I started out having difficulty thinking about this, so if it's sloppy at the start, please excuse me.
gmalivuk wrote: Vash wrote: gmalivuk wrote:
Vash wrote:(Worse, people even made rape threats, etc. How much misunderstanding could you possibly seek?)
Considering that there are *always* rape threats against women who pubicly criticize sexism, I'm not at all sure it should be described as a mis
understanding at all.
I think the majority of people who make rape threats on the internet are probably not serious. It's a realm of fantasy toughness. However, without actual evidence, anything could be true, really. The number of known cases where a rape threat on the internet has escalated to actual rape is really what one should look at.
Rape threats don't need to come with a high probability of real world rape to be a perfect example of rape culture.
I restored the original sequence of replies because I almost just completely lost track of things.
I think that a lot of people don't know how to reply to the arguments presented, which in some cases overextend and are not actually very fair themselves. So, when people don't know what to do, sometimes they jump to acting extremely. Alternatively, they could be acting out of a fear at a potential threat and just be wrong. Indeed, if you honestly think that people with either of those motivations supports rape, that would a misunderstanding. If you think that trolls support rape, that is also a misunderstanding. You could argue that they support rape culture, but that is unintentional. That is also an important distinction for people to recognize, because it changes how you address these people. It seems to me that by making this argument on rape culture that people aim to address people with very different motivations in the exact same way. People who don't mean ill will get offended if you address them as if they do. It's the worst possible way to get those people to listen to you. Further, if you say that they are part of rape culture, it implies that they believe
in supporting rape. You could argue that they support rape culture
, and I'm going to lazily agree with that.
I'm not sure that the idea of rape culture is not somewhat wrong, though. I mean, there have to be some people out there who support rape, but rapists (barring redefinitions of rape, I think?) are largely high-functioning sociopaths (according to at least one study), who are rare. I suppose despite this that there could be a support culture for those sociopaths, but as far as I can see the term "rape culture" is about something else entirely. It's about replying to skepticism, which is not necessarily actually about supporting rape rather than being afraid of unjust reprisal.
I would prefer a more neutral compromise, personally. There is a lot more uncertainty that needs to be acknowledged on both sides. The argument about rape tends to be polarized toward overbearing skepticism and unjustified belief.
Magnanimous wrote:Whether or not threats lead to actual rape isn't the primary issue; rape threats are bad because they're bullying and they reinforce the problematic culture of the former. The best way to internalize a concept is to rehearse it as often as possible with your peers. I suspect rape threats rarely result in the target being raped, but contribute to the overall crime rate.
I agree that rape threats are bullying. As for rape culture, I have provided some arguments on that topic earlier in this post. I would agree that rehearsing an idea allows you to remember it, but what idea is being rehearsed, specifically? Let's say for example that you think that an idea is completely laughably bad. If you rehearse it, then aren't you just learning how bad it is? I kind of think that joking about rape threats is too dark to be acceptable, but I do not really like the idea of normalization either.
Rape threats probably increase the overall crime rate. I think that there have been plenty of studies to show that general lawlessness is a thing.
Magnanimous wrote:I think this idea (is it a Law? I think somebody's name was attached) is somewhat satirical, for the reasons you stated. But harassment is still serious and I highly suspect it contributes to the culture that leads to discrimination around the world.
Poe's Law. (I looked it up. I had forgotten myself.) I don't think the law itself is satirical, and I did not provide reasons for why in my mind. Did you miswrite, or what were you thinking specifically? I am slightly confused. The last thing you said is kind of a repetition of what you said before, so I don't think I have to address it again.
The Great Hippo wrote:In some sense, I get what you're saying, but in another sense, this is a fundamental property of the very problem we're talking about -- a more contentious way to write what you're saying (and I realize this is likely not something you would ever say) would be: "They don't actually mean it; I mean, boys will be boys!"
You are mistaken. I would say that because I think it is hilarious, but only in a realm where I think it would not be misinterpreted. I mean, what a ridiculous thing to say. It's so wrong in so many ways.
The Great Hippo wrote:And that right there is the problem; somewhere, at some point, it became acceptable for 'boys' (I'm sure there are women online who engage in the same behavior!) to threaten people with violence and rape -- and when we point out how horrible this is, it's somehow become okay for people to reply with 'Well, they don't actually mean it, so we shouldn't take it that seriously'.
I don't think that quite addresses my argument. I'm not saying that it is not a bad thing. In fact, I think I pretty clearly said that the behavior toward Sarkeesian was very bad. What I am saying is that some people who are saying it are not serious (maybe most, given that most people are not sociopaths), and that if you assume they are serious you will respond incorrectly to this improper behavior.
I don't see what being wrong about what people mean gains you. However, it is a common argument that being wrong about people mean is an important part of opposing rape culture, and that if you argue against this behavior, that you are part of rape culture or that you support rape culture. I think I have basically already addressed this, but if you think I have not addressed it clearly enough (especially specifically for your argument), I could elaborate.
The Great Hippo wrote:I absolutely don't mean to pick on you here, but -- how fucked up is that? That the response to a rape-threat isn't that it's unacceptable, but that it's not credible? In a lot of ways, I suspect this is part of what feminists are talking about when they describe rape culture; a culture wherein rape threats are deemed tolerable merely because they aren't likely to be consummated.
And that's seriously messed up.
Look, I don't care what you condemnations come up with. They are based on an argument I don't agree with and in my mind have no support. (Not to mention that they misunderstand what I said pretty clearly in the first place.) I only care about your argument and its supports. I'm not going to change my mind based on your condemnations.
Also, of course
you mean to at least take the risk of picking on me. Picking on me is not your main goal, but what you want to some extent is power and control. (Not necessarily to an unhealthy or wholly unjustified degree, btw. Everyone needs SOME power and control.) If I was vulnerable enough and this was not apparent, you would be picking on me. Luckily, I can handle this. However, what I would say is that this discussion would be more pleasant if you kept it a bit more civil and stuck to the arguments. It does require of me a bit of stress and sometimes temporary upset to sort through statements that I could find hurtful if I were not to handle them correctly. I know it can be frustrating if you really have a legitimate concern to press and you feel you can't fully do it as you need to, but it might be an argument-weakening distraction to stray from civility. You may also sometimes find that your concern is addressed in the opposing argument. It's also a bit unfair to me. I would appreciate it particularly so because I am not doing that well as of late.
CannedCourage wrote: nitePhyyre wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Considering that there are *always* rape threats against women who pubicly criticize sexism,
Sure, whenever we point out rape culture online people make rape jokes.
Man, I can't believe I never used to see stuff like this.
Yeah, it's important to point that out. It's playing down the seriousness of the situation. On the other hand, everyone here is going on to just ignore the main thrust of the argument nitePhyyre made, which was not invalid just because the example nitePhyyre used was confused.
The Great Hippo wrote:]You mean conflating 'rape threats' with 'rape jokes'? If so, yeah; it's actually kind of bizarre when you first start to notice just how ingrained we are to not notice this sort of thing.
I think it takes a lot of effort to actually listen to what people are saying; and I mean 'actually listen to what people are saying' in the most trivial way possible. When you start taking people at their word, the effects can often be quite surprising -- and very chilling.
Or a number of other things, such as calming. I would also say that what someone means is as important as what someone says. You have to look at both. You can't ignore either.
gmalivuk wrote:Yes, people joke about inappropriate things when anonymous, and that means people are assholes.
But I wasn't talking about jokes, I was talking about threats. this would be akin to, instead of telling dead baby jokes when someone talks about parenthood, the response was, "Someone ought to grind up *your* baby in a blender. That would teach you!"
The problem everyone else in this discussion is talking about isn't jokes, but threats. And in particular it's the notion that (threatening) rape as retribution is an appropriate thing.
I think I have already addressed this, essentially.
rieschen wrote:I think a lot of people aren't aware just how unlikely it is that the women they are speaking to are not a survivor of sexual assault themselves or close to survivors or even victims.
Don't get me wrong, it's a douche thing to do even without this context - but with it, it becomes truly horrifying to me.
It's more unlikely than likely. (Depending on the statistics you use, I think.) Not that it really diminishes the point, though.