Talk:Rape culture

New section reverted

Somebody reverted new section "In the legal system". Can anything (in one form or another) from that section still be in the article?

The text reverted was this:

In the legal system

Rape culture is not reduced to the general public, but is also pervasive in the legal system, among judges and prosecutors. A 2000 study in the the UK on the prosecution of rape, which consisted of interviews with barristers specialized in rape cases, revealed rape myths to be pervasive, especially in regard with the behavior or manner of dressing of the victim, and about rape in relations and date rape. One barrister stated:

"I mean the silly woman is prepared to be picked up by a stranger and go back for, quotes, coffee, you know, what does she expect? If a woman does that, can she really be surprised that a jury will say that she may have consented to sex?"

The same barrister also expressed skepticism in regard to rape between people who are or have been sexually involved, or date rape, speaking in support of juries who acquit in such circumstances:

"If somebody has been having a sexual relationship with somebody before, whether it’s because juries feel the same way as I do, that it’s really not a terrible offence."

"I feel very strongly about this. I feel very strongly that it’s a great waste of public money to prosecute the ex-husband rape or the ex-boyfriend rape unless there is extreme violence involved or it’s part of a sort of campaign of harassment. I have had to prosecute an awful lot of cases where people have still been sort of seeing each other after having a relationship, where he wants it and she doesn’t and it happens. Well she says it was a rape and probably, yes, it really was. But frankly does it matter?"

In a 2012 sexual assault case in Arizona, which subsequently gained publicity in the media, where a police officer assaulted a woman in a bar, the judge told the victim: "If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you." The victim publicly demanded an apology.

References

countries

you can't put countries like india in it , just because some authors want to make a name of them, by writing astounding but unreal on the highlighted topic, or by those people who want to defame the country.

because india never supported the rape culture, india is so large (by it variety, it's diversity, by it's society, by it's land area, by it's climate, by anything you can think of) that those number of rapes are done by the people who have been the outcasts of society. the problem of rape is with every country, if you want to put india on "rape culture" page, then you'll have to put other countries too.

we have to low rapes, & gradually stop them -totally agreed, that's why you've already put india's name on other pages related to rapes - & i don't have a problem, because i agree that we have to stop it. but putting india's name on "rape culture" is totally opposite of what wikipedia's aim is - that is providing correct info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.19.45 (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. And they say India is a rape culture. Moreover, read this essay: WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you know anything at all about India? It doesn't have anything like what might be considered a common culture. It has much more linguistic diversity than Europe. India is not a culture. It is a continent, it is a nation, but using the singular "culture" with relation to India is beyond ludicrous and ignorant in the extreme. I'll quote from "Politics and Post-colonial Theory: African Inflections" By D. Pal S. Ahluwalia:

"To talk of a unified Indian culture is to miss the point that cultures are not static but dynamic. Finally, it is important to point out that, while the Indian nation might appear as unified, it faces its own problems it faces its own problems and challenges from diverse competing ethnicities which are demanding secession, as in the case of Punjab and Kashmir."

It really shouldn't be necessary for me to provide sources for a statement so self-evidently true that India is not one single culture but rather an immensely rich and stunningly varied patchwork of cultures. Every educated person on Earth should know that already. But I decided that obvious and verifiable though it is, it's best to provide the citation. Bramble window (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

means your reliable sources can also say all other countries as rape culture too. i really could put all countries name with citation by your reliable sources, but the time taken by it will be huge :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.19.45 (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fake Rape accusation effect on Rape Culture Politicization

Some news article to consider regarding the veracity of the Rape Culture internet meme, note fake-rape terminology in articles.

Brian Banks (16) falsely accused by Wanetta Gibson (15) 5 years in jail, http://nypost.com/2011/03/10/fake-rape-suit/ William McCaffery falsely accused by Biurny Peguero 4 years in jail. Lena Dunham Fake Rape Accusations boil over: Publisher pays... http://www.people.com/article/lena-dunham-publisher-legal-fees-former-student additionally, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394111/uva-gang-rape-wasnt-jonah-goldberg and, http://riversong.wordpress.com/yellow-journalism-and-the-meme-of-rape-culture/

Unfortunately, promoters of the "rape culture" meme like Lena Dunham and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, have brought it complete discredit. There needs to be a section about over zealous activism and its negative effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:9BAB:74F6:93FE:96EF:854D (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

POV of article

Hey everyone, I'm the guy back in April 2011 who templated this article questioning the neutrality of its tone. I've gotta say, after not having been involved in the article for a long time, the tone is great now, very neutral, very encyclopedic, treats "rape culture" as the academic construct it is rather than an assumed reality like it used to. Kudos to everyone who worked to make it better. Kaldari, Pi and I did some work on it at the time in 2011 to make it more neutral, but it was still "on the edge" when I moved on to other stuff, so I am very pleasantly surprised to see what a neutral, balanced article it is now. Good job everyone! Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a theory though, but rather a concept within feminist theory. I'm having trouble finding other wikipedia articles on theories within academic disciplines that point out that they are "theoretical" in the first sentence. I don't edit very often, so please excuse me if this is a standard convention that I am somehow missing. Anyway, I am about to change it and since you suggested the article (thank you), I wanted to explain my reasoning. --Xttina.Garnet (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember Rape Culture being called a theory, I know until recently it was called a "theoretical concept" (I have called it an "academic construct"), I'm not sure I see an important distinction between that phrase and "concept within feminist theory," either phrase is inoffensive, so I have no problem with your changes. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad. I changed it because the term "theoretical" is often used to discredit an idea and what it actually means is very specific in to any individual discipline. When I clicked on the page link for "theoretical concept" it led to the theoretical definition page. I've since completely reorganized that page (because a "conceptual definition" is actually really important in my field). While the initial version did make the point that theories existed in the context of a discipline, it was followed by a bunch of non-cited ramblings including "Like Stipulative definitions, it is not a valid criticism to say that a theoretical definition is "wrong about how most people use the word" nor that "the definition itself is false" . Instead one might say that a theoretical definition is unhelpful."

Full disclosure: I'm mostly here to edit neuroscience (I'm a neuroscientist) and brain things, but I found my way to this article while reading something on sexism on wikipedia and the fact that "rape culture is a theoretical concept" was the first sentence was cited as an example of sexism on wikipedia. I was definitely predisposed to think of it in that light. The use of the term theoretical to discredit ideas is also a common scientist pet peeve However, linking concepts and theories to their fields can give information about how they should be interpreted. Xttina.Garnet (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Study of college men about whether they would rape if there were no consequences - relevant?

This research was reported in the media recently and it's relevant to the topic at hand but not sure whether it could be included in the article? It found that a lot of the men in the sample said they would force a woman to have sex if there were no consequences but that they wouldn't rape a woman if there was no consequences, even though forced sex and rape are the same thing. Shiningroad (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't. It was a notoriously poor study which only rehashed the age old Ring of Gyges discussion presented by Plat in the Republic. While not quite a meme, it's close, as it's been used countless times and is an example of confirmation bias. Take social issue X, combine with survey answers that a shockingly high number of people would commit a morally reprehensible act involved in X if there were no consequences, then conclude that X is true. The next step is to draw (further confirmation bias) conclusions that social issue X is in fact based upon assumptions which the survey confirms. For example, the section regarding hostility towards women. You can use this formula to conclude everything from a rape culture, to a murder culture, to an assault culture and on. Quite a number of respondents have replied in previous 'studies' that they would commit murder if there were no consequences, therefore, we can conclude there is hostility towards people in general. This is, unfortunately, an old gimmick that resurfaces every now and again and has been debunked countless times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.129.82 (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)