A discussion on rape culture and gaming

[SA]

Does it not suffice to say that this so called Rape-culture does not have its place?

What that means is wholly contingent on the existence or nonexistence of rape culture.

So this conversation wouldn't be occurring if it the accepted term for this phenomena were called Chauvinism-Culture?

Explicitly so. Though I would also deny the existence of "chauvinism culture", I did not come here to discuss that. We can slide definitions and revise positions until the sun goes cold but what use is there in battling clouds?

[SA]

After a brief rumination I realise one thing that's been disconcerting me greatly is the big fat finger pointed squarely at me in the title. This conversation isn't about me and I'll sleep better without my name attributed to it.

[LordVreeg]

After a brief rumination I realise one thing that's been disconcerting me greatly is the big fat finger pointed squarely at me in the title. This conversation isn't about me and I'll sleep better without my name attributed to it.

Makes sense to me. 

[Steerpike]

I'll tentatively contribute my thoughts, here.

Some of this debate is clearly about semantics.  In some ways the term "rape culture" is unfortunate, although I think it has emerged as the accepted term partly because of its capacity to stir strong emotions.  In Canada - as opposed to the US - we use the term "sexual assault" exclusively in our legal discourse.  There are degrees of sexual assault, of course, but any non-consensual sexual activity is considered a form of sexual assault.  Women can sexually assault women, women can sexually assault men, men can sexually assault men, and men can sexually assault women, and penetration isn't necessary for a sexual assault to occur.  I think, personally, this terminology provides a better way of examining the problem of sexual violence and aspects of our culture(s) that may normalize or trivialize that violence, because that way we spend less time debating about what exactly constitutes a rape and what doesn't.  However, since the term "rape" is still used in US criminal discourse and America is at the center of these debates, it's come to be the accepted term, for good or ill.

I think that if people want to continue this conversation, for the purposes of clarity, we should probably distinguish between debates about terminology and semantics (about the term "rape culture" itself and its strategic, political, and discursive utility) and debates about Western cutlure(s) and the very real problems it faces.  I think we should also be careful to remember that culture is big and complicated, and contains conflicting tendencies.

What concerns those who talk about rape culture - whether or not we accept the term as such - is a tendency in western society to normalize and/or trivialize sexual assault and sexual violence, often against men as well as women (prison rape has been brought up, for example).  This issue really can't be neatly divorced from chauvinism more generally.  Slut-shaming and blaming victims - implying, for example, that women who dress in a certain way and are then raped are partially responsible for being raped, or that exposed female flesh justifies sexual aggression - are absolutely tied up in the normalization and trivialization of sexual violence.

On the subject of intoxication: I think we can agree there's a big difference between consent given after a couple of beers or glasses of wine and "consent" given when the person is so thoroughly intoxicated their judgment is severely impaired.  Obviously there's a grey area here, which is why this is a very difficult topic and why courts wrestle with these decisions.  There really aren't easy answers here, but I think it behooves sex educators to stress that if there's significant doubt about whether or not someone is in a fit state of mind to give consent, sex should probably be avoided.

All this said, I do get frustrated with the anti-pornography wing of feminism (as opposed to the sex positive wing - I would consider myself an ardent sex positive feminist) that considers any eroticized depiction of female bodies objectification and any depiction or discussion of rape in art to be glorifying rape and thus contributing to rape culture.  This position annoys me tremendously, and I think it really gives feminism more generally a bad name.

[limetom]

This is a sensitive topic and I suggest people tread lightly. Before you hit "post", please walk away from your computer and think about whether or not what you have to say is really worth it.

Do my posts sound heated? If so, I apologise. I was in fact enjoying this conversation. My words are succinct in the interest of economy and so may seem blunt.

To be clear, that was me talking as an administrator to everyone, not just to you.

The term "rape culture" does not have a universally agreed upon definition.

I shan't fight a ghost. It means one thing at least for the sake of argument or it doesn't mean anything.

It seems that every one else involved in the discussion aside from yourself (or at least that's the sense I've gotten from your posts) uses the broader version I included--where rape culture includes all kinds of sexual violence by people of any sex/gender perpetrated against any other kind of person, not just penetrative rape. Perhaps we should go with that since there seems to be consensus at least here?

I believe I have clarified my reasons for disagreeing with the thesis of the Cracked article and with the Seraphine's specific comment in the tavern.

All I ever saw--and maybe I missed something--was that because it mentioned "rape culture", the article was untrustworthy and useless. I don't think that's a very good reason.

I have no positive contribution to make to a "feminist perspective on videogames", as feminism (insofar as it is an unambiguous and identifiable thing; see above) is inimical to my worldview.

I don't plain get this. What do you mean?

After a brief rumination I realise one thing that's been disconcerting me greatly is the big fat finger pointed squarely at me in the title. This conversation isn't about me and I'll sleep better without my name attributed to it.

There are ways of fixing that. :)

[SA]

It seems that every one else involved in the discussion aside from yourself (or at least that's the sense I've gotten from your posts) uses the broader version I included--where rape culture includes all kinds of sexual violence by people of any sex/gender perpetrated against any other kind of person, not just penetrative rape. Perhaps we should go with that since there seems to be consensus at least here?

No, because it doesn't end there. Vreeg's definition slides to incorporate sending sexual pictures without consent, for instance. That's are not what I am talking about. This is a fundamental, irreconcilable point of departure and defines the limits of my possible contribution to this conversation. As long as you use that word we are not talking about the same thing. You are welcome to determine an explicit consensus of rape culture's definition and stop using that word. Until then there is no consensu for me to join.

If you think I'm being a pedant, that's fine. I am a pedant.

"Rape Culture" may be a new term but it definitely describes a real tendency in American society to endorse socially acceptable forms of rape, such as getting a girl drunk, as well as attitudes like "slut-shaming" and victim blaming.  These things aren't just made up by feminazis.

Seraphine's tavern post is explicitly what I am disagreeing with. I assert, in response, that American society does not find "getting a girl drunk" or "slut shaming" or "victim blaming" socially acceptable. I also disagree with a great deal of what has subsequently been posted but I'm being careful not to exceed my grasp.

All I ever saw--and maybe I missed something--was that because it mentioned "rape culture", the article was untrustworthy and useless. I don't think that's a very good reason.

You are absolutely right. Mea culpa. I will address that soon.

I don't plain get this. What do you mean?

I don't know what you don't get. I reject feminism with my every fiber physical, intellectual, moral fiber. I don't and won't discuss anything from its perspective except to ridicule it.

EDIT: On the other hand, I can talk about feminism with perfect civility.

[limetom]

I don't plain get this. What do you mean?

I don't know what you don't get. I reject feminism with my every fiber physical, intellectual, moral fiber. I don't and won't discuss anything from its perspective except to ridicule it.

EDIT: On the other hand, I can talk about feminism with perfect civility.

No, I got that bit. What I mean here is: why do you reject it?

[Steerpike]

I'm curious too.  Feminism means a lot of different things.  The kind of feminism I embrace, for example, is the egalitarian gender-studies type that's all about deconstructing gender boundaries, interrogating essentialist assumptions, emancipating sexual minorities, and exploring the performative nature of gender.  I consider myself a feminist insofar as I believe in equal rights for men and women, an end to double standards, in sexual liberation, and in laws and policies that give both men and women control over their bodies and choices.  I subscribe to a form of feminism that goes hand in hand with men's liberation and, really, champions an end to proscriptive gender roles altogether.  In other words the form of feminism I align myself with isn't just about women - far, far from it (kind of exactly the opposite).

This is all very, very different, of course, from lots and lots of other brands of feminism, some of which I have no time for at all - like the ugly female-chauvinism of the SCUM manifesto or the strident conservatism (and flat-out prudishness) of anti-pornography feminism.

I assert, in response, that American society does not find "getting a girl drunk" or "slut shaming" or "victim blaming" socially acceptable.

Some people obviously don't find it socially acceptable.  Many in conservative circles - often those doing the slut-shaming and victim-blaming - do.  American society isn't one thing.  Feminism isn't one thing.  Culture isn't one thing.  It's all a complicated mess of intersecting, contradictory, conflicting tendencies and opinions.  But I don't think it's really possible to contend that:

a) slut-shaming doesn't happen
b) there is no connection between slut-shaming and sexual violence
c) no one ever contends that slut-shaming is acceptable

There are people who consider slut-shaming acceptable (or who deny slut-shaming even while they're doing it), and this acceptance is frequently informed by aspects of their culture (often of the conservative, patriarchal Christian variety, for example).

[LordVreeg]

Endorsing/socially acceptable/forms of rape/such as getting a girl drunk. This assumes the following, working backwards:

•That getting a girl drunk is a form of rape. This may be true legally speaking - I cannot speak to the follies of American jurisprudence. It is not, actually rape. It can be morally objectionable, even reprehensible, but it isn't rape. Rape is a specific kind of thing and I reject the continuing efforts to soften its definition.


•That this behaviour is socially acceptable. I grant that many (I will not grant the majority) of young men I once associated with would feel no compunctions against plying a woman with alcohol. I do not, however, know many who were not similarly inebriated at the time. Even if they were sober and intending to intoxicate the woman, she retains her agency and responsibilities as an adult. Even granting your point for the sake of argument, it nevertheless remains that "socially acceptable" means two totally different things depending on the moral status of the first point. It is either socially acceptable rape or socially acceptable not-rape. This makes all the difference in the world.


•That American society tends to endorse this behaviour. Endorsement and acceptance are not the same thing, so it is important to separate these two points. I'll assume you did not mean that society "puts forward", "publicly approves" or "supports" these behaviours, whether they constitute rape or not. If you did, well... we don't merely live on different continents, but different planets.

It seems, upon rereading, and going over later posts, all well written, that one of the definitional issues is the Level of Measurement we are using.  It sounds like one of the problems is some people are looking for ratio answers and some are looking for ordinal ones.  I go back to this in a attempt to understand the conversation better.
I can't help but agree in most ways about the, "plying a person with alcohol", though there are still levels of it.  Does a person retain completely their agency when the amount of alcohol is much larger than she expects, if a drink uses a type of vodka that is 120 proof instead of 80 proof, or Devil's Spring 160 proof?  If there is deception involved, how does that change things?  It is sill under the definition of 'plying',.. only more so.

Moreover, I do not see the term 'socially acceptable' as black and white, or I think we have something of a false dilemma here.  Something can be, in my view, opinion, and experience, More socially acceptable than something else, and as such, defeats any attempt to make it an ordinal definition.  Culture is large, and as a large mass, naturally gives itself to levels of acceptance.  
To use an earlier example, why does the high level of rape in the military exist?  Other factors mitigate to make admitting this and dealing with it as a cultural group more difficult, but this can be viewed as rape is more acceptable in a military setting.  Not acceptable, that is certain.  But more acceptable?  Obviously, as the cultural society goes to great lengths to bury it.
I'm sure there will be more later.

Also, as I am going out, I shall try to be succinct, but the issues with this are not merely western.  India, Egypt, and many others are dealing with the same things, at different levels.   I see this as a global issue.

 

[SA]

I'm curious too.  Feminism means a lot of different things.

I'll keep beating this dead horse until candy falls out. If it "means a lot of different things" it means nothing to me.

I subscribe to a form of feminism that goes hand in hand with men's liberation and, really, champions an end to proscriptive gender roles altogether.  In other words the form of feminism I align myself with isn't just about women - far, far from it (kind of exactly the opposite).

What you are describing is not feminism, but egalitarianism or humanism. I agree with the content of this paragraph, but you don't get to append -ism to a sex-specific noun and call it egalitarian. Every significant egalitarian argument professed by feminism predates the feminist movement. I can be everything that is good about feminism and not be a feminist. To call myself a feminist because your particular flavour of feminism has much in common with my own nameless philosophy would be to endorse the misapproriation of humanity's most valuable intellectual treasures.

I won't actually explain my antagonism to the movement. That project is too big and too ugly. It is sufficient to justify my disavowal of it. Insofar as it is useful and true, it bears a deceptive moniker.

ALSO: Vreeg, when you are sober and I can understand what you are saying (like in your last post), you are pretty damned persuasive.

[Steerpike]

What you are describing is not feminism, but egalitarianism or humanism. I agree with the content of this paragraph, but you don't get to append -ism to a sex-specific noun and call it egalitarian. Every significant egalitarian argument professed by feminism predates the feminist movement. I can be everything that is good about feminism and not be a feminist. To call myself a feminist because your particular flavour of feminism has much in common with my own nameless philosophy would be to endorse the misapproriation of humanity's most valuable intellectual treasures.

Well, this is fair enough, but you should realize that (1) many feminists these days really are egalitarians, and absolutely see feminism as fully compatible with and indeed intertwined with egalitarianism, and (2) by taking a hard-line stance against all feminism on a semantic/definitional basis (on the basis of what the movement calls itself as opposed to what it stands for), you're risking a lot of misunderstandings.

[SA]

Insofar as feminism makes constructive claims it is indistinguishable from its predecessors. Unless you can describe a positive argument which feminism contributes to social discourse that independent humanist reasoning cannot and has not, feminism is at best indistinguishable from egalitarianism. In the absence of such unique and constructive contributions, and given the more pernicious forms of feminism whose existence you acknowledge, feminism's distinguishing elements are at best neutral, and potentially destructive.

So what good does feminism do? Not egalitarian feminists. Feminism.

[SA]

Some people obviously don't find it socially acceptable.  Many in conservative circles - often those doing the slut-shaming and victim-blaming - do.

I am attacking the monolith, which is trivially easy to do. I in no way dispute your accusation with regard to this or that subculture. If American society is not a monolith, I don't need to argue the point at all.

a) slut-shaming doesn't happen
b) there is no connection between slut-shaming and sexual violence
c) no one ever contends that slut-shaming is acceptable

I am not saying any of this (I'm not saying that you're saying that I'm saying this either). I'd be surprised if anyone on this thread disagreed with you here.

There are people who consider slut-shaming acceptable (or who deny slut-shaming even while they're doing it), and this acceptance is frequently informed by aspects of their culture (often of the conservative, patriarchal Christian variety, for example).

That they exist at all is not in dispute.

[Steerpike]

Cool, I think you're probably on the same page with people here more than you (or they) think you are, and the argument was mostly over terms and labels.

Personally, I never think of cultures in terms of monoliths.

Insofar as feminism makes constructive claims it is indistinguishable from its predecessors. Unless you can describe a positive argument which feminism contributes to social discourse that independent humanist reasoning cannot and has not, feminism is at best indistinguishable from egalitarianism. In the absence of such unique and constructive contributions, and given the more pernicious forms of feminism whose existence you acknowledge, feminism's distinguishing elements are at best neutral, and potentially destructive.

So what good does feminism do? Not egalitarian feminists. Feminism.

Well, I can name many scholars and scholarly works associated with feminist theory that I think do very important work.  And I wouldn't consider feminism wholly distinct from "independent humanist reasoning."  But this debate is, perhaps, outside the boundaries of this thread...

[SA]

Cool, I think you're probably on the same page with people here more than you (or they) think you are, and the argument was mostly over terms and labels.

Here's all my cards on the table: I am deliberately, unequivocally disputing feminist terminology as loading the discourse and as having an ethos in actual conflict with humanist thought. If you are saying you're a "humanist with a funny hat", fine. But you share your name with a sociopolitical lunatic fringe while purporting to be unlike them. What makes you unlike them yet still sufficiently "feminist-which-is-more-than-simply-humanist" to warrant the label?

These labels are not trivial distinctions. They disguise deeper problems.