I actually agree with most of what you've said, statistically validated stereotypes are evidence of both societal inequality and that precautions are important. Unless you believe that the reason black people are the major source of petty theft is that blacks are inherently kleptomaniac, in which case I would direct you to some entry-level sociology regarding povery/crime cycles. Here's the thing, though;Ihateregistering1 said:Look, if you want to declare that we live in a "rape culture" that's fine, but the whole idea of "we shouldn't teach women how to avoid rape, we should teach men not to rape" is a complete cop out. By that logic, I could say "we shouldn't teach people not to leave their keys in their car, we should teach people not to steal cars". If it were that incredibly simple, crime (and not just rape) would have been eliminated years ago. We should, of course, do what we can to teach people that rape, theft, murder, assault, etc. are terrible and should not be done, but the notion that there's something wrong with having people exercise reasonable judgment in order to avoid becoming victims of crimes is ludicrous. Crime will never go away 100%, and proclaiming that asking people to take steps to avoid becoming the victims of crime is somehow "victim-blaming" or contributing to "_________ culture" does no one any favors.
- We teach people not to leave their keys in the car, but we also teach people not to steal cars.
- We teach women not to get raped... but there is no equivalent education for men instructing them not to rape. There is almost no consent-based content in sex ed curricular. Seriously. That's why its fucked, and that's why I bring it up. You're right, it might never be safe for a women to go out at night, and there should always be considerations of safety... but let's teach the boys not to steal the car too, right? Even if it doesn't work, it'd be a start.
1) I would argue that we live in a violence/murder culture. As I have said, you can be both. We're also a music-culture and a bunch of other fun stuff, it's just a statement of societal internalization.For starters, this U of Surrey is extraordinarily dubious on multiple accounts. I read through the quotes used, and only 2 of them actually say anything about forcing a woman to do something against her will (11, 13), and these quotes themselves are somewhat dubious. You can argue that #7 does, but anytime a quote has multiple '...' smack in the middle of it, I take it with an enormous grain of salt. Likewise, I can almost guarantee that you could produce similar results by talking to convicted murderers about how they killed people and then having gamers talk about kills they made and get similar results with asking people "which came from gamers and which came from convicted murderers?" Does that prove that we live in a murder culture? I guess you could argue we do.
2) The elipses are irrelevant, those are the quotes as they were presented, and they were unable to distinguish them. Even with what we are given, unless you assume that Usurrey are lying the facts as presented show that in a controled, mis-attributed and randomized environment, young men couldn't tell apart convicted rapists and their lad's mags. Could the argument be made that the quotes were cherry picked, and that lads mags were disproportionately punished by the selection? Yes, definitely. But go pick one up and have a read, I think you'll find that the researchers wouldn't have had to look all too hard to pick those examples. Furthermore, while only a few directly insinuated rape, every quote given there is sexually exploitative or dismissive of consent.
Yes, and the statistics indicate a horrible reality. The assumption is justified, and it's justified because of a disturbing gender-bias concerning sexual violence. I'm not sure what we disagree on here.Yes, it's telling that they are intelligent people making a justified assumption. 99% of rapes in the US are committed by men (that's against both men and women). Again, statistics.