They most certainly are.
By some definitions of rape culture, Western cultures do not qualify. By others, they do. Some writers stipulate that a culture is one which condones rape -- that is definitely not true of Western societies -- while others only require that a society believe that rape is inevitable, much like we believe other crimes are inevitable. By the latter definition, there is probably no society which is not a rape culture, and at the same time, calling a society a rape culture because it views rape as inevitable is absurd and useless. We consider many other crimes inevitable as well but there's is no utility in labelling each of our respective societies a "culture of [name of crime]."
I don't think it's an intelligent thing to ask. I think it is literally the most stupid fucking thing I have heard in a long time.
What you think of as stupid doesn't matter in the slightest to me.
Which is irrelevant because you asked me what the link is between two specific characteristics and an activity that by definition includes the two specific characteristics.
I see. Reviewing what I wrote, I was not as clear as I should have been. I was asking what the
causal link was, not merely what those things had in common with rape.
ETA: And note that I and the source I cited refer to the
socialisation of those characteristics. I did not merely asks for the link between dominance and sexual aggression and rape, but the link between the socialisation of those characteristics and rape. Humans are not a blank slate who can be taught any characteristics. Men are not dominant and aggressive because of the social construct of "manhood" -- such traits are evident in other species as well.
Your current argument is also irrelevant to the point because you are once again setting up a strawman: NOBODY argued that social attitudes are the only factor in determining the prevalence of rape.
I am aware of that: I am questioning whether they are a significant factor at all.
Of course you don't; because the application of common sense would require you to actually admit you're wrong and that there ARE in fact legitimate claims as to the existence of 'rape culture'. Couldn't have that, now could we?
I'm not interested in your mind-reading attempts. If you are just looking to antagonise then just don't bother responding to me.
If you've taken the position that you're invincible and can't feel pain, then no amount of common sense is going to convince you to step out of the way of that speeding train. Similarly, if you've decided that you don't like the idea that your behavior could be having an actual negative impact in terms of suffering experienced by others, then no amount of common sense is going to convince you that teaching guys to be sexually aggressive and dominant could possibly turn out results that are anything other than perfectly consensual in the spirit of co-existence! No! Far better to maintain that cognitive dissonance by setting up strawmen positions to argue against, like pretending that people are suggesting it is to blame for 100% of all rape.
Now you are mischaracterising my position.
I did not say that there is no possibility that such socialisation could result in rapes. I am taking the agnostic position until I see some evidence that the socialisation of sexual aggressiveness and dominance is a cause of rape. It is plausible that teaching men to fill that gender role does not result in rape, as after all, most men do not rape, and gender is not purely -- or perhaps even mostly -- socialised.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will be living over here in reality, where we can accept some things as being obviously true and respond accordingly without needing a series of peer-reviewed studies to make absolutely certain that it is so.
That's a false dichotomy and that is not my position. Just because I don't accept it as obviously true does not mean my standard of evidence rises to "series of peer-reviewed studies".
No, I'm arguing that yes, it's obvious these things represent a contributing factor. Finding out exactly how much would be desirable, but we're certainly not going to miraculously find it doesn't contribute *at all*.
Those things could be a major factor, a minor factor, or a insignificant factor. To be able to make that distinction would be desirable because it would actually make it possible to make meaningful changes to the way boys are socialised.
You're once again misrepresenting the position of others. You're trying to make it sound as if they just mean a random but harmless sexually explicit joke. I'm pretty certain that's not what they're claiming. There's sexually explicit jokes, and then there's sexually explicit jokes. Jokes are not created equal. How about guys going to a rape-victim support group, just to shout dumb jokes involving rape? Because that sort of thing happens, and that would certainly qualify.
If that was what they meant (shouting jokes at support groups) then that's what it would say. You accuse me of misrepresenting someone's position and then you make up your own version instead. Why should I accept your interpretation?
