I get very annoyed by. The cycle goes like this:
1)A word is applied to a general phenomenon, thing, etc. in the vernacular.
2)Science (or social science in the case of privilege) co-opts this word to describe a tangential phenomenon which doesn't wholly overlap.
3)The rhetorical definition used by science becomes rarified.
4)The scientific community insists their term overrule vernacular use.
Except sometimes it's the other way around - scientist construct a new word (or more often recycle dead and otherwise unused word) to describe something and then it is usurped and misplaced by casual language.
Example: casual languages confuses theory with hypothesis.
Actually...I think your example is an example of what I was saying.
Theory had a non-scientific meaning for a long while before it took on a precise scientific definition. People are simply confusing the two definitions, which I agree leads to a lot of bad output.
I'm not denying what you are saying happens, but the difference is that in those cases the scientific community happily carries on using its rarified definition. A vernacular use that differs from the precise scientific usage doesn't affect the precise scientific usage. I'd argue that the reverse is not true. In other words, in western society the scientific usage of a term bears more weight because of the weight we put in science in general.
Actually...I think your example is an example of what I was saying.
Theory had a non-scientific meaning for a long while before it took on a precise scientific definition. People are simply confusing the two definitions, which I agree leads to a lot of bad output.
I'm not denying what you are saying happens, but the difference is that in those cases the scientific community happily carries on using its rarified definition. A vernacular use that differs from the precise scientific usage doesn't affect the precise scientific usage. I'd argue that the reverse is not true. In other words, in western society the scientific usage of a term bears more weight because of the weight we put in science in general.
I'm only speaking anecdotally, but the vernacular usage far surpasses the scientific, day to day. You disagree?
Of what?
Of like, language, dude; what were you talking about? :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the theory vs theory issue would be about as common as arguments over split infinitives if it weren't for some very deliberate efforts at equivocation by the anti science crowd.
Of like, language, dude; what were you talking about? :P
So your assertion is that vernacular usage of all language surpasses the scientific. Well...duh?
In context it seemed like you thought that contradicted my points, which was confusing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't think she should have been fired, but I don't think he should've been fired, either.
I'd hate to see what would happen if she came and worked at UPS...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As if everything about the Steubenville case wasn't already disturbing enough, more disturbing shiznit from Steubenville.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More on topic.
This here is IMO a much better look at what actually happened.
Yeah, I don't think she should have been fired, but I don't think he should've been fired, either.
I'd hate to see what would happen if she came and worked at UPS...
I agree, I don't think either of them should have been fired for that tweet. SendGrid is just taking the cowards way out and trying to avoid being involved in the story at all. I think if they truly thought she was a trouble maker, I would have waited a few weeks or even a couple months and quietly let her go. From the little bit I've seen about her, I think she could be a trouble maker who intentionally stirs the pot, more to stir the pot than to try to actually achieve something.
As for the guy fired from PlayHaven, I don't think he should have been fired for just this incident. If he was, that is again a cowards way out to avoid the limelight for the company. We don't know the details of his performance at that company, this might not be the first incident for him though.
What I find the most telling though is the explosion of hatred in the aftermath of the story and who it is directed at, her. Also, the kinds of threats and language that is used.
What's disturbing about Steubenville is that the attitude seems pretty common.
But of course, there's no such thing as "rape culture".
Its hard to separate a nebulous term like "rape culture" from the more general trend that humans really suck.
Why do you think it's a nebulous term? To me it isn't nebulous at all. It covers a lot of ground, but it's actually fairly specific about what kind of ground it covers.
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that might make it nebulous is if you were previously unaware of the concept. Once you know what to look for, it's easy to spot in a lot of places in our culture, which might make it feel nebulous, but that's more an indictment of our culture than the term, IMO.
But the particular ways in which they suck tend to follow patterns.
It tends to follow the same pattern.
Person A has power.
Person B has something person A wants.
Person A takes it.
If you like person A (because they're your friend, country, a sports star, or just didn't dump charisma) then you find a justification for A's behavior.
Why do you think it's a nebulous term?
Partially because its using culture, which is always nebulous when it doesn't come out of a petrie dish.
Rape culture is a concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape.-wiki
Compared to what? The entire definition is based on a deviation from a baseline that either doesn't exist or is the entire culture itself (which by definition can't vary from itself)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does it have to be compared to something?
Because that's what common means?
Can't we say it's a problem in our culture without comparing it to some other culture?
I'd leave culture out of it and say its a problem. i think the solution involves little guillotines.
The same argument would apply to any use of "culture". Is there a phrase you'd prefer to use for the concept?
I'm not sure what the concept is supposed to be (hence my calling it nebulous)
How about "More common than we'd like it to be? How about the rest of the definition: "in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape"? Which I don't think requires any comparison?
Prevalent requires comparison. So does tolerance. What constitutes tolerating rape? Not punishing it at all because we should be sending them to prison for 5 years? Sentencing them to prison for 5 years because we could be castrating them? Castrating them because we're not killing them?
How would you apply your solution? To all males?
YELP!... no!
A bit drastic in my opinion.
Understatement much?!!?!?!?
To only convicted rapists? Maybe, but sort of missing the point. Harsher penalties aren't going to happen except in cases when the culture accepts that the crime is horrible and the victim pure and innocent.
If it was me I'd divide it up into degrees just so you could get a conviction.
People do accept it as a horrible crime.. when it occurs to a female close to them.
Castration in those few cases that are "legitimate rape" won't help all the cases where the victim is blamed.
Nothing will help in all cases. But i think its the best possible preventative measure (both in terms of preventing repeats as well as deterrence)
Its not so much "legitimate rape" as "provable rape". Someone tackles a woman in the park and drags her off into the bushes and there goes reasonable doubt. Two people go on a date, go back to his place for coffee and the next morning he says consent she says rape. How do you prove that?
Most rapists don't think of themselves as such. And as these cases show, neither does much of the community.
It goes back to what i started with, and it doesn't mean that they don't take rape seriously.
The community likes A
The community hates rape.
Therefore A didn't commit rape.
I think you're underestimating the human ability for cognitive dissonance when you conclude that rape must be tolerated for this to happen. By that definition we tolerate everything including theft and murder either because you can still start a war that kills 100,000 people for blatant theft and still be the good guys.
I've always found it hilarious (read disgusting) that feminists are all up in arms about genital mutilation but while at the same time as demanding it in others (literally or figuratively).
Who is demanding genital mutilation? It's a sick practice.
Saying "feminists" as a monolithic dismisses any point you could make. There are at least 6 different modern incarnations of the philosophy, Several of which are antagonistic to and incompatible with others. Only one, very very twisted, and certainly not mainstream feminist suggests mutilating the male genitalia on a widespread basis.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you think it's a nebulous term? To me it isn't nebulous at all. It covers a lot of ground, but it's actually fairly specific about what kind of ground it covers.
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that might make it nebulous is if you were previously unaware of the concept. Once you know what to look for, it's easy to spot in a lot of places in our culture, which might make it feel nebulous, but that's more an indictment of our culture than the term, IMO.
I, too, find it nebulous.
It has its uses, but, depending on who you're reading, examples can include everything from rape and trivializing rape and blaming victims (all on board so far) to objectification of women (getting nebulous) to viewing pornography and visiting strip clubs to telling sexually explicit jokes.
More broadly, I find it a source of endless amusement how most of the feminists on here take great pains to distance themselves from "man-hating, second wave, radical feminism" and then use a term derived from Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape which defines rape as "a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."
Nothing man-hating, second wave, or radical feminist about that!
Don't get me wrong: I think the world and the United States, are deeply anti-woman and I think that class society has depended on the special oppression of women since, well, as long as class society has existed. But I don't find myself agreeing with a lot of feminist theory, endlessly fascinating though it often is.
Why do you think it's a nebulous term?Partially because its using culture, which is always nebulous when it doesn't come out of a petrie dish.
Rape culture is a concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape.-wiki
Compared to what? The entire definition is based on a deviation from a baseline that either doesn't exist or is the entire culture itself (which by definition can't vary from itself)
I agree, the comparison factor creates an unsolvable criteria to judge by, but that isn't the only aspect involved. It's also talking about whether something makes life easier for rapists or rape victims. If it's making life easier for rapists, the criteria of rape culture is trying to show us how that is a bad thing.
To rephrase: labeling things as part of rape culture is identifying the things that make it easier for rapists to get away with rape. "Things" in this case being human behaviors.
Why do you think it's a nebulous term? To me it isn't nebulous at all. It covers a lot of ground, but it's actually fairly specific about what kind of ground it covers.
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that might make it nebulous is if you were previously unaware of the concept. Once you know what to look for, it's easy to spot in a lot of places in our culture, which might make it feel nebulous, but that's more an indictment of our culture than the term, IMO.
I, too, find it nebulous.
It has its uses, but, depending on who you're reading, examples can include everything from rape and trivializing rape and blaming victims (all on board so far) to objectification of women (getting nebulous) to viewing pornography and visiting strip clubs to telling sexually explicit jokes.
More broadly, I find it a source of endless amusement how most of the feminists on here take great pains to distance themselves from "man-hating, second wave, radical feminism" and then use a term derived from Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape which defines rape as "a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."
Nothing man-hating, second wave, or radical feminist about that!
Don't get me wrong: I think the world and the United States, are deeply anti-woman and I think that class society has depended on the special oppression of women since, well, as long as class society has existed. But I don't find myself agreeing with a lot of feminist theory, endlessly fascinating though it often is.
I see what you're getting at. I think it's a partially about primarily seeing the problem through ones own perspective. Most of the major feminists are women, so their viewpoint is going to be that of women. They've mostly spent their time looking at how the problem impacted them, not others (ie: men). Just like if you ask an African-American what the consequences of racism are, he's not going to focus on how it negatively impacts whites.
I've linked a video several times before, of a guy talking about how sexism has negatively impacted him in his life. If sexism holds a negative view of femininity it has a positive view of masculinity, but it also sets a standard of what masculinity is and is not. Men are then punished for not living up to that standard.
I'm not particularly versed, let alone well versed, in feminist theory to really defend it much. I know too many victims of rape and sexual assault though.
Saying "feminists" as a monolithic dismisses any point you could make.
I'd say the same things to feminists (or anyone else) who says "men" or "male" as though there is some singularity amongst them all other than a chromosone.
On the upside, those guys would have been smashed in the Australian courts, and our media would have similarly taken a rather dark view towards them too. We are quick to raise sporting identities to a 'hero' status, but geez if they do something stupid they get crucified twice as quickly.
Why do you think it's a nebulous term?Partially because its using culture, which is always nebulous when it doesn't come out of a petrie dish.
Rape culture is a concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape.-wiki
Compared to what? The entire definition is based on a deviation from a baseline that either doesn't exist or is the entire culture itself (which by definition can't vary from itself)
I agree, the comparison factor creates an unsolvable criteria to judge by, but that isn't the only aspect involved. It's also talking about whether something makes life easier for rapists or rape victims. If it's making life easier for rapists, the criteria of rape culture is trying to show us how that is a bad thing.
To rephrase: labeling things as part of rape culture is identifying the things that make it easier for rapists to get away with rape. "Things" in this case being human behaviors.
Just to be clear, the idea of "It is better to let a guilt person go free than to convict an innocent person" would have to be inherently supporting a "rape culture" concept.
|
More on topic.This here is IMO a much better look at what actually happened.
Glad she got fired, sorta hard for her to try to take the moral high ground when's always trash talking. Hopefully the door hit her in the ass on the way out.
More on topic.This here is IMO a much better look at what actually happened.
Well written, and I agree with the author.
I agree, the comparison factor creates an unsolvable criteria to judge by, but that isn't the only aspect involved. It's also talking about whether something makes life easier for rapists or rape victims.
Well lets follow that rabbit down the hole.
One of the big impediments to stopping rape is the low rate of conviction. One of the huge reasons for a low rate of conviction is the difficulty in proving the crime in a jury system that requires reasonable doubt for something that is often times very hard to prove.
Does that make trial by jury part of a rape culture?
Geez BNW, would you just lay off trying to make sense and instead stick to the party line of hyperbole and outrage fuelled logic?
Its like that ;teen attitudes to sexual assault' doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment that had some dire stats... seems a lot of people pushing it as a sign of the acceptance Rape Culture keep failing to mention those figures are from around 30 years ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, the comparison factor creates an unsolvable criteria to judge by, but that isn't the only aspect involved. It's also talking about whether something makes life easier for rapists or rape victims.
Well lets follow that rabbit down the hole.
One of the big impediments to stopping rape is the low rate of conviction. One of the huge reasons for a low rate of conviction is the difficulty in proving the crime in a jury system that requires reasonable doubt for something that is often times very hard to prove.
Does that make trial by jury part of a rape culture?
That isn't a Superman sized leap, but probably at least Spiderman sized. There are a multiple other reasons that keep rape convictions low, one of which is witness/victim reluctance in coming forward and seeing the process through to the end. Some victims make an initial report, they even know who their rapist is, but they can't handle having to relive the event over and over, telling more and more people in public situations what happened to them. So they drop it out of shame.
Go read some of the information about Steubenville. If you want to deny that the problem exists, I really don't feel like having a conversation with you about it.
If you want to argue definitions of words, I'd rather you bottled a fart and mailed it to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You asked why i thought it was a nebulous. Two people independently gave you pretty much the same answer on things that could be included in the idea that probably aren't intended on being there.
Don't get huffy with me because you got an answer to the question you specifically asked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go read some of the information about Steubenville. If you want to deny that the problem exists, I really don't feel like having a conversation with you about it.If you want to argue definitions of words, I'd rather you bottled a fart and mailed it to me.
Dude, listen to yourself.
"If you don't pre-emptively concede the argument, I won't even discuss it with you."
[
I'd say the same things to feminists (or anyone else) who says "men" or "male" as though there is some singularity amongst them all other than a chromosone.
And not even that. Not all men have that chromosome.
Well there you go, point made :)
I'm not particularly versed, let alone well versed, in feminist theory to really defend it much. I know too many victims of rape and sexual assault though.
First, let me say, that if you know one victim of sexual assault, you know too many.
But, mostly what I wanted to say was, and no offense, but I have found that most posters on here aren't well-versed in feminist theory. (I don't claim to be, either.)
In the awesome thread "Concerned Over Cultural Marxism," I found that the majority of feminist posters couldn't recommend even one book on the subject (or, perhaps, they just didn't feel like talking to me).
I did receive two recommendations, though: Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism by bell hooks, which I thought was pretty awesome (thanks again, Comrade Hawkshaw!), although I found stuff therein to disagree with; and The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer, which I have yet to get around to. (Sorry, Comrade Dwarf.)
I will also link an article I linked over there but probably got ignored as, by that point, the thread had turned into an argument between Comrade le Couard and I about the imperialist invasion of Mali:
Redefining Feminism: Overcoming the Legacy of Exclusion
There seem to be some new faces in this thread who might not have seen or participated in the awesome "Concerned Over Cultural Marxism" thread, so I will again ask for recommendations on feminist theory reading.
Go read some of the information about Steubenville. If you want to deny that the problem exists, I really don't feel like having a conversation with you about it.If you want to argue definitions of words, I'd rather you bottled a fart and mailed it to me.
Dude, listen to yourself.
"If you don't pre-emptively concede the argument, I won't even discuss it with you."
I'm willing to discuss whether something is or is not part of rape culture and why I think it is (or isn't).
I am not willing to discuss the existence of rape culture.
Just like I'm not willing to debate DLH on the validity of plate tectonics, I'm no longer willing to debate the existence of sexism in the US. If that's the debate you want to have, I'm not interested.
Well, you can ignore them and keep talking to me.
I don't deny either of those things, although I do think the notion of "rape culture" could use some clarification.
I do find these discussions frustrating, though. I find it's nearly impossible to get people to distinguish my positions from, say, Citizen R.'s.
Discussing MMOS in another thread, I pointed out that the word rape has become synonymous with "beat decisively." The response to my post was that 1) that's something you hear throughout society, not just in MMOs, and 2) It doesn't happen all that often, and isn't worth getting upset over. These statements were made in the same post.
There's no rape culture checklist out there, but that strikes me as the whole thing in a nutshell.
Doodlebug, if people won't discuss the differences between your points of view and Citizen's R.'s it might because the differences are so obvious that they don't bear discussing in the first place.
I appreciate that, HD, but past experience ("Cutting Down on Creeper Behavior") suggests otherwise.
Glad she got fired, sorta hard for her to try to take the moral high ground when's always trash talking. Hopefully the door hit her in the ass on the way out.More on topic.This here is IMO a much better look at what actually happened.
Did you even read all the second article?
The author specifically stated that in spite of her differences of opinion with the woman, she considered firing either of them to have been a big mistake on both companies' part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the way we're working on twisting the conversation from "prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape" to "feminists are against jury trials".
Good work.
You want me to trust you on whats happening in society when you can't even tell whats happened in this conversation?
My point that the definition is borked doesn't work if feminists actually are against jury trials.
Obviously they're not, but they get included in the definition anyway: that means you have a bad definition.
Rape culture, by default, quickly becomes "anything I don't like" because everything technically fits the definition : from violent video games to fraternity hazings to action movies: but it stil has a veneer of intellectual credibility because hey, its a fancy sounding sociological term now, so it can't be just my preference its objective reality!