What is Rape Culture?

[Shinzai]

This definition is really-really vague. Of course rape in most countries (probably in all of them) is not "pervasive" and "normalized", making this definition moot, and "rape culture" non-existent. However, I get the impression that people by this mean something else usually, since they apparently are talking about something that does exist.

Even in countries like Saudi Arabia, where women are almost like slaves, rape is a crime. Of course, the definition of rape there is much stricter than on the West; for example, as far as I know, in Saudi Arabia consent is not required for husband to have sex with his wife, so you could call it rape, I guess. However, rape as in "attack a random stranger on the street and force sexual act with them" is not normalized anywhere on this planet and is everywhere a crime, both from the legal and social standpoint.

The term is just stupid. Call it "sexism", plain and simple. No need to come up with all these horrifying terms that do not mean anything.

But that's the point. They have to call it a rape culture to have any media significance. They can't argue the stats or numbers in the real world, so they perpetuate the concept of a rape culture between themselves.

It's been pushed really hard by the current regressive form of campus feminism growing in both the US and UK, but has no foundation in reality.

[Deleted]

This definition is really-really vague. Of course rape in most countries (probably in all of them) is not "pervasive" and "normalized", making this definition moot, and "rape culture" non-existent. However, I get the impression that people by this mean something else usually, since they apparently are talking about something that does exist.

Even in countries like Saudi Arabia, where women are almost like slaves, rape is a crime. Of course, the definition of rape there is much stricter than on the West; for example, as far as I know, in Saudi Arabia consent is not required for husband to have sex with his wife, so you could call it rape, I guess. However, rape as in "attack a random stranger on the street and force sexual act with them" is not normalized anywhere on this planet and is everywhere a crime, both from the legal and social standpoint.

The term is just stupid. Call it "sexism", plain and simple. No need to come up with all these horrifying terms that do not mean anything.

Except, the true sexism, is the skewage of which occurs on parts of who is to fault for what. Which is very frequent in the sense of "Rape Culture".

Thus, the whole thing is hipocritical.

[Dreknar20]

No need to come up with all these horrifying terms that do not mean anything.

Well feminism needs the shock and emotional value to justify its own existence

[Steve French]

Just another thing that doesn't exist but women cry wolf about, women are squandering their time in the spotlight.

[Aphrel]

"Rape Culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture."

"In feminist theory, rape culture is a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. The sociology of rape culture is studied academically by feminists. There is disagreement over what defines a rape culture and as to whether any given societies meet the criteria to be considered a rape culture."

There is a whole wiki page on this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

So in other words, islamic countries? xD

[Huulo]

Just another thing that doesn't exist but women cry wolf about, women are squandering their time in the spotlight.

I'm just curious, did you read about the judge's decision in the Brock Turner case? Do you think the sentence was overly light given the evidence and the verdict? If so, do you think that will make rapes more likely or less likely to happen in our culture?

[Shinzai]

I'm not trying to be rude but no, that is wrong. It would mean that a little over 25 million, not 50 million, have been raped or sexually assaulted at some point in time, not every year.

Holy shit lol. 16.6(recurring)7% = 1/6. 1/6 of 300,000,000 is 50,000,000.

You might want to go back and read the link you posted because it basically repeats what I just said about statistics. Larger sample sizes improve the confidence interval, but the size of the sample as a proportion of the population is irrelevant.

Try this, scroll down to the formula for sample size: https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/determining-sample-size/

Notice that population size is not a variable in the formula for sample size.

That's because they can't predict real world accuracy on intangibles. They can only assume it's accurate and hope for the best. That's why people love these figures. They can quote them like it means something, but it represents 0.0026(recurring)% of the population. Your margin of error is stratospheric and accuracy is non-existent. That's why no one who actually understands statistics takes these types of polls seriously.

Look, forget it. You don't get it and that's OK.

And as a final pointer, I'll tell you exactly why Obama has quoted the figure himself:

He, at any given time, can reduce rape figures from the "1 in 6"/16.67% figure to 0.1%. Then he can claim he's solved the rape crisis. Amazing how maths can work in your favour if you use misleading statistics to create a crisis, then just as easily resolve it yourself with real world statistics, isn't it?

Also, looking at it, he actually said 1 in 5, which suggests 20%. That's even more hilarious.

[twiddler]

You fail maths 101.

https://select-statistics.co.uk/blog...t-sample-size/

Real world figures show stats around the 100,000 mark, over and over, year on year for rape statistics. Your 1 in 6 quote would mean 50,000,000 people a year are raped. Just think about that for a minute. You're suggesting a population the size of the entire UK is raped, every, year in the US.

Excuse me, while I go laugh hard for a while.

Statistics isn't math.

[Shinzai]

Statistics isn't math.

...Except the part where it's a mathematical body?

[May90]

Except, the true sexism, is the skewage of which occurs on parts of who is to fault for what. Which is very frequent in the sense of "Rape Culture".

Thus, the whole thing is hipocritical.

It depends on the person. I, for one, believe that separation of gender roles is what causes almost all problems related to sexism, and those apparently are caused by both sexes. I do see the reasoning behind some people's claims who blame males for everything: after all, on early stages of our civilization, physical power meant a lot, and it got males into the dominant position, allowing them to essentially decide how the society develops - and while nowadays physical power doesn't mean that much any more, the societal biases are still there. However, whether it is true or not, I see promoting this claim as a vicious cycle: people want to defeat sexism, but they resort to sexist reasoning to do that, which, apparently, isn't going to work.

Germans have done a lot of harm to the world in 1933-1945, but we don't blame Germans for everything, right? We blame Nazis (which was actually a minority in Germany), and we don't blame them for everything, we have just recognized what it is they have done - and moved on. Same here: whichever sex in the past contributed the most to the problems we are having today, we have to deal with it right here, right now, and appeal to sexism is counter-productive.

[Deleted]

It depends on the person. I, for one, believe that separation of gender roles is what causes almost all problems related to sexism, and those apparently are caused by both sexes. I do see the reasoning behind some people's claims who blame males for everything: after all, on early stages of our civilization, physical power meant a lot, and it got males into the dominant position, allowing them to essentially decide how the society develops - and while nowadays physical power doesn't mean that much any more, the societal biases are still there. However, whether it is true or not, I see promoting this claim as a vicious cycle: people want to defeat sexism, but they resort to sexist reasoning to do that, which, apparently, isn't going to work.

Germans have done a lot of harm to the world in 1933-1945, but we don't blame Germans for everything, right? We blame Nazis (which was actually a minority in Germany), and we don't blame them for everything, we have just recognized what it is they have done - and moved on. Same here: whichever sex in the past contributed the most to the problems we are having today, we have to deal with it right here, right now, and appeal to sexism is counter-productive.

I understand where you are coming from, but in my opinion, sexism is a self-description/self-imposed issue.

Rarely, are there legit cases of where one would be excluded, based solely on the sex one is. Very oftenly, on the other hand, one's attributes come into play.

Whilst Society promotes a dominant approach, this is not inherit to Men nor Women, it's more about assertion and personality.

I mostly see Sexism as a Power struggle ; i.e, the people who wage the idea of sexism, seek to gain power. Cause they lack influence. If one already has influence and felt no threat of needing to assert one self, why would one even think the thought of sexism, to begin with?

[Jacki Treehorn]

Being a convicted felon and having to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life is a far worse punishment then a longer prison sentence without either. This is especially true for a young person in their early 20's with no career. Yet this always seems to be overlooked and people just think after six months he'll be consequence free. Few reputable companies hire felons, and probable fewer would hire sex offenders. This crime will follow Brock around for much longer than his prison sentence.

[Huulo]

Holy shit lol. 16.6(recurring)7% = 1/6. 1/6 of 300,000,000 is 50,000,000.



That's because they can't predict real world accuracy on intangibles. They can only assume it's accurate and hope for the best. That's why people love these figures. They can quote them like it means something, but it represents 0.0026(recurring)% of the population. Your margin of error is stratospheric and accuracy is non-existent. That's why no one who actually understands statistics takes these types of polls seriously.

Look, forget it. You don't get it and that's OK.

And as a final pointer, I'll tell you exactly why Obama has quoted the figure himself:

He, at any given time, can reduce rape figures from the "1 in 6"/16.67% figure to 0.1%. Then he can claim he's solved the rape crisis. Amazing how maths can work in your favor if you use misleading statistics to create a crisis, then just as easily resolve it yourself with real world statistics, isn't it?

Also, looking at it, he actually said 1 in 5, which suggests 20%. That's even more hilarious.

But there aren't 300 million women in the United States, there are 150 million, and the stats for men are different. Did you at least understand that your "every year" assertion was false?

BTW, earlier you accused me of making unfounded claims, and now you are claiming that you can read Obama's mind. Unless of course you can cite some studies to verify your claim.

I've explained to you a few times, but you still don't seem to get it. That's fine, just understand that your claims about the margin of error have no basis in math.

[chrisberb]

redundant post

[Huulo]

I've heard the figure that 1 in 5, or 1 in 6 will be the victims of sexual assault in their lifetime, but who said that 1 in 5(or 6) are sexually assaulted every year?

No one that I know of except Shinzai just now. He either misread the studies, or he's trying to set up a straw man argument to prove his point.

[May90]

I understand where you are coming from, but in my opinion, sexism is a self-description/self-imposed issue.

Rarely, are there legit cases of where one would be excluded, based solely on the sex one is. Very oftenly, on the other hand, one's attributes come into play.

Whilst Society promotes a dominant approach, this is not inherit to Men nor Women, it's more about assertion and personality.

I mostly see Sexism as a Power struggle ; i.e, the people who wage the idea of sexism, seek to gain power. Cause they lack influence. If one already has influence and felt no threat of needing to assert one self, why would one even think the thought of sexism, to begin with?

I agree that blatant open discrimination is very rare nowadays, and sex is not a defining characteristic when, say, considering job applicants. However, I see quite a lot of, let's call it, "secondary sexism", when people have certain (often unrealistic) expectations from others based on their gender. It is not an aggressive sexism, it is not really harmful in itself either - but it does create this duality, this double-standard culture, in which, depending on your gender, you are treated a certain way (not better or worse, just different). I think this duality is the main cause of almost all the problems related to sex we have nowadays: subtle biases pile up and result in a macroscopic bias, having certain negative consequences.

Of course, these problems are strongly overblown nowadays, by both sides. Say, in the US the equality is pretty darn good, and while some issues persist, there is definitely no clearly favored sex/gender. Middle East or central-African countries are another story...

[Shinzai]

But there aren't 300 million women in the United States, there are 150 million, and the stats for men are different. Did you at least understand that your "every year" assertion was false?

Based on known stats, it would take at least 250 years for 1 in 6 women specifically to be raped prior to declining figures, if you're going for an unspecified amount of time. The known figures for rape include men and are for sexual assaults, not specifically rape. For the figure to match up with rape alone, you're looking more around the 600+ year mark for the figures to line up with what you're suggesting. Make your choices.

BTW, earlier you accused me of making unfounded claims, and now you are claiming that you can read Obama's mind. Unless of course you can cite some studies to verify your claim.

I've explained to you a few times, but you still don't seem to get it. That's fine, just understand that your claims about the margin of error have no basis in math.

An acceptable margin of error for statistics is generally 4-8%, when you're almost 100% certain about the details. As I said, the CDC figures are not even remotely close.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ve-been-raped/

A number of readers have questioned this statistic asserted by President Obama in a public service announcement that is part of the White House’s “It’s On Us” campaign, which aims to end sexual assaults on college campuses.

In other words, Obama cited a government study that came up with a number of females raped or sexually assaulted that was at least five times higher than another government survey. It was also twice as high as the prevalence number for rapes estimated by the 1989-1990 National Women’s Study and 30 percent greater than yet another survey, the 1995 National Violence Against Women Study.

However, the Justice Department survey has long been criticized as an inadequate measure of rape. A National Research Council report in 2014 offered recommendations on how to improve it, saying it was “highly likely” it was underestimating the number of rapes. While the NRC report made no judgment on the CDC survey — since that was not part of its mandate — the panel noted how much higher the numbers were in the CDC report: “This differential between the NISVS and the other surveys is surprising.”

“We were surprised to see how much larger the CDC estimates were than other surveys, but unfortunately given the data we had from them we could not thoroughly explore this,” said Candace Kruttschnitt, a University of Toronto professor who was co-chair of the NRC panel.

Both surveys were drawn from many interviews. The Justice Department survey was based on interviews with more than 143,000 people, with a response rate of 88 percent. The CDC study was based on interviews with more than 14,000 people, with a response rate of 33 percent.

The Justice Department survey is a classic example of a criminal justice approach. It asked how someone was attacked, and if rape was mentioned, the survey asked a series of questions about the incident. By reference, the actual number of reported forcible rapes and attempted rapes was under 85,000 in 2012. So even under this approach, researchers uncovered far more rapes than are reported.

The questions in the CDC survey are much more open-ended, never using terms such as rape or sexual assault. The full questionnaire is embedded at the end of this column, but here’s an example of one section. The first part is the introduction, which is then followed by the actual question in bold.

The 1/6 or 1/5, whatever result comes from the CDC survey. The Justice Department used a sample size 10 times larger than the CDC's and got figures 5 times lower. Obama specifically went with the CDC result for inflated numbers, knowingly fully well it didn't tally with real world figures or even a larger survey also performed by the government itself. He also knows that it's not just rape, but sexual assault included in that and yet he called it specifically "rape" and claimed as such to back his campaign.

Feel free to take from that what you will.

No one that I know of except Shinzai just now. He either misread the studies, or he's trying to set up a straw man argument to prove his point.

Nope, I legitimately thought that was what you were suggesting. I'm fine with accepting that as a mistake. As I said, it still doesn't make the figures you rely on tie into any form of reality.

[Deleted]

I agree that blatant open discrimination is very rare nowadays, and sex is not a defining characteristic when, say, considering job applicants. However, I see quite a lot of, let's call it, "secondary sexism", when people have certain (often unrealistic) expectations from others based on their gender. It is not an aggressive sexism, it is not really harmful in itself either - but it does create this duality, this double-standard culture, in which, depending on your gender, you are treated a certain way (not better or worse, just different). I think this duality is the main cause of almost all the problems related to sex we have nowadays: subtle biases pile up and result in a macroscopic bias, having certain negative consequences.

Of course, these problems are strongly overblown nowadays, by both sides. Say, in the US the equality is pretty darn good, and while some issues persist, there is definitely no clearly favored sex/gender. Middle East or central-African countries are another story...

I tend to agree with this.

It's something that i have oftenly found to be a very confusing sentiment ; When people, i know IRL, speak of a Patriarchy or the "Systematical Suppresion Everywhere", whilst they fail to point out a single instance of acclaimed things.

It's worrying, really, it borders on pure delusion.

[Huulo]

You've haven't really addressed any of the points I've made or the questions I've asked you. Instead, every time you realize that you can't refute my claims, you try to shift the conversation to something else. In the above post, the things you wrote don't match the parts of my post you quoted. This suggests to me that you aren't interested in uncovering truth here as much as you are with "winning."

I could keep playing your game, and point out for the 12th time that the figures you've cited do not take into consideration unreported rapes. I could also point out even the DoJ survey puts the total number of rapes at roughly 170 times higher than the figure you keep citing, but I'm beginning to see that it doesn't matter. You don't care if you're wrong, you just want to win.

[May90]

I tend to agree with this.

It's something that i have oftenly found to be a very confusing sentiment ; When people, i know IRL, speak of a Patriarchy or the "Systematical Suppresion Everywhere", whilst they fail to point out a single instance of acclaimed things.

It's worrying, really, it borders on pure delusion.

Honestly, I've never heard anyone IRL use the term "Patriarchy" seriously; it seems to mostly be Internet thing, maybe popular among some minor groups of people. Then, of course, my socialization circle is hardly representative...