Are you freakin' kidding me?

[Strain42]

I didn't necessarily think it was a rape joke, but to me whether it was or wasn't is 100% irrelevant. Because you know what it WAS?

It was unfunny, mean-spirited, and rude. I'm all for playful ribbing here and there, but this did not fall under that category. It was just dumb. Rape oriented or not.

 

[fletch_talon]

In the American legal system, there's a saying: Intent follows the bullet. It's a reference to a lot of different things, but probably its primary reason for existing is to warn you that if you're aiming your gun at Bobby, miss him, and shoot Billy instead, you don't get to say you're not guilty of killing Billy because your intent was to shoot Bobby. The law doesn't care: The fact that you shot Billy is proof your intent was not just to shoot Bobby, but to do so in a manner so careless that you were willing to risk shooting Billy in the process and you should be held accountable for it.

The term is of deliberately limited use; it can only be applied to acts of similar nature, so someone who shot at Bobby but instead hit Bobby's prize-winning cow can't be blamed for murder of the cow because cows can't be murdered (he still can be blamed for destruction of property).

My reply to this isn't really relevant to our discussion but I have to say I'm pretty sure I'd be charged for attempted murder or some form of armed assault even if I only hit Bobby's cow. Either that or the US legal system is stupider than I thought and rewards criminals for bein a shit shot.
Either way I understand the point you're getting at, but don't think it applies here.

I bring all this up because I think it applies here: The Microsoft representative set out to use his words as a psychological weapon against his opponent, and, almost definitely unintentionally but nevertheless demonstrably, his words unsettled the minds of many, many more people than just her. The intent to harm those people can be inferred to follow the bullet that is his word choice.
Regardless of whether the Microsoft representative intended to convey a desire for his opponent to set down her controller and watch the game quietly or to convey that he wanted her to experience a helplessness that would lead her to silently submit to his power like a rape victim ought to in the face of her attacker's might, he chose words that some people can reasonably interpret as a rape reference, as proven by ShiningAmber's experiences, among others. How he can clear his name and/or atone for his actions are matters outside of my interests, and I won't address them; all I care about is people like ShiningAmber feeling like it's okay to say, "His words hurt me," and then people like her can decide for themselves what restitution, if any, they want.

And we're back to attributing malice. If this had been a competition, some form of e-sport, I can imagine him using his words as a "psychological weapon" in this case, its just trash talk/banter. When playing games with someone, some people prefer talking to silence, rather than talking about the weather or the football game, they'll generally choose to playfully mock each other. Its certainly something I do with my friends and they do the same in return.

And again whilst the words can be reasonably interpreted as a rape reference, it is not reasonable to conclude that it was a rape reference. So it is not okay to say "his words hurt me" instead its a case of, "his words reminded me of a time when I was hurt" the difference being that the man could not (or at the very least shoult not) be responsible for knowing those words were going to affect specific people in this way.

Words may be open for interpretation and it is certainly possible to arrive at more than one logical conclusion for many words and sentences. There is however such a thing as a wrong conclusion, or in this case an unreasonable conclusion. A conclusion is supposed to be reached after giving the subject a degree of thought. You say that context is important, yet the people who are jumping to conclusions, based on their past experiences are ignoring context. This is a man representing his company in front of a live audience playing a video game with someone he probably knows/works with. There was no rape reference, no reason to believe there was a rape reference.

 

[JimB]

I'm pretty sure I'd be charged for attempted murder or some form of armed assault even if I only hit Bobby's cow.

Well, yeah, that too.

And we're back to attributing malice.

How so? You don't think it's possible to accidentally hurt someone?

It is not okay to say "His words hurt me;" instead, it's a case of, "His words reminded me of a time when I was hurt."

I hate to say this, because I feel like you and I are getting along pretty well and I don't want to ruin that, but with all due respect, this is an area I just can't bend on: Yes, it is okay to say "His words hurt me." It is at least as okay to say that as it is for the Microsoft representative to say "Just let it happen, it will be over soon."

You say that context is important, yet the people who are jumping to conclusions, based on their past experiences are ignoring context. This is a man representing his company in front of a live audience playing a video game with someone he probably knows/works with. There was no rape reference, no reason to believe there was a rape reference.

You don't think there's an endemic undercurrent of misogyny in gaming and a rape culture in the West that informs his beliefs? And I know that probably sounds smug, but no, really, I'm asking. Do you disagree that those things are true and form part of the context of the situation?

 

[fletch_talon]

How so? You don't think it's possible to accidentally hurt someone?

Of course it is, but you went straight from speaking about intent (with your legal system comparison) into saying that he was trying to hurt/demean the woman that he was playing against and therefore inadvertently hurt others.
You say its like accidentally shooting the person next to the guy you were trying to kill.
I say its more akin to someone getting angry at you for shooting someone else with a cap gun.

Sure it looked and sounded like a real gun at first, but give it a second and you realise that its more innocent than what you took it to be and it really had nothing to do with you in the first place.

I hate to say this, because I feel like you and I are getting along pretty well and I don't want to ruin that, but with all due respect, this is an area I just can't bend on: Yes, it is okay to say "His words hurt me." It is at least as okay to say that as it is for the Microsoft representative to say "Just let it happen, it will be over soon."

Fair enough, you can indeed say it, bad choice of words on my part. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. It is not his words that have hurt you, it is your choice, influenced by your bias that causes you to be hurt. If there was evidence to suggest his words referenced rape in any way rather than being a piece of (not so witty) banter then I'd agree with the statement. The words he used however are ambiguous as to what they reference (leaning towards innocence) and therefore you don't get to decide that he was wrong to say them.

Otherwise you could berate someone for wearing the same cologne as your attacker. The smell reminded you of the incident and in turn caused you mental anguish. And lets be fair, they say the sense of smell is one of the biggest memory triggers.

You don't think there's an endemic undercurrent of misogyny in gaming and a rape culture in the West that informs his beliefs? And I know that probably sounds smug, but no, really, I'm asking. Do you disagree that those things are true and form part of the context of the situation?

I don't think there's as much misogyny in gaming as people suggest. I think there's a lack of women making games for women, and an excess of men making games for men. Misogyny no doubt exists in gaming as it does anywhere, as does misandry in its own ways, but its not the type which people consciously express. Its the type of sexism which is based on outdated stereotypes which are still affecting marketting teams and publishers. This kind of sexism is not grounds to believe that someone would joke about rape.

As for the second part of your question. Fuck no. As in fuck no I do not think our culture has:

"prevalent attitudes and practices [which] normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape."
-Thanks Wikipedia

Our culture classes rape as one of the worst crimes that can be commited, just under child molestation which is just rape directed at children. I really don't think anything more needs to be said here, the idea that our culture is in any way a rape culture is bullshit. Unless of course you're talking about male rape which as you've already mentioned gets brushed aside as either never happening, being funny when it does happen or the victim being "lucky" because the chick was hot.

 

[JimB]

Of course it is, but you went straight from speaking about intent (with your legal system comparison) into saying that he was trying to hurt/demean the woman that he was playing against and therefore inadvertently hurt others.

True, but such things can be done without malice. My point was less that he was trying to hurt or demean a person (though he was trying to rattle her confidence, so I guess he was trying to hurt her game?) than that he did willfully choose words that negligently affected other people negatively. I probably didn't make that clear because I've argued it so many times in the past seven pages I've forgotten what I've said to whom, so, sorry for my part of that.

Fair enough, you can indeed say it, bad choice of words on my part. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. It is not his words that have hurt you, it is your choice, influenced by your bias that causes you to be hurt.

While I agree that adults can control their emotional state--I have to believe that, for a variety of reasons--I don't think you're talking about emotional control here. I think you're talking about perspective, and blaming people for having perspectives other than your own.

Otherwise you could berate someone for wearing the same cologne as your attacker. The smell reminded you of the incident and in turn caused you mental anguish.

I don't think "Your words hurt me" counts as berating someone. It is a statement about how that person feels, and with no further expansion upon it than that, implies no criticism.

I don't think there's as much misogyny in gaming as people suggest. I think there's a lack of women making games for women, and an excess of men making games for men.

You don't think the idea of "women making games for women" is kind of misogynist in and of itself, like the video games industry needs to be segregated like public restrooms? That this isn't a "separate but equal" argument?

Misogyny no doubt exists in gaming as it does anywhere, as does misandry in its own ways, but it's not the type which people consciously express.

Who cares if it's conscious?

I do not think our culture has "prevalent attitudes and practices [which] normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape."

Before I start, let me just ask, what is "our" culture? You're Australian, right?

That said, I believe you're wrong about rape culture being imaginary and that our words (at least here in America; maybe things are better in the part of the world where it's winter now) do not suit our actions. Sure, we decry rape, but look at how months after the fact, Serena Williams is blaming a rape victim for getting raped, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/serena-williams-steubenville-rape-victim_n_3462519.html] bringing it up apropos of almost nothing at all. It's her own fault, says Williams, for getting that drunk, which she wouldn't have done if she was a virgin, and if she's not a virgin she must be okay with being sexually assaulted while unconscious. Here [http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2013/03/20/news/doc51493e14b1a0a944806262.txt] is a story about a thirteen-year-old girl who was raped by two eighteen-year-olds who is being called a whore for ruining the two boys' lives by snitching on them. Here [http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/09/teenage-rape-victim-commits-suicide-after-being-bullied-by-peers/] is a story about a girl who committed suicide because she couldn't tolerate the attacks on her for trying to prosecute her rapists. Here [http://minx.cc/?post=323950] is a story about a rape victim who had to leave school because he was being harassed for getting his rapist in trouble. Here [http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-20/sodomy-hazing-leaves-13-year-old-victim-outcast-in-colorado-town] is a story about a thirteen-year-old who was gang raped at school and whose principal was forced by the students' parents to resign when he reported the crime. Here [http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/drop%20the%20soap] and here [http://www.tmz.com/2010/07/10/lindsay-lohan-soap-game-play/] are websites devoted to jokes about how funny it is to get raped in prison. If I could remember where they were, I'd link you to stories about women who were raped by their boyfriends' friends and whose boyfriends asked their girlfriends not to make trouble for their rapists because it would strain their friendship; I'll edit this post to link them if I track them down.

We excuse and condone the hell out of rape.

 

[fletch_talon]

While I agree that adults can control their emotional state--I have to believe that, for a variety of reasons--I don't think you're talking about emotional control here. I think you're talking about perspective, and blaming people for having perspectives other than your own.

Thing is, we should all strive not to let our perspective cloud our judgement.
That makes me sound like a Jedi.
What I mean is, as I've been saying, whilst its difficult to do, we need to know when to look beyond our bias. We can never truly know someone else's intent, but its usually not that hard to make an educated guess beyond our initial assumptions.

I don't think "Your words hurt me" counts as berating someone. It is a statement about how that person feels, and with no further expansion upon it than that, implies no criticism.

Its indirect criticism. And the article that this entire topic is discussing is very much a criticism.

You don't think the idea of "women making games for women" is kind of misogynist in and of itself, like the video games industry needs to be segregated like public restrooms? That this isn't a "separate but equal" argument?

Its nothing to do with segregation. I'm sure there are some people who aren't like this, but if I were to make a game, write a book etc. Its going to be what I like. Most men aren't going to make games catering specifically to women any more than the reverse is true. There will be exceptions and there are already games which can cater to both genders equally.
The common argument is that there are sexualised women but not sexualised men. Men don't know how to make sexualised male characters, seriously I can't for the life of me figure it out, cuz everytime an example is given its either a male power fantasy or something women don't actually like. Personally I chalk it up to men being more visually stimulated versus women being more emotionally/mentally stimulated. If anything the extent of sexualised female characters is less a objectification of women and an example of how men are stereotypicall more shallow.

Before I start, let me just ask, what is "our" culture? You're Australian, right?

That said, I believe you're wrong about rape culture being imaginary and that our words (at least here in America; maybe things are better in the part of the world where it's winter now) do not suit our actions. Sure, we decry rape, but look at how months after the fact, Serena Williams is blaming a rape victim for getting raped, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/serena-williams-steubenville-rape-victim_n_3462519.html] bringing it up apropos of almost nothing at all. It's her own fault, says Williams, for getting that drunk, which she wouldn't have done if she was a virgin, and if she's not a virgin she must be okay with being sexually assaulted while unconscious. Here [http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2013/03/20/news/doc51493e14b1a0a944806262.txt] is a story about a thirteen-year-old girl who was raped by two eighteen-year-olds who is being called a whore for ruining the two boys' lives by snitching on them. Here [http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/09/teenage-rape-victim-commits-suicide-after-being-bullied-by-peers/] is a story about a girl who committed suicide because she couldn't tolerate the attacks on her for trying to prosecute her rapists. Here [http://minx.cc/?post=323950] is a story about a rape victim who had to leave school because he was being harassed for getting his rapist in trouble. Here [http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-20/sodomy-hazing-leaves-13-year-old-victim-outcast-in-colorado-town] is a story about a thirteen-year-old who was gang raped at school and whose principal was forced by the students' parents to resign when he reported the crime. Here [http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/drop%20the%20soap] and here [http://www.tmz.com/2010/07/10/lindsay-lohan-soap-game-play/] are websites devoted to jokes about how funny it is to get raped in prison. If I could remember where they were, I'd link you to stories about women who were raped by their boyfriends' friends and whose boyfriends asked their girlfriends not to make trouble for their rapists because it would strain their friendship; I'll edit this post to link them if I track them down.

We excuse and condone the hell out of rape.

I also think people who drink till they get so drunk that they either pass out or have no control are idiots. Not just women, not just rape victims, all of them.
Whilst the victim deserves the same degree of sympathy and the rapists deserves the same amount of blame, its no use skimming over the fact that what people are doing when they get that drunk is putting themselves in an at risk situation. We can't do anything about a rapist until he commits rape. All we can do till then is tell people how to reduce risk. And not drinking yourself into a stupor is a good preventative (though not fool proof obviously.
In saying that it sounds like Serena's not really in line with what I've just said and really is blaming the victim, so please don't think I'm excusing her stance.

Anyway back to the rape culture thing.
When these stories come up, what is the public reaction?
My guess is the majority of people are outraged that someone tried to cover up an act of rape, or shame a girl to suicide because she was raped. The fact that we have a minority of dickheads who condone and excuse rape doesn't make it a rape culture, any more than the fact that rapists exist makes it a rape culture.
I think the problem is in America you have your extreme belief in the absolute freedom of speech, also you seem to have a higher percentage of religious (and other) extremists. Unfortunately two things contribute to the exposure of these groups:

1. Dickheads seem to be the most vocal
2. Good news is never heard

Lets be honest here, you're not going to find any news stories saying "people hate rape" or "victim not blamed for rape".

 

[JimB]

Thing is, we should all strive not to let our perspective cloud our judgement.

This might be getting a bit navel-gazing, but I'm honestly interested to know: How do you judge except by the information available to you, and how do you receive information except through the lens of your perceptions?

It's indirect criticism.

It's only criticism if you intend to alter the person's behavior. I can easily imagine saying such a thing for no other reason than to express it, with no particular interest in what the other person does with that information...but then again, I'm the kind of person who once, when he saw a woman walking toward him with a shopping cart in the grocery store while she was looking over her shoulder, just stood still and let her run into him because I was curious to see if she'd look up in time, so maybe my perspective here is suspect.

Most men aren't going to make games catering specifically to women any more than the reverse is true.

I haven't done a formal study on this or anything, but none of the women I've ever spoken to want games specifically for them. They just want to not feel like the games industry is deliberately excluding them from the market. A good friend of mine once said that Femshep is one of the best female characters ever not because she's a good female character but because, since they didn't code new dialogue options or character poses for the female Shepard, they didn't make an issue of her sex and instead just made her a character. Most of the women I know want that, not to be catered to specifically.

Personally, I chalk it up to men being more visually stimulated versus women being more emotionally/mentally stimulated.

Probably a lot of truth in that.

I also think people who drink till they get so drunk that they either pass out or have no control are idiots.

Yes. She made herself an attractive target for crime. None of that excuses or mitigates the behavior taken by the criminals who preyed upon her. To even imply otherwise is to say it's justified for those boys to sexually assault her because she invited them in.

When these stories come up, what is the public reaction? My guess is the majority of people are outraged that someone tried to cover up an act of rape, or shame a girl to suicide because she was raped.

I am a very suspicious person by nature. It comes of being raised by a mother who worked for the police, I think. She told me, "Everything anyone says is a lie, so just ignore what they say and focus on what they do, because what they do is the truth," and, though it's perhaps made me a bit cynical, I think it's served me well. I mention that to provide context to the following response.

The public reaction, when these stories come up, is often a vocal outcry, but because that is words I ignore it and I look at what people do about it. Do they change the way they behave? Do they try to assist the victims, or volunteer for social programs, or donate to shelters, or do anything else with the outrage they insist they feel? No, not really. They're just saying the words people expect to hear while continuing to do what they would have done anyway. Their outrage is so shallow it's basically a lie.

So when you ask what the public reaction is, my stance, filtered through the lessons I mentioned the paragraph before last, is: Nothing. There is no real reaction.

I think the problem is in America you have your extreme belief in the absolute freedom of speech, also you seem to have a higher percentage of religious (and other) extremists. Unfortunately two things contribute to the exposure of these groups:

1. Dickheads seem to be the most vocal
2. Good news is never heard

I'd say your list is less because of free speech and extremism than it is because of capitalism. Dickheads create drama while good news does not; drama is interesting; people watch more TV/read more newspapers/click more links if it's interesting. There is a direct correlation between bad news and advertising profits. That's probably not your point, though.

It's estimated that one in six women [http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims] (and one in thirty-three men) in America has been subjected to a sexual attack of one flavor or another in her life. Fifty-four percent of those attacks, according to the Justice Department, [http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245] are not reported, and while I can't know the specific motivations for all of these victims, I live in a country where a nineteen-year-old pop starlet who weighs all of one hundred pounds can be attacked by her boyfriend, have her face broken and her ear torn by his teeth, be throttled by him and have direct forensic evidence of the attack; yet Twitter will explode with her boyfriend's defenders calling her a liar, saying she deserved it (and sometimes making these claims together in what would otherwise be a hilarious lack of self-awareness), saying they want to kill her for making trouble for him. I think there's at least a strong circumstantial case based on all the reported incidents of victim-blaming and -harassment that many choose not to for fear of reprisal, because if Rihanna can't report Chris Brown for attacking her with provable, documented science backing up her claims without being attacked on all sides, then yeah, I don't think much of the odds for Sally down the street.

 

[fletch_talon]

This might be getting a bit navel-gazing, but I'm honestly interested to know: How do you judge except by the information available to you, and how do you receive information except through the lens of your perceptions?

You are correct in your assessment but I also believe that people shouldn't allow their perceptions to filter out relevant information.
If someone unfortunately makes judgement on incomplete or biased information then they can at least acknowledge their mistake when called out on it.

It's only criticism if you intend to alter the person's behavior. I can easily imagine saying such a thing for no other reason than to express it, with no particular interest in what the other person does with that information...but then again, I'm the kind of person who once, when he saw a woman walking toward him with a shopping cart in the grocery store while she was looking over her shoulder, just stood still and let her run into him because I was curious to see if she'd look up in time, so maybe my perspective here is suspect.

That's a bit weird though I can see myself doing similar things out of spite (damn people not paying attention) but I don't due to an excessive amount of politeness even to people who don't necessarily deserve it.

Anyways, I personally can't imagine a situation where I would express offence or emotional pain/distress at a comment without expecting the person to apologies and take greater care in the future.

I haven't done a formal study on this or anything, but none of the women I've ever spoken to want games specifically for them. They just want to not feel like the games industry is deliberately excluding them from the market. A good friend of mine once said that Femshep is one of the best female characters ever not because she's a good female character but because, since they didn't code new dialogue options or character poses for the female Shepard, they didn't make an issue of her sex and instead just made her a character. Most of the women I know want that, not to be catered to specifically.

I spose the problem is that there isn't a united front saying that "this is what women want" because every individual will have a slightly different wants and needs. No doubt the same issue would exist in reverse if we were progressing from a matriarchal society rather than a patriarchal one.
My main point was that because the industry is still mostly men, its difficult (though I wouldn't say impossible) to find someone capable of writing good female characters when what they define as a good female character requires her to be distinguishable as female beyond her looks.

Yes. She made herself an attractive target for crime. None of that excuses or mitigates the behavior taken by the criminals who preyed upon her. To even imply otherwise is to say it's justified for those boys to sexually assault her because she invited them in.

I know, and I'm pretty sure I said that (if not I apologise) and made sure to clarify that Serena was out of line, as is anyone who takes that stance. However I appreciate that you can acknowledge that you can say "you shouldn't be that reckless" without meaning "its kinda your fault you got raped".

I am a very suspicious person by nature. It comes of being raised by a mother who worked for the police, I think. She told me, "Everything anyone says is a lie, so just ignore what they say and focus on what they do, because what they do is the truth," and, though it's perhaps made me a bit cynical, I think it's served me well. I mention that to provide context to the following response.

The public reaction, when these stories come up, is often a vocal outcry, but because that is words I ignore it and I look at what people do about it. Do they change the way they behave? Do they try to assist the victims, or volunteer for social programs, or donate to shelters, or do anything else with the outrage they insist they feel? No, not really. They're just saying the words people expect to hear while continuing to do what they would have done anyway. Their outrage is so shallow it's basically a lie.

So when you ask what the public reaction is, my stance, filtered through the lessons I mentioned the paragraph before last, is: Nothing. There is no real reaction.

People are like that though.
We all think that we can't make a difference on our own so why bother.
We all think that someone else will do it so we don't need to worry.
We all worry about our own problems first, however small they be in comparison to others.
We all think itll never happen to us or anyone we hold dear.

This isn't rape culture at work, this the way society works with everything. Not wanting to think about something strongly agreed upon as being truly horrible is not condoning, excusing or accepting rape, its being human.
If someone sees a rape and does nothing to stop it or help, they have done the wrong thing, but generally its not due to apathy or acceptance, its due to fear. And yet every now and then, you'll find people who throw that fear aside and do the right thing anyway.
And finally think of it this way. If the dickheads condoning rape are evidence for rape culture despite being a minority. Shouldn't the fact that charities and shelters and social programs exist, along with the times when communities and individuals do assist the victims be evidence against rape culture.

I'd say your list is less because of free speech and extremism than it is because of capitalism. Dickheads create drama while good news does not; drama is interesting; people watch more TV/read more newspapers/click more links if it's interesting. There is a direct correlation between bad news and advertising profits. That's probably not your point, though.

No sorry, I meant that the groups exist due to the freedom of speech. And those groups get exposure because of the things I listed. The freedom of speech thing wasn't really that relevant apart from explaining why maybe the things you describe are more noticeable in your country as opposed to mine.

 

[JimB]

If someone unfortunately makes judgement on incomplete or biased information then they can at least acknowledge their mistake when called out on it.

Fair dues; now we're down to arguing about what's a mistake, which I'm willing to skip if you are.

That's a bit weird, though I can see myself doing similar things out of spite (damn people not paying attention) but I don't due to an excessive amount of politeness even to people who don't necessarily deserve it.

I wanted to know, and if I'd said something, it would have tainted the results of the experiment. But yeah, it was weird.

Anyways, I personally can't imagine a situation where I would express offense or emotional pain/distress at a comment without expecting the person to apologize and take greater care in the future.

I'd want them to do that, obviously, but I rarely expect or ask such a thing. Again, though, that's me.

I suppose the problem is that there isn't a united front saying that "this is what women want" because every individual will have a slightly different wants and needs.

I don't think that's so much a problem as it is an unavoidable reality. No product can achieve universal appeal because people have distinct tastes. I'm comfortable saying that most people would rather have a "NO GIRLS ALLOWED" sign taken off the door of the video games clubhouse than a second video games clubhouse built with a "NO BOYS ALLOWED" sign hung on its door.

My main point was that because the industry is still mostly men, its difficult (though I wouldn't say impossible) to find someone capable of writing good female characters when what they define as a good female character requires her to be distinguishable as female beyond her looks.

And speaking personally, I feel like there's just no excuse for this. Women are defined by the characteristics they possess, not the male characteristics they lack, and anyone looking at them honestly ought to have figured this out already.

I know, and I'm pretty sure I said that.

You did. I just thought the point was worth underlining.

People are like that, though.

Yep. I maintain that it's true, though, that there is no real reaction.

This isn't rape culture at work, this the way society works with everything.

Rape culture works by combining that principle with deep-seated misogyny. There are people who make a convincing case--and I'm not sure I buy it, but I'm straddling the fence enough to mention this theory without dismissing it--that our atavistic horror at rape is itself a part of rape culture, because why should this crime be so much worse than anything else? Why do we treat its victims as being broken in some way? Is it because of an unarticulated, bone-deep belief that women need protection on account of their inherent weakness and that a woman who has been raped has been failed by the father/boyfriend/man who owns her safety, and do we make jokes about men getting raped because a man who is weak enough to be penetrated like a woman is one deserving of contempt?

I don't know the answer to those questions, and I am not advancing them as being the truth. They do, however, make sense to me. Still, maybe it's unfair to bring those up, so let's just go back to Fox "News" or CNN, I forget which one, spending air time talking about how tragic it was for the Steubenville rapists to have had their futures destroyed by their convictions, because clearly the discussion must be framed in terms of how the convicted rapists feel and not how the teenaged victim feels. Let's go back to how, for some short time, the victim's name was available at news outlets because they published it as part of their programming.

We excuse and condone rape here in the Americas. It is not a universal thing--of course it's not; what behavior is universal among a population this size? Do I even need to make that disclaimer?--but it does happen at a deep and insidious level.

Shouldn't the fact that charities and shelters and social programs exist, along with the times when communities and individuals do assist the victims be evidence against rape culture.

Sure. There's organizations against racism, too. It still exists.

The freedom of speech thing wasn't really that relevant apart from explaining why maybe the things you describe are more noticeable in your country as opposed to mine.

Australia's speech is limited by the government? On what subjects, if you don't mind me asking??

 

[fletch_talon]

Australia's speech is limited by the government? On what subjects, if you don't mind me asking??

I might leave out discussing the rest of the post. Not cuz I don't feel like we're getting anywhere, more so the exact opposite. Like you've said above we keep delving deeper into the topic to such an extent that we're drifting gradually away from the original issue and starting to delve into the philosophy of words, meanings, intent and other such things. I think we've both made concessions in some regard and we're closer to being on the same page than we were at first so I'm happy to leave it at that if you are.
Plus my compulsive need to write a lot of stuff only to go back, decide its flawed or sounds dumb, delete and repeat is getting to be time consuming.

As for your question about Aus, its basically a case of having stricter rules about what consitutes hate speech. I'm not hugely knowledgeable on matters of law, but my understanding is that whilst you can have a group legally marching down the street claiming black people are devil spawn and are inferior to the aryan race, over here they'd be charged under hate speech laws.
Technically I think the law says something along the lines of "free speech until you say something which incites hatred, contempt or extreme ridicule of someone based on a protected attribute". A protected attribute would be anything someone is unable to change about themselves (colour, sex, sexuality, disability) and also religion (which technically can be changed but is obviously based on very personal beliefs that are as such protected by law.

Now there's nothing stopping these people from having these beliefs and voicing them in a private conversation, but they aren't allowed to voice it in a public setting where other people have to put up with it.

Personally I think it works pretty well, and we certainly have yet to have a slippery slope occur in which criticism of the government becomes illegal. I think it goes a way towards understanding why America gets a bad reputation for being full of idiots; its not, its just the idiots are allowed to be more vocal.

 

[JimB]

Like you've said above we keep delving deeper into the topic to such an extent that we're drifting gradually away from the original issue and starting to delve into the philosophy of words, meanings, intent and other such things.

That's pretty unavoidable with me. I like discussing philosophy; I feel it helps determine underlying principles instead of limiting us to talking about limited phenomena, like discussing a sick man's symptoms without ever identifying the disease causing them.

As for your question about Australia, it's basically a case of having stricter rules about what constitutes hate speech. I'm not hugely knowledgeable on matters of law, but my understanding is that while you can have a group legally marching down the street claiming black people are devil spawn and are inferior to the Aryan race, over here they'd be charged under hate speech laws.

Your understanding is correct. We will not infringe upon the the right to free speech here (at least ostensibly; now someone come along and say something plausibly cynical about the NSA spying on our news outlets, or whatever). I don't think we even have a legal definition of hate speech, because speech in and of itself cannot be criminalized here. It can only be a component of a greater crime, like ordering a hit man to go kill someone or, to borrow a more topical example, treasonously disseminating national security secrets, or what have you.

(Not that I know for a fact Mr. Snowden's actions are treasonous or even criminal, but a trial would sort that out.)