Talk:Rape culture/Archive 1

Old thread

I don't understand why delegating this page to the clean-up task force is justified. The first complaint, that the page "doesn't really make any sense" is too vague - what specifically makes no sense - and at worst calls for the application of template:technical. Examples of it being "contradictory throughout the whole thing" would also be appreciated. Finally, regarding the link, 1) I disagree that it "reeks of misandry" unless one subscribes to the POV that any feminist social analysis, particularly a radical feminist one, is inherently misandrist, and 2) Even if it is, this is enough of a primary source that it is no more unacceptable than having the Huey P. Newton article link to an interview in which he states "The white mother country radical is the off-spring of the children of the beast that has plundered the world exploiting all people, concentrating on the people of color," which is to say not at all unacceptable. The Literate Engineer 21:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Too gender specific?

Rape culture is a type of violent culture used for control, but this is not necessarily limited to any specific type of rape. Rape of males by other males (Rape#Rape_of_males_by_males) is an important example of use of rape as an instrument of violent control not necessarily connected to sexual impulses. This page should ideally have the same level of detached generality as the page on Rape -- M0llusk 09:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'm going to have to do some checking on how the theory addresses forms of rape other than heterosexual accquaintance rape. I think the theory itself stresses that more than other types, but I do have a focus of my own that very well could have impacted my original write-up, which hasn't been substantially changed. The Literate Engineer 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Violence against women" is a term of art in the movement. 62.254.164.116 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

M0llusk, you're making the same argument that bell hooks is making in the article, that it clouds the larger issue of culturally induced violence, sexual or otherwise. As it stands, rape culture is a concept used to explain sexist violence against women, and you can't modify the theory and be encyclopedic at the same time.Bobanny 18:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

True I not only found that this article failed to discuss the instances of when males are victims of rape or sexual assult by other males. But there are some, albeit rare instances of males abused by females. This often happens when victims are young and the female transgressor will take advantage of him.

I once even heard of German soldiers who were abducted in Russian villages in World War II and forced to have intercourse with Russian women. The reason for this bizarre behavior seems to have been due to the fact that young males were taken from these villages to serve in the army or work in war industries. The Germans also depopulated the villages by forceably recruiting males as laborers. The result was that young females were without male partners. Men were also sought out to impregnate the women of these villages.

I heard this story from a researcher who interviewed the old folk in several Russian villages and he said it was very common. Piercetp 20:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not too gender specific to concentrate on sexual violence against women. A basic premise of the theory of rape culture is that women are regarded as sexually available and that consent is not needed. This is outside the spectrum of sexual violence against men. Gwytherinn (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet rape culture is also a deterrent for persuading men to keep out of prison. But this is utilized through misogynist rhetoric, e.g. making someone your "bitch". However, both of these things should be mentioned in the article - Lazer Stein (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I also think one could argue that a manifestation of rape culture is the idea that men "can't" be raped or taken advantage of because they "always want" sex. At the same time, I think it's important that that be an addendum, or that it be made clear that rape culture primarily impacts and is about the result of sexual objectification of women. Gwytherinn (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The argument about rape culture impacting the perception of men seems like original research to me. Do we have any sources that discuss this? Kaldari (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

True - I'm speaking from blog reading, at the moment I'm unaware of sources that discuss rape culture as it relates to men. Thanks for pointing that out. Gwytherinn (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the other commentators here. "Rape culture" is currently defined (according to every reliable source I've seen) to mean a culture where sexual objectification of women is accepted or encouraged. It has nothing to do with sexual violence against men. Kaldari (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

rape and representation

I edited an article on rape and representation which was deemed original research - I've attempt to encylopedia-ise it, but feel that this area is not sufficiently discussed within the general rape entry and perhaps it could find a place in the rape culture entry? Although I think it is a separate topic. Any additional thoughts, amendments, links to other films welcome.Croftscv 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This turned out to be a {{context}} problem. See Rape and Representation. Because the article didn't say it was a book, and because the formatting didn't imply it was a book, the article about the book looked like an essay. Appropriate cleanup tags have been placed. --John Nagle 22:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Example

This needs expansion: for instance, sexist jokes may be told to foster disrespect for women and an accompanying disregard for their well-being, which ultimately make their rape and abuse seem acceptable. Because this is a sensitive issue, I think sexist should be well defined, and how it is assumed the jokes make rape and abuse seem acceptable should be explained. Otherwise, it is too vague and leaves too much room for readers to integrate it with their preconceptions. Other examples should be provided to elucidate the theory (to the general reader).

In addition, because the theory apparently draws a connection between sexism and rape, I think this connection should be explained, within the theory.

Overall, I cannot make sense of this article because such a monstrous culture seems too gross for any cultural group, except prisoners and the most sadistic pornographers. Rintrah 06:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is, after all, a stub, so the whole thing needs expansion. I don't know where you're writing from, Rintrah, but in the North American culture I live in, rape and other forms of sexual violence towards women is quite common, and yes, it is gross and monstrous. And I don't think sadistic pornographers have too much trouble finding audiences for their work. The point of it being a "culture" is not that it is limited to some clearly defined subgroup within society, as a minority language might be for example, but that it is "in the air" so to speak. A sexist joke does not in itself cause rape to occur, but is part of a larger cultural fabric that makes sexist violence relatively normal. That's my understanding of what the theory is trying to explain anyway. But yeah, you're right. What's there now spends a lot of time describing rape culture and how it affects men and homophobia, and criticisms of the theory, but devotes barely any space to describing the theory (which is precisely a theory of how sexism and sexual violence are connected).Bobanny 09:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am writing from Australia. I know rape occurs in some quarters, but have never directly heard of it occuring — that is, from someone in person. Rape is extremely taboo here. Only hardened criminals and obscure, minority social groups would pretend at it being acceptable — at least, as far as I know. Elsewhere it is condemned more vehemently than murder. Is there something significantly different about our countries, or is it posited to be "in the air" here too, so to speak? In the communities I have lived in, sexist violence has never been relatively normal, so the idea again is alien to me. To my knowledge, only in prostitution rings and vicious drug circles is the practice condoned. From what I have read, very few convicted pedophiles are not ashamed of their crimes. The theory is counterintuitive — at least to me —, so it does need the expansion you mentioned. Rintrah 10:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? I think you need a dose of reality here, Rintrah. Just because you are lucky enough to not have suffered through sexual abuse, it is quite a demeaning thing to proclaim how "counter-intuitive" the term rape-culture is.

"It is estimated that a woman born in South Africa has a greater chance of being raped than learning how to read. In 1998, one in three of the 4,000 women questioned in Johannesburg was raped, according to CIET Africa."

Do your gender a service and learn something about the status of women around the world (through learning or say, living alone in a Middle-Eastern or African country for a few years) and then come back to revise your statements. Or rather, don't come back. 84.192.180.40 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in Canada, and few countries have as many similarities as ours, so far as I can tell. According to this [1], an estimated 19% of Australian women between 18 and 24 experience sexual assault, which is pretty huge and the numbers are likely similar here. Perpetrators are typically males known to their victims, usually intimately. Rape isn't condoned in our respective cultures, and I doubt rapists publicize or openly boast about their raping. Prison culture likewise doesn't condone rape; rapists are called "skinhounds" in Canadian jails and are often targeted for violence by other inmates. In this cultural context, the high statistics seem alien, but it's not some bizarre fringe group who's doing the raping, hence the need for explanatory concepts such as "rape culture." In rape culture, or "rape-supporting culture," the myth is that sexual predators are hideous monsters hiding behind bushes or in dark alleys, when the reality is statistically something quite different. Female victims often minimize these assaults (if there was no penetration, can it be called rape? how about if there was no orgasm? was she being slutty in some way that brought on the assault? can it be considered rape if it's a boyfriend or husband? [it was less than 25 years ago that husbands were legally allowed to rape their wives], and so on). And frequently women simply don't report sexual assaults because they feel embarassed, ashamed, or fear they won't be believed or that no justice will be had anyway, which is all too often well-founded in reality. So it's not surprising that you find this concept counter-intuitive, even though the odds are that you do do know rape victim(s). It's also not surprising that discussions like this, as the article and talk page reflect, get hijacked by those wishing to dwell on victimization of men or how sexism and violence against women adversely affect men. In any case, all this is to say that I agree this article very much needs expanding, and I realize it does come from the more provocative corners of feminism. Bobanny 20:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, Canada has more in common with Australia than any other country. (By the way, I think Canadians are very friendly and get on very well with them.) I generally trust the statistics of government departments; as a result, I find that estimate extremely disturbing — 19% is far too high for any sane country. I think what you are saying is acceptance is more abstract than simple approval. I agree with you, fringe groups are not the main perpetrators of rape, and the rapist stereotype is naïve. In my community, the distinction between what is and is not rape seems quite clear; but, again, I have little exposure to rape issues, so I cannot say this definitively. I can understand why women often do not report it, and agree this probably largely accounts for its general obscurity, although rape cases receive vigorous media attention here. You are probably right, I probably have known a victim; I think I should rather not want to hear about those cases in person. I do admit my suprise at a connection between prejudice and rape, because the latter disgusts me far more. I have had little exposure to the issue, as you have pointed out, and it is difficult to understand a phenomenon which first provokes disgust. In addition, my general skepticism prevents me from accepting any far-reaching theory unless it explained and demonstrated adequately. I might come back to this article later when it has been expanded. Rintrah 06:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just so's yall know, I've posted a request for expansion in a relevant WP:CSBOT section, specifying that this needs to be addressed. That should generate a response before too long. The Literate Engineer 15:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

what

"However, statistics and studies show that every 2 minutes someone in America is sexually assaulted, which means that in ones persons lifetime the chance of rape is 0.05% a historical low."

Where the heck did that 0.05% come from? Vandalism or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.169.96 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal propaganda page?

I would like to bring a complaint about the addition of the Melissa McEwan material presented on that page because it is only a blogger's opinions that is being presented. The assertions have no basis in any substantive feminist discussion nor have they been published or reviewed by anyone. This is quite different from everything else presented on that page, which lists well-known feminists who have made comments regarding the topic of rape culture in published media. Essentially, the addition is little more than a giant trackback to McEwan's site, which means the page is being used purely for self-promotion. Likewise, there is no informative value in any of the items listed as they simply link to McEwan's opinion pages, not to other wikipages or substantiated outside sources demonstrating the veracity of the opinions presented. Korubin (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)korubin

Korubin, for the second time, I'm not Melissa McEwan and so it CANNOT be a personal propaganda page. I found the essay helpful, and wanted to post it. --Abarbadoro (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude I don't think posting an essay of that length in it's entirety is appropriate for any wikipedia article. Even if it's an article about the essay and the essay is public domain (see for example A Modest Proposal)Father Time89 (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Some reliable book sources

I've dug up a few book sources that might be useful:

• The Culture Struggle by Michael Parenti: See chapter 8—"The Global Rape Culture". Includes extensive citations.
• Shout out: women of color respond to violence edited by María Ochoa, Barbara K. Ige: See "The Way We Do Things in America: Rape Culture and the American Military" by Alisa Bierria
• Encyclopedia of Rape by Merril D. Smith

Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Prominent Incidents

I've started a new section in the article, under the title "Prominent incidents", as the article was lacking any explanation of what events constitute rape culture. I've started with what I can a) recall off the top of my head and b) source within 30 seconds on Google: Roman Polanski, Julian Assange / Moore and Me, and the Penny Arcade dickwolves controversy. There's certainly a lot more of add, though, and I'm working on that (though I could use some help...)

I also don't like the section title. It's pretty neutral, but stilted. If you have a better wording, suggest it here or be bold. Thanks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should add info on the Title IX case being brought against Yale for condoning a hostile environment. - Lazer Stein (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that; it looks good. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Title IX bit. It's a complaint, not a case. If you add further info, but careful. "Condoning" a hostile environment is incorrect. OCR does not need to find that the school condoned the hostile environment to find them in violation, merely that there was a hostile environment and the recipient of federal funding failed to correct it.

I have removed the references to Charlie Sheen and Michael Moore. Charlie Sheen has never been accused or convicted of rape. If this page is about rape culture, and this section about prominent incidents, I don't think listing anyone with a history of abuse being treated lightly (arguably) is an example of rape culture in action. Likewise, Assange has not been convicted of rape so an accused yet innocent man cannot be used to prove anything. With the myriad things things that are claimed to be 'rape culture' it seems one could equally put in any comedian who told a sexist joke. This section either needs better examples or should be deleted.Danavenell (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Polanski was accused not of rape, but consensual sex with an underage (in the US) girl. He was not extradited since he was above the legal age limit in Switzerland and France. Assange has been accused not of rape either, but of having sex with a broken condom. The whole thing is politically based: Swedish_Judicial_Authority_v_Julian_Assange#Complaints_and_Investigation

Neither of these are examples of rape. And as examples, they demean the information here. Genjix (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's be very clear here, Genjix, because I find your euphemism disturbing to say the least. Mr. Polanski was indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs. Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty to "Unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Even if we choose to disbelieve Ms. Geimer's claims that she said no repeatedly while Mr. Polanski proceeded to perform anal and oral sex on her, we always have the firm legal standing that a 13-year-old cannot legally consent to sex in all state of the United States and the majority of other countries. This means, Genjix, that it was not consensual sex with an underage (in the US) girl as you put it. It was sex where the minor could not give consent, it was sex without consent, i.e., statutory rape. There is nothing "demeaning" about the sources and I'll restore the Polanski paragraph. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

The general tone of this article makes me question its neutrality. The second sentence alone "The term is often used to describe contemporary American culture as a whole," is pretty controversial. The article also relies heavily on passive voice andweasel phrases like "is often used" (By whom? When? Where?) in the previous quotation is one example, another is in the first sentence of the Prominent Incidents section "it has been argued that", then there is "such victim-blaming has been common in discussions." There is questionable use of citations after many of these weasel phrases. Even in the Criticisms section the use of "some writers" and "other writers" is not the strongest way to present this information, even when an example is given. The extensive reliance on weasel words is just part of the tone that creates an impression of lack of neutrality. In general, the article presents an academic construct created by feminist and women's studies writers, but then immediately adopts the tone that it isn't just an academic construct, but in fact a reality, a foregone conclusion with verbage like "Within rape culture, acts of sexism are commonly employed..." in the second paragraph. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. I think you bring up some important points for discussion. I haven't done much work on this article, but I did write the "American culture" sentence that you mention, so I can respond to that specifically. The sentence is taken almost verbatim from the lead of the "Rape Culture" article in the Encyclopedia of Rape, which is one of the few sources I could find that discusses the idea of rape culture in a way that isn't obviously biased to be feminist or anti-feminist. (The book was favorably reviewed by the American Library Association which described it as "informative and dispassionate".) The actual sentence from the book is "The term rape culture originated in the 1970s during the 2nd wave feminist movement and is often used to describe contemporary American culture as a whole." If there's a similar way that we could convey this idea without sounding biased, perhaps it could be replaced. Unfortunately, the Encyclopedia of Rape article doesn't say who is "often using" the term this way, so I'm not sure how to address that problem. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. On the "American culture" sentence, I think just quoting the "Encyclopedia of Rape" in the article would fix it, changing the sentence to According to the Encylopedia of Rape, "The term rape culture originated in the 1970s during the 2nd wave feminist movement and is often used to describe contemporary American culture as a whole."(then citation) It may not be as elegant as the way you have it now, but it would make it clear that the weasel words aren't a Wikipedia editor's, but the source's, so they would be less likely to be questioned. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your clarification of that sentence got me thinking about the second paragraph. I can see that the problem is not that the writer of that paragraph was POV-pushing, quite the contrary. I think the user was trying very scrupulously to maintain neutrality, and was also trying to write an easy-to-read paragraph that didn't have awkward quotations in it according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Ironically, in doing so, (s)he wrote a paragraph that could be read as having a POV, when it was just reporting the POV of others. I think this is one of the cases where "Ignore All Rules" comes into play. The elegance of an easy-to-read paragraph has to be compromised to make it clear that the article is merely reporting on the POV of the prominent authors in the field, not forwarding a POV of its own. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess this is why most controversial articles on Wikipedia end up being quote farms. Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably. I have seen cases (just this month, actually) where a citation of a book is used to validate an assertion in an article, even with a page number listed, but when I finally found that book, the page in question didn't actually say what the assertion it was being used to support said. In this case, the source was being used by a couple of single purpose accounts whose contributions, talk page comments, and misuse of that source pointed to a POV. I think that has a tendency to happen, that POV-pushers will use an offline source that is difficult for casual users to verify, and misrepresent what the source is saying. So, many truly neutral editors end up directly quoting controversial assertions so people can easily see exactly what the source said and they don't get mistaken for these POV pushers. Readability gets sacrificed, but what are ya gonna do? Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to clean-up the article a bit to address some of your concerns. The sections that are clearly discussing rape culture from a feminist context have been moved into a "Feminist theory" section. Hopefully that will help with the POV issue. Kaldari (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, much better, great job! I'll try to look at some of the weasel phrases that still remain, which may be related to the sources, see what the sources say, and see if I can't clean them up when I get a chance. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolution?

I feel like, between Kaldari's edits and my own, the weasel phrases have either been removed or clarified as coming from the sources themselves, and this has really helped to give the article a much more neutral tone. I am satisfied with the result, and am for removing the Neutrality tag if everyone else is. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dividing it into sections also makes it more readable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Prominent Incidents Section Problematic Examples

The first two examples given, that of Roman Polanski and Julian Assange, are really poor examples. The purpose of this section, as I understand it, is to give evidence that there is a pervasive cultural tendency to excuse the actions of rapists or alleged rapists. In both the Polanski and the Assange examples, what is actually shown is that when an individual or a small group of individuals attempt to excuse the actions of rapists or alleged rapists, that there is a broader public backlash against these apologists. This is not evidence for rape culture, this is actually evidence against the existence of rape culture; it is evidence of broader social mores tending to condemn those who would condone rape. I wondered what to do about these examples; I considered deleting them, however since someone has already opened the door by including them, I think it makes more sense to move them into a section on counterexamples, which will make the article more balanced. However, I recognize I am being a little bold here, my introductory paragraph might be construed by some as being on the edge of WP:OR, so if the consensus is for removing my introductory paragraph or the "Counterexamples" section altogether, I fully understand. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how condemning rapists on a relatively small scale (e.g. 100 Hollywood moguls) repudiates the existence of a larger, cultural atmosphere that ignores, aids and abets violence against women. Regarding the Allange and Polanski cases, what this article should make clear is the reception of rape, and the victim blaming that ensues. --Lazer Stein (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

er, sorry, I don't think I read the Polanski thing correctly, re: Hollywood moguls/public outcry. But I am going to motion a revert on this, because the obfuscation of violence is a facet of rape culture. You can also see this in Ben Stein's piece defending Strauss-Kahn. --Lazer Stein (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just going to point out that you misread that. Just so you don't misunderstand my point, it is not that these two cases categorically disprove rape culture, it is that they are bad examples to have in this article because they actually show general culture condemning rape and those who would defend it. I really don't see how your comment about obfuscation of violence being a facet of rape culture has anything whatsoever to do with these being bad examples for demonstating the existence of rape culture, so I don't see how that supports your motion to revert. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

One facet of Rape culture is an environment in which rapists are defended (most often outside a court of law). That people criticize rapists does not indicate the absence of a rape culture; it indicates, as User:Pi.1415926535 recently stated, attempts to ameliorate our violent culture. If we're still talking past each other, please tell me. Thanks. --Lazer Stein (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we live in an environment where the motives, and sometimes the actions of Islamist extremists are defended (always outside a court of law), by the likes of Ward Churchill, for just one example. Does that mean we live in a "terrorism" culture? No, and part of the reason we know we don't is terrorist apologists like Ward Churchill are a minority who are excoriated for their views. Taking that back to rape culture, the public condemnation of the rape apologists in the two examples is far, far more indicative of general American attitudes about rape than the attitudes of the rape apologists themselves. That is why these two prominent incidents make very bad examples to support the idea of rape culture existing, so in this article they have to be used as counterexamples, or else not used at all. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur that this section is problematic. Given that rape culture theory is complex and until recently, largely unknown to the public at large, we need to go the extra distance and describe why the reliable sources are citing these incidents as indicative of rape culture. That rape culture is a factor in debates around incidents like these is denied or treated with scepticism by a substantial cohort. This is not necessarily agenda-driven, as there are defensible reasons for supporting prominent accused rapists that don't require rape culture theory (or casting aspersions on victims) to explain – that Assange was targeted in an effort to influence his organisation, for instance.

In light of the complexity and political sensitivity of trying to expound rape culture theory in connection with these livewire incidents, I suggest moving away from the 'brief mini-paragraphs on each incident' model of the article and try to develop longer paragraphs drawing from sources which cite more than one incident and thereby treat the commonalities between the incidents and the reactions to them in more depth and with more nuance. Skomorokh 15:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll contribute where I can, but I don't really have much background on the subject. Longer, better-written paragraphs? That sounds exactly what a high-importance article needs to move up from start class. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the examples of Polanski and to a lesser extent Assange (he has not been convicted) should not be used as examples of rape culture without mentioning that the majority of the public expressed much distaste and hostility toward Polanski's defenders; and further, this whole article lacks neutrality or counter balance. I have added the phrase 'The term/theory remains a feminist concept and has not achieved mainstream usage or acceptance, and examples of usage by non-feminists remain either scarce or are non-existent.' as what stood before was the misleading phrase that the term originated in women's studies and feminist thought. It implies it has since become more widely used, and without citations to show that non-feminists or respectable media use the term, I think my edit is necessary. The 'Prominent Incidents' section also has very poor examples of what might be called 'rape culture,' with little explanation of how they illustrate rape culture. But then the very term is just an umbrella for anything sexist it seems.Danavenell (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Rape culture" is not an umbrella term for just anything sexist. Rape culture is very specifically the idea that rape is a part of life; i.e, that it is not always a heinous crime, that in a certain light it is excusable and can even be blamed on the victim. Slut-shaming and similar cultural attitudes are not rape culture per se but they are relevant in how it arises and is discussed.

I see your claim that it "emains a feminist concept and has not achieved mainstream usage or acceptance, and examples of usage by non-feminists remain either scarce or are non-existent" and raise you a Google News search which brings such media as The Guardian and The Times Live, not to mention local papers and respected college papers like the Yale Daily News. It is no longer known only in feminist circles, and demonstrably so, so I will be removing that sentence from the article.

Neutrality != counter-balance. If you want to cite bell hooks and C.H. Sommers, by all means go ahead. They've earned their professional and academic respect. But if you wish to claim in the article that the majority of the public expressed distaste for Polanski's defenders then cite it with a reliable source.

As for the two specific examples you mentioned: there's a Newsweek article about Polanski that I need to get my paws on that has a very good discussion of the Polanski situation. The Assange situation is doubly complex because not only is it a situation where the differences in consent laws between countries are framing the debate about whatever actually happened in bedrooms, but there are significant questions remaining about to what extent the charges are political rather than personal. It needs to be expanded massively and hell, five years from now it will probably have an article to itself. I'll take a look later.

Also, before my wall of text grows supermassive and implodes into a black hole, a note for you, Danavenell. You've learned how to sign talk pages, which is good (many users never learn...). However, you don't have to sign your contributions on articles; the history tab will let people see who contributed what. Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I object to the removal of my addition, I said usage in mainstream articles was scarce or non-existent, the Guardian article you link to uses the term in quotation marks, refering to the phrase while distancing itself from endorsing its usage 'Women's rights activists in Britain and the US have accused Facebook of promoting rape and "rape culture." The same is true of the coverage of Slutwalk in The Times, and repeating a term does not mean the term is recognised as a valid theory, which is what I was trying to express as well as the term not being used outside of feminism and reporting of the wrod's usage. Perhaps the point could be worded better by someone else. Usage remains scarce and this article should not imply it is in common usage outside of feminist thought, because it is not. Thanks for the tips on signing though, I suspected I'd done it wrong somehow.Danavenell (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a middle ground that can state that it's not necessarily common while still making it clear that it does see some use. I mean, two national papers in two weeks is more than "scarce or non-existent", and between Assange, Polanski, and the various Slutwalks the term has probably seen more media usage in the past year than ever before. If a citation can be found, maybe something along the lines of "The term remained primarily an academic concept in feminism for several decades and only recently has began to come into popular usage."

No problem about the signing thing. It's definitely one of the trickier parts of Wikipedia to figure out. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's only been used in mainstream sources to quote what feminists/Slutwalkers are saying. While it remains in quotation marks, I see that those sources are distancing themselves from its acceptance, and I think there need to be many more instances of it being used freely outside of feminist writings (including articles written by prominent feminists in mainstream media) before what was on the page before would be accurate and not misleading - yet I agree more people are becoming aware of the term recently. How about "The term remained primarily an academic concept in feminism for several decades and only recently has the theory/term received public attention, primarily through the Slutwalk movement" (citation - the guardian article)."Danavenell (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Perfect witness/perfect source

This is an amazingly thorough article giving a run-down of some recent rape cases and their attendant media miscarriages.

Lazer Stein (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally find AlterNet to be a RS for facts because they're pretty open about their left-wing views. I wouldn't use them for commentary unless it's backed up, but as a media outfit it's a lot easier to make a case for RS than blogs. (Which is particularly a problem here, because most of the awareness and discussion of rape culture is in the blogosphere.)

I suspect DSK will make it on here soon enough; hopefully the Newsweek article and other major media sources can be used to build that section. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it apt that most people would probably not find AlterNet or blogs a good source of information/reliable citations for wikipedia: this parallels the intense scrutiny victims face when attempted to prosecute rapists. Rape Culture is simply not talked about in larger, mainstream, and supposedly more "respectable" news sources. This only makes depressing sense to me, as women and members of minority groups are not listened to, a problem exacerbated by wikipedia's own gender gap; the search for the perfect rape victim is akin to the search for a perfect, unbiased source of information. These things do not exist. Even when a well-known woman writes about Slutwalk in a well-known publication, like Rebecca Traister did for the New York Times, she fails to mention this theoretical concept, probably because it's somehow too controversial.

Rape culture is not talked about in mainstream media because it doesn't make sense. For similar reasons, respectable media does not mention the astrological sign of a criminal, or mention the Illuminati as a factor in a political story.Danavenell (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse lesser-known for controversial. Which of them (or both) rape culture is also happens to be totally irrelevant to the article. (Keep in mind that Slutwalk is not just about rape culture; from my secondary experience observing the movement its primary focus is on ending slut-shaming versus specifically rape culture - hence why many articles don't mention it, because it's simply not on the reporter's radar. If you don't think it meets the notability guideline, then raise the issue for preliminary discussion (Wikiproject Feminism or Wikiproject Sociology would be real good places to get some outside opinions) then if you're still convinced go to AfD. It'll be a pretty speedy keep, but that's your prerogative. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentaion

I have removed the phrase 'Researchers such as Philip Rumney and Martin Morgan-Taylor have used the rape culture paradigm to explain differences in how people perceive and treat male versus female victims of sexual assault.[4]'

and replaced it with 'Researchers such as Philip Rumney and Martin Morgan-Taylor have examined differences in how people perceive and treat male versus female victims of sexual assault.[4]

I have also checked via email with Dr Rumney, who approved this change, saying 'I tend to avoid such phrases as 'rape culture' because first, I think it is a political statement and poorly thought through.'

For this reason, perhaps his inclusion should be removed, or at least made clear that Dr Rumney's work concerns male rape, an ommission that gives the wrong/opposite impression as it originally read. As it stands, even with the very misleading phrase 'used the rape culture paradigm' removed, it still reads as if his work supports the concept of 'rape culture' when his (unpublished) words show he would rather not be used to promote this theory. The person who originally wrote 'used the rape culture paradigm' was either very mistaken, or falsifying citations.Danavenell (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work Danavenell. extransit (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rape apologism?

Is that the correct terminology? I can't find the term "apologism" in any of my dictionaries. Is "apologia" or "apologetics" the correct word instead? Vis-a-visconti (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Derivation of apologetics, I believe. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality (2)

The Neutrality is in question due to incorrect attribution of the source of the term "Rape Culture". First known usage and citation is the 1975 Film "Rape Culture" ref IMDb - the claim is also made at the website of the film makers Cambridge Documentary Films, here. Extensive searches for earlier attribution have proved fruitless. The claim of attribution is also supported by “The women's movement against sexual harassment”, Carrie N. Baker, Cambridge University Press, 2008, page 41.

The 1975 film focused upon the work of "Prisoners Against Rape" - Lorton Prison/Reformatory Virginia. They worked in conjunction with the DC Rape Crisis Centre, addressing the experience of the men of Rape in Prison. Male upon Male. Film's opening titles read “A group of inmates at Lorton prison in Virginia organised “Prisoners Against Rape”. Only one member was a convicted rapist, but all felt the need to fight rape in prison and on the “outside”. They worked with the DC Rape Crisis Centre." Source, Cambridge Documentary Films website.

The way the film, and participants have been used and represented has been the subject of criticism by Margaret Lazarus, Director of the film.

"“When we made the film “Rape Culture” we highlighted the actions of an organization founded in 1974, called Men Against Rape in Lorton Prison in the Washington DC area). At the time people often misinterpreted what these, primarily African American men were saying. They were talking about rape inside the prison(raping men) and out(raping women) and pointing out the similarities. It appeared that they were defining themselves as rapists but they were trying to define rape as a power relationship that took a sexual form. Only one of the 13 members of the group was actually in prison for rape. Their work, in collaboration with members of the DC Rape Crisis Center was groundbreaking.”" Source

There has also been criticism of the founders of “Prisoners Against Rape”, Larry Cannon, William Fuller, who identified all group members as Rapists for political reasons, whilst only one member was a convicted rapist. Feminist Alliance Against Rape Newsletter Sep/Oct 1974.

The work of “Prisoners Against Rape”, as in prison based rape of inmates, lead to the 1980, Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, and onward progress to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission.

The term "Rape Culture" as used in it's original citation, being the film's title, has been misappropriated and used, with many believing that it deals only with male perpetrated rape of women, when in fact it was about prisoner rape and the need to end that. The Films main protagonists, the Prisoners of Lorton Prison, have been taken as supposed experts representing all men and the subject of rape. None were academic. Their discussions of rape and it's nature, both within and without the prison system, were these man attempting to understand the nature of rape as they experienced it and did not apply to all men and society as a whole. However, what these men did say has been used in this way to advance the Feminist Model of "rapism", which has then been called "Rape Culture", without any attribution to original sources.

Mary Daly, American radical feminist philosopher, academic, and theologian, who featured in the film did not use the term Rape Culture - and used the term Rapism.

The piece as a whole is based upon a premise that is false, incorrectly attributes origination and fails to cite both sources and criticism of misuse of sources. The page should be marked as disputed and readers notified until the content is brought to acceptable standards. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What you are presenting is more or less correct, and I'll correct the sentence in question to more correctly deal with the subject of the film. But the article does not say nor imply that the film used the modern definition of rape culture nor make any claims about the film's message - it merely notes it as a possible first use of the term.

Your claim that "piece as a whole is based upon a premise that is false, incorrectly attributes origination and fails to cite both sources and criticism of misuse of sources. The page should be marked as disputed and readers notified until the content is brought to acceptable standards." is not reasonable, and is insulting to those who have written this article. After a lot of discussion and collaboration among several experienced editors, the neutrality-in-question tag was recently removed because the article had been rewritten specifically for a neutral point of view.

The article does not use the film's definition of rape culture, which is fact seems to be a relative sidenote. It is about rape culture as discussed as academic idea in modern feminist theory. So although "rape culture" as a phrase may have originally been in terms of prisoner rape, the modern academic definition is broader and includes all rape (not just male-on-female, and not just prison rape). I will rewrite that sentence to discuss your concerns, at which point I believe the neutrality of the article will once again be reasonably complete. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten that sentence, which should address your concerns. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The question of "original citation" of the Term "Rape Culture" is till absent. The term "the modern academic definition" is relative to the need for "Citation" which remains missing. If the term is in wide academic usage and has academic rigour, then the relevant origination citation should not be hard to locate and apply? It remains absent. "After a lot of discussion and collaboration among several experienced editors.." is not relevant - facts and reality are. Even experienced editors can only work with the information provided, and when new and additional information comes to light you edit to maintain accuracy. You may also wish to note that on the pages for Margaret Lazarus and Renner Wunderlich the name of the film "Rape Culture" has been linked to this page - which is not correct as this page is not about the film itself. There are multiple levels of inaccuracy involved. If there is a question of citation and origination of the term "Rape Culture", should that not be listed under Criticism? For such a pervasive term to have no definitive origin, it is a matter which has caused much criticism. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I also note that the Men of Lorton Prison Virginia have not been correctly identified. They were all members of "Prisoners Against Rape" Inc, a none profit set up specifically to address The Rape Issues they faced. The term "Prisoners Against Rape" or "Prisoners Against Rape Inc", should be used so as to ensure no readers are mislead as to the men' intentions and the reasons for their participation.

On the issue of original citation the following has been found from Margaret Lazarus:

"The term “rape culture” came out of long discussion that we had about exactly what we were trying to illustrate in the documentary and to my recollection it was the first time it was used. Subsequently we saw articles and book titles using this phrase. If anyone has any other information about the term we would be most interested. Thank you, Margaret Lazarus for Cambridge Documentary.http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/rapeculture2.html that was 15 Mar 2000 -and still no earlier source for the term can be found.

Unless there is an earlier credible and referenced citation then correct attribution should occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added the citation with Lazarus's claim. It's merely a claim, but given her status it deserves mention in the article. I don't agree with your allegation that there's a large amount of controversy, and I don't believe that any disagreement about the exact origin really belongs in the controversy section. Rape culture, from uncertain origins or not, has reached a pretty solid academic consensus of what the theory is. Some agree with the paradigm and some don't, and that is the controversy that belongs in the controversy section. If there is actual controversy over the origin other than the competing theories mentioned in the article - someone discussing the different theories, perhaps - then link me to it and I can add the information.

As you said, when new information becomes available, it should be added. I've added as much as seems reasonable at this point; certain details like the name of the prison group aren't relevant to the origin of the term. The article is not presenting a theory or argument about the contents or motives of the movie; it merely names it as one contender for the origin of the term "rape culture". It does not even mention the group; it only says "...discussed prison rape in the context of a larger cultural normalization of rape".

Opening credits of the film read as follows "“A group of inmates at Lorton prison in Virginia organised “Prisoners Against Rape”. Only one member was a convicted rapist, but all felt the need to fight rape in prison and on the “outside”. They worked with the DC Rape Crisis Centre. Since the filming two of these men have been killed, victims of prison violence.”" - this source is from the video footage on the website of the film makers. link to footage from this page - http://www.cambridgedocumentaryfilms.org/downloadclips.html Media-hound- thethird (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I delinked rape culture from the pages on Lazarus and Wunderlich; it should only link from their page if there was a separate article for the movie itself.

I feel that the article is very neutral and presents a pretty balanced portrayal of the different theories of origin. Do you still disagree? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the amendments have now made the content internally contradictory - If Rape Culture started out as gender Neutral "Although the film discussed mainly male-on-male rape in prisons, modern feminist theory uses a broader definition of rape culture that includes non-prison society as well." - then it should not be stating that Rape Culture only applies to women as in "...describing a culture in which rape and sexual violence against women are common". If there is no issue of rape In Prison ( male and or female) then we would not have such bodies as NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION" which are charged with stopping rape in prisons.

Also there is concern over the use of the word "Term" as Rape Culture is a Concept. The use of term can be seen as a Reification/fallacy of misplaced concreteness. Also there is no definition of Rape Theory that the concept can be checked against. I have made it clear that there is a basic need for accurate citation to support the content and articulate it rationally in it's entirety.

If rape Culture was originally defined as gender neutral and academic rape theory has progressed and made the concept only apply to women then there needs to be a historical progress shown with citations of change and reason. This does have a major bearing upon whether it is a term or a concept. If it is to be maintained that if it gender specific then under "Criticisms" it should be raised that this change has occurred and when, and how this change has affected perceptions and criticism of how it is used! Again it would appear that until some basic elements of history and logical progression are in place the entry should be marked as "disputed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 01:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The following has also been brought to my attention - Blackwell Reference Online - Rape Culture - "Rape culture is a concept of unknown origin and of uncertain definition; yet it has made its way into everyday vocabulary and is assumed to be commonly understood. The award-winning documentary film Rape Culture made by Margaret Lazarus in 1975 takes credit for first defining the concept. The film's narration relies heavily on jargon such as “rapism” and “phallocentric society and is more illustrative than definitive in dealing with rape as depicted in movies, music, and other forms of entertainment. Cont.... http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?query=rape+culture&widen=1&result_number=1&from=search&id=g9781405124331_yr2011_chunk_g978140512433124_ss1-19&type=std&fuzzy=0&slop=1 - this is from a recognised high standard source in international repute - and is the only reference on the subject of rape culture. As the term appears to be of "of uncertain definition" and no definitive originating source can be found, this should be clearly reflected in the information provided. Given that the men of "Prisoners Against Rape inc" of Lorton Prison were majority racial minority, it should also be noted under criticism that their contribution to the understanding of "Rape Culture", has been glossed over for so long, has raised issues of endemic racism and prejudice towards prisoners and males who have been raped within the prison systems. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted and addressed that There are inconsistencies with other pages here. Page "Causes of sexual violence"http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_violence - states under Rape Culture "Examples of behaviors said to typify rape culture include victim blaming, ***trivializing prison rape***, and sexual objectification." This indicates that the "page lead" is inadequate and misleading. I am applying the relevant POV-lead tag until it is addressed. The piece, due to lack of gender neutrality and the omission of significant and recognised factors of Rape Culture in it's widest meaning is unacceptable and misleading. It causes the page to be Propagandised and compromises neutrality. As the full nature of the subject is not addressed the content is too specific and promotes bias. the "Specific" tag as also applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to also point out that the Reference to Slutwalk is not correctly headed. It is not a source for the origination of the term./concept. It should be under a separate heading "In Popular Culture", along with other cultural manifestations on a global basis. The focus of the page on USA/European/English Language Centric views causes Bias that fails to address the true scope of the subject. If there is to be Cultural specific references and manifestations listed there should not be any Single Cultural bias on a national or language basis that overrides the subject and page content. Manifestations of Rape Culture in such places as Afghanistan, across the war zones, and even is specific conflicts and prosecutions for Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes have been ignored. The use of rape as a terror tactic and subjugation tactic is well documented and yet not discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am working on addressing your concerns in the article; however, I do not have unlimited time. Some of what you're asking is simply not possible - I don't believe anyone has done a comprehensive history of the term. It is entirely possible that it was a parallel development where both feminist studies and prison rape studies coined the term separately and I've noted that in the article.

It would seem that a lack of a comprehensive definition is also an issue - which is surprising after some 35 years. It is not safe to assume that "the phrase emerged separately but simultaneously". There is ongoing Conflation of terms - is it a term - a concept - a phrase? If there is an overarching concept that needs to be defined - and if there is separate but congruent use of the term, then the use of the term needs to be explained. Also a prison system is not defined as a society - so separating prisons from the main body of the hearer is not correct. The Citation to America being a rape culture, from the "Encyclopedia Of Rape" is not supported as earlier at page 150 the following appears:Media-hound- thethird (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"In the United States the belief that representations of violence reproduce real violence was reinforced in the 1980s and 1990s by an intensified debate of prominent cases of rape, date rape, and sexual harassment within the media. This prominence of rape and sexual violence in popular culture seemed to suggest that American culture is a “rape culture.” However, the term rape culture misleadingly hints that rape occurs more frequently in a culture that talks about rape intensively than in cultures that deny its existence. Instead of documenting the state of real rape, though, the deployment of rape in American popular culture bespeaks the status of rape as a central trope within the American cultural imagination."Media-hound- thethird (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As the citation is from a source that contradicts itself, the reference should be removed, and if the matter is to be mentioned it should be under controversy. Making sure to sign this time - sorry if I'm not familiar with wiki etiquette. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead to be thoroughly gender-neutral.

P.S.: It's considered pleasant to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~); this means that the revision history doesn't get clogged up with SineBot edits. No biggie, though. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

updated - removed ref to America as a Rape Culture due to conflicts in original citation source. Updated cross references in Wiki to War rape - Prions Rape, links previously omitted. Updated references to "behaviors commonly associated" to maintain integrity and consistency with other wiki entries. Additional edits for clarity ref societies vs cultural groups. As I am a Wiki edit novice E&OE Media-hound- thethird (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is USA being cited as only example of a Societal Rape Culture? References to central Asia missing, concerning cultural and religions manifestations, affecting men and women Bacha bazi - and incidents Africa - Ruwanda Genocide, Uganda and DR Congo - ref United Nations and International Criminal Court. This is manifesting systemic bias. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to add multiple citations for the US as a rape culture. Get me citations that call other countries rape cultures - quote, unquote - and they can be mentioned in the lede as well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems a biazzare and biased determination to have The USA listed as a rape culture! It is improper to do so as rape culture as a concept needs to be rationally explained and illuminated and not just any old bet source used to bolster a false premise. If the USA is to be singled out it should be clearly noted under criticism that the USA government does not use the term in any way in any official documentation. References to examples of Rape Culture - references

1. War Time Rape Culture and prevention - Geneva Conventions Article 27 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600032?OpenDocument
2. Yugoslav war rape http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars#War_rape
3. Rwanada war rape http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#War_rape
4. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda http://en.wiki.x.io /wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_Rwanda#Rape
5. War Rape http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/War_rape
6. Congo DRC war rape http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/War_rape#Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo
7. Darfu war rape http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/War_rape#Darfur_region_in_Sudan #
8. Iraq War rape http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/War_rape#Iraq_war
9. 2011 Libyan civil war rape - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/War_rape#2011_Libyan_civil_war
10. Afghanistan - Amnesty International - Afghanistan: "No-one listens to us and no-one treats us as human beings". Justice denied to women - http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA11/023/2003/en/3c27f1a9-d693-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/asa110232003en.html
11. Afghanistan and central Asia - Bacha bazi - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bacha_bazi
12. Nigeria Rape - the Silent Weapon - http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45a2479c2.html
13. Prison Rape Female - http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,459d17822,459d17a32,3ae6a9c5c,0,AMNESTY,,.html
14. State Rape: Representations of Rape in Viet Nam - http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Stuldreher_Rape.html
15. South Africa - http://www.rape.co.za/index2.php?do_pdf=1&id=875&option=com_content
16. Uganda - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

There are many more examples too. It would seem that to make the subject clear and not trivialise There needs to be clarity to show examples of Rape Culture which articulate the Concept and not just random use of the term - such as "The USA is a Rape Culture". There should be sections that show Societal examples as countries/ethnic groups and one to show Institutional examples - prisons - us military etc. As the term and concept are disputed it makes no sense to use it poorly. Omitting relevant and national examples is manifesting systemic bias and insisting that the only example by inference is the USA is Bizzare and untruthful. It smacks of the page being used for propaganda, and it would appear from the page history that changes have been to achieve just that.Media-hound- thethird (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality (2): break

(Arbitrary break added to make less of a wall of text while editing)

Media-hound, I would agree that those cultures could all be considered rape cultures. However, in order for them to be relevant in the rape culture article, and not just the established articles on war rape and prison rape, there needs to be someone out there calling them a "rape culture". Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia; I can't just say 'There's lot of rape in X country for Y reason, therefore it is a rape culture'. But if a UN report or a human rights activist or a news article calls the country a "rape culture", then that's a verifiable source that can be cited.

Pi.1415926535 - Your point fails to address the origins of the term "Rape Culture" which is a "synonym" of such terms as "rapism", "rape-enabling culture", "rape-supportive culture". Those terms appear as "parallel use".

Slutwalk is not a Synonym or a Parallel term. You can's call a country a Slutwalk. Slutwalk should be defined on it's own page, else moved to country specific entries. Slutwalk is given incorrect and undue prominence which compromises neutrality. Slutwalk can be seen as reaction to a specific manifestation of Rape Culture in certain societies, and it is not about usage of the actual term. It should be listed under Prominent Incidents with reference to police language and specific dates and citations. Occurrences of Slutwalks also occur independently of manifest Rape Culture and only in support of the idea that Rape Culture is a factor in a society. It negates the reality of women in oppressive regimes also marching, but not due to some police officer making ill judged and offensive comment. Marching In Kabul demanding that police arrest as rapist is no slutwalk. However both can be seen as clear reactions to Rape Culture.

Consider also the usage by UN, Amnesty and others of the term "Culture Of Rape" which is recognised as a synonym and used to "Politically Differentiate" from current cultural usage in the USA which does not agree with reality elsewhere on the globe. If some wish to politicise the term in the USA and make "Rape Culture" about rape jokes and frat idiocy, some become obliged to have to use parallel language so that rape as genocide does not get taken to have the same meaning, manifestations and effects. To allow that is to Trivialize the subject. Systemic Bias.

Either the term "Rape Culture" has a definitive origin, as traced to the 1975 film and that has to take primacy, else, if it has multiple origins the synonyms with parallel usage, they need to also be addressed under "Origins and usage" and also in the lede. That is not about Original Research, but about the origins, nature and usage of the term, both historically and presently, where usage has to differer around the globe so as to not minimise effects and manifestations in one venue by inappropriate cross reference to another. A Frat Joke is one thing - Systemic rape as genocide is NO JOKE. You can not compare the two as equal - yet they are both covered by the concept of "Rape Culture". The Multiple Parallel uses of the term, even by synonym, need to be articulated, else the Wiki entry simply Trivialises reality and the subject and the entry is not Neutral.

To assume that Rape Culture has only one translation from multiple Languages into English is systemic bias. From the French the most common translation is "Rape in the suburbs" as well as a direct Translation as "Rape Culture". One articulates issues within France and the other on an International Humanitarian scale - and in France ""Rape in the suburbs" relates to "Cultural and Social Ghettos" within France and not nice rows of houses with 2.4 children.

It may be worth considering that people within a "Rape Culture", such as a war zone, have more urgent things to do than define language and make sure it translates directly into English as "Rape Culture". Also culture specific issues such as religion don't talk of "Victim Shame" or "Victim Blame" and use culturally appropriate/specific language around "loss of honour", "loss of manhood" in male rape, even family and tribal honour. To fail to address such cultural differences in a rational manner is Systemic Bias and even Systemic Racism/Institutional Racism.

Again, failures to recognise and address such are just Systemic Bias and originate from the words "Rape" and "Culture" being combined as a "Compound Noun" (Noun+Noun), where the resulting "Compound Noun" goes well beyond any standard meanings within the scope of the individual separate Nouns involved.

Ref Five Pillars - Neutrality - "In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"." Presently the page, due to US centric and English language Centric bias - it does not provide neutrality and skews towards what some have attempted to make a best and even only view. The History of edits indiactes attempted Propaganda. Past attempts to induce neutrality have been less than adequate. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The articles you linked will probably be very helpful shortly. But until we can find someone saying "This isn't just a war/just prison; there is a culture here that supports and legitimatizes rape" then they're prison rape and ware rape, not specifically rape culture.

Sorry - but, if there is to be consistency of idea and ideal, then under controversy if the US Military is to be linked to an internal "Rape Culture", there has to be a recognition that failures in Institutional Regulation allows a Rape Culture to Develop. So, if such groups as the UN, Amnesty, OXFAM and many others globally are identifying that such lack of institutional regulation are empowering, allowing and failing to address rape then they have to be viewed the same way. It's irrational to only report one manifestation and ignore others without considering context - and rape is occurring within the context of the culture involved, be that societal, culture, sub-culture or even institution.

There is also the need to address Societies/cultures which fail to legislate against rape - ref Afghanistan:"The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in a report on the rape climate in Afghanistan says the judicial system in Afghanistan lacks provisions necessary to protect women and children, while the cultural norms often shame the victims. "There is an urgent need to criminalize rape in Afghan laws," said Norah Niland, the OHCHR representative in Afghanistan. Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2009/07/09/Afghan-rape-culture-needs-reform/UPI-68621247171243/#ixzz1jLLtLpDi

To ignore such matters goes against the lede where it says "...prevalent attitudes, norms, practices,...". Where there are known concerns on an international scale that such societal attitudes, norms and practices are empowering rape and a rape-enabling culture - synonym to Rape Culture, then it needs to be addressed - else the page is just about a "Buzz Word" and English Language Biased "Tag" and not about the subject, concept and reality. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The US is mentioned in the article because it is the easiest to find claims of it being a rape culture. Even bell hooks, who doesn't agree with the concept, mentions that others have called the US a rape culture. Bam, reliable citation. I don't believe this is a case of bias against the US; it's a case of US-based commentators talking about the US being the easiest to find and source. Same reason why most of the current examples are US-based - they're what are easiest to reliable source. (All examples currently in the article have been specifically referred to as examples of rape culture.) The US is also the primary source of entertainment - and thus culture - for much of the world, so its culture is always under a microscope.

Sorry - The US may be in media the highest media source in Revenue, but India is actually the highest in output across all media. In language terms English is not dominant via the net. Systemic Bias rides again. There is this Bizzare US centric English Language Centric attitude that keeps on coming out. Not nice and not good for Wikipedia. Neutrality is I believe a core value of Wikipedia and such bias is to be avoided at all times - Five Pillars. It's the subject that comes first, not bias caused by editors First Language and Cultural Roots and Essentialist misunderstandings.

If there is to be a view that "The US is also the primary source of entertainment", there will need to be a section dealing with Rape Culture in entertainment - "Midnight Express", "Shawshank Redemption", American History X", “Let’s Go To Prison” and such Music Videos as "Lady Gaga – Telephone ft. Beyoncé". Some show examples of Manifest Rape Culture, and the last two examples Trivialise "Rape Culture" in prison. If the lede is to be accurate and taken as valid a lot follows on. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've dug up some news articles from 2009 about a big study on rape in South Africa. Several of them mention rape culture specifically, so I've added a section. I've also moved the mention of the US from the lede to its own section, so I think the lede is pretty much settled as far as neutrality. Do you agree? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Neutrality issue is quite basic - If there is to be a view that "Rape Culture" is not the same as synonyms and parallel used terms such as "Rapism", "Rape Enabling Culture", "Culture of rape", then the last sentence of the lede needs to be moved to be the second sentence position, else the lede causes readers to see the term as concrete and errors ensue.

The subject needs to be free of Systemic Bias due to Linguistic Dogma. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

I just put 9 threads, all of them over 6 months old, into Talk:Rape culture/Archive 1 so this page is actually manageable in size. I'd like to set it up for automatic archiving. What would be a better interval - 90 or 180 days? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

University of CT Video

Hi folks, this has been on the news tonight. It's about a video that students at the UConn created at the student TV channel which makes fun of rape victims. "Rape Video Causes UConn Outcry" A number of news hits, could be something valuable for the article. SarahStierch (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am so ashamed for my state. If I get a chance to do some major editing soon I'll add it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

should this also contain other forms of rape

• it bugs me that only rape females by males is mnetioned here. many tv shows makes jokes about gay/lesbian rape, and rape of males by females too, and in those situtations, it's even harder for the victims to speak up due to victim blaming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.118.176 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I will take a look at that sometime I'm awake.Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

With reference to other forms of rape occurring within the definition of "Rape Culture" - I have been reading extracts from "Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism" - Patricia Hill Collins, 2005 - in which the author addresses "Rape Culture" and it's manifestations widely and in some depth - male rape - prison rape - Racially motivated rape - and chapter 7 "Assume The Position" is highly detailed. The chapter also features in "The Body Reader:Essential Social and Cultural Readings" http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cnD41FhWZzcC

Given the multiple references and examples of rape Culture made by "Patricia Hill Collins", I am surprised that it has not been cited as a source in relation to this Wiki entry before. The whole chapter even indicates that the 1991 "Anita Hill - Clarence Thomas controversy" would fit as a citation of "Rape Culture" under Prominent Incidents - USA.

I have also been reading the work "The Culture Struggle"; Michael Parenti - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QIhkVEPmyTgC - Chapter 8 is most informative, Titled "The Global Rape Culture" citing multiple prominent incidents from Kenya, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestinian Territories/West Bank, India .... which all illustrate the diversity of Rape Culture globally and within cultures that are not USA/European in nature (Systemic Bias). Given that all the examples and citations are under the banner of "Global Rape Culture", it is baffling that they have not been cited or listed in Prominent Incidents on a Country By Country basis - someone has done the homework so it's a bit of a NO Brainer!

I have expressed my past concerns as to "Advocacy Editing", and I have to wonder why some far less complete, far less detailed and far from illustrative cites have been used, when these far better one's have not been noted or used? P^( Media-hound- thethird (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

YouTube - Reddit controversy

The recent matter of a video on YouTube concerning a six year old boy performing oral sex on a woman, coupled with promotion of this material via Reddit (for personal viewing) is a matter of grave concern. Using the statutory rape of a six year old child for amusement, meets the definition of Rape Culture in the lede.

"Rape culture is a term or concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone sexual violence. "

AS there is no differentiation as to age of the person raped, or differentiator between Statutory rape (based upon age) and Felony Rape, it would seem that this is a case that does meet the definitions of "Rape Culture".

Should this feature under "Prominent Incidents", or as the geographical location is unknown, does it need it's own heading?

Ref:

1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKXKU2-Ikdk

2)http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/sgbt4/kazantip_wildest_rave_party_vice/c4e1c0t

3)http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/si2tv/tw_i_only_saw_one_ridiculously_lucky_kid_on_a/

4) http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/a-double-dose-of-stupid-v65/

Media-hound- thethird (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source that identifies this as an example of rape culture. Otherwise, it is original research. Kaldari (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Prominent Incidents - Afghanistan - Systemic Bias

Ref the use of the term Rape Culture - Afghanistan (and surrounding areas into Pakistan and the Pashtun Disapora) has been recognised as meeting the Concept of "Rape Culture" for some time. I have found a source that uses the term Rape Culture, thus opening up the concept and allowing Afghanistan to be included under prominent incidents.

July 9, 2009 - Special Reports - Afghan rape culture needs reform

"Suspected rapists in Afghanistan enjoy cultural and judicial leniency while their victims suffer from social stigma, U.N. human-rights officials say.

The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in a report on the rape climate in Afghanistan says the judicial system in Afghanistan lacks provisions necessary to protect women and children, while the cultural norms often shame the victims.

"There is an urgent need to criminalize rape in Afghan laws," said Norah Niland, the OHCHR representative in Afghanistan.

Afghan custom employs a practice known as "Baad" to decriminalize rape. A girl from the family of the rapist is handed over to the victim's family for marriage in order to cover the crime."

It may be that the issue has not been picked up because, for Diplomatic Reasons, The UN and other parties use the Synonym "Culture Of Rape" - and in this case "Climate Of Rape".

Google does not do Synonyms.

I fear that the excessive use of Google to locate terms "Rape Culture" over rational consideration of concept and culturally appropriate language is allowing Sytemic Bias to go unchallenged - and it is even being used deliberately to skew page content. I still wonder at the prominence of Slutwalk on the page - and that fact that the reference is not linked correctly to the WikiPage for slutwalk - and how that page is also an example of Syatemic Bias, missing out multiple examples of Slutwalks that have received coverage in other countries (Refs Above Under Neutrality & Concept Vs Term - Essentially contested concept)

I am also mindful of the case of Gulnaz, a 19 year old woman who was raped, became pregnant, was jailed and then found under cultural norms to be required to marry her rapist for the crime of Adultery.

There was significant international coverage of the matter in 2011 - including criticism of many, working in the field of Afghan law reform, who in conjunction with Hamad Zazai had to find a solution that Diplomatically addressed all issues and moved law reform forward - as well as human rights.

There was even wide blog criticism of the fact that a film, prepared and funded by the European Union, addressing the situation that women face in Afghanistan had to be pulled from Broadcast to protect Gulnaz and not cause a diplomatic incident. BBC - 10 November 2011 - EU censors own film on Afghan women prisoners

Links

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/01/afghan-woman-freed-marry-rapist
2. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57337136/an-afghans-choice-marry-rapist-or-stay-jailed/
3. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gulnaz

Do I need to find a source that says Gulnaz was, and even is, a Victim of Rape Culture - The Term - so that the issue of Rape Culture - the Concept - can be addressed and linked to a whole nation/cultural group where that has been and remains significant international humanitarian concern over the legal status of rape victims - the "Culture Of Shame"/"Culture Of Dishonour" which meets all the criteria under the concept of "Rape Culture" ?

Given that someone has used the term Rape Culture in relation to Afghanistan etal - in the same time frame as the Gulnaz case- does that mean that Gulnaz and the millions of women affected can now be listed under prominent incidents - even if only one has made it onto Google?

I do fear that millions, if not Billions of people subjected to rape and gender violence due to the cultures they exists within are being ignored in a conceptual manner because someone has forgotten to use a term that others recognise.

Where are the rational dividing lines between:

1. Rape Culture "The Term",
2. Rape Culture "The Concept" and
3. Rape Culture "The Reality"?

Making necessary assumptions? Are there any to be made - and if so, how should they be made?

What are rational assumptions when it comes to addressing the reality of the person against the use of two words for googling convenience - from a US/Eurocentric/First World bias?

As I have said before - what do some people need to do to be recognised - Hold a Slutwalk in an mine field and make sure that Fox News/CNN are notified in advance?

I again wonder at the work of Michael Parenti - The Culture Struggle - Chapter 5 - The Global Rape Culture - which addresses the concept of Rape Culture with reference to:

• Pakistan,
• Saudi Arabia,
• India,
• Palestine,
• Turkey,
• The Roma Diaspora in Europe(Ref Slovenia),
• Peru,
• Romania,
• ....

It also discuses and articulates the differences in Culture and language which mask the Term "Rape Culture" from eyes that only seek two words at the expense of reality.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QIhkVEPmyTgC&lpg=PA71&dq=global%20rape%20culture&pg=PA76#v=onepage&q=global%20rape%20culture&f=false

As the Chapter of the Book addresses Rape Culture - Global - is it safe to assume and even make necessary assumptions that the examples cited and articulated are in fact examples of Rape Culture - even Prominent Incidents, which may not be readily accessibly via google in English, as all the countries and groups used don't use The English Language - and some would not even use the term rape in relation to the concept of Culture?

Again - should it be agreed that Afghanistan can now be references as a Rape Culture, where does it fit in the Hierarchy - does it have alphabetical prominence - date prominence - and where does it get listed under prominent incidents so that there is not Undue Weight given to presentation which itself either deliberately or unwittingly promotes Systemic Bias.

I do have to wonder if the idea of Prominent Incidents is itself Biased, given that the idea of "Prominence" is open to Cultural Bias and even promotes an imbalance between Cultures and events.

Which is more prominent - a questionable video on Youtube which a group of students object to - or a whole Country where rape is so systemic that when 19 girls die at a high school as a result of them attempting to not be raped the school principle says it was not a big issue - the boys were only attempting to rape the dead girls?

Kenya's schoolgirls need to be protected Rape, bullying and deaths have plagued schools in Kenya – and girls are the main casualties - 1991 to the Present

Discuss!

Media-hound- thethird (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Prominent Incidents - Pitcairn Island - Systemic Bias

It's almost a perfect Microcosm of Rape Culture - The Concept.

It's been confirmed that in 2004 Sky News referred to the Pitcairn Sexual Assault Cases as "Rape Culture".

From @ freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232857/posts - Fri 01 Oct 2004: note: bot has prevented link to page

"PITCAIRN'S 'RAPE CULTURE Pitcairn Island was dominated by a culture of rape, fear and sex abuse, one of the island's woman have told a court.

Women were treated as "sex things" and forced to comply to men's sexual whims.

The trial on the South Pacific island has made headlines around the world."

The related Wiki Page has full and detailed links to multiple sources giving details.

Given that it can now be shown that the term "Rape Culture" has been used, and the activities and wide global reporting show patterns that agree with the concept "Rape Culture", should PITCAIRN be listed under Prominent Incidents?

Discuss! Media-hound- thethird (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Prominent Incidents - Canada - Systemic Bias

I remain bemused as to why "Canada has not been listed under Prominent Incidents?

Given that Slutwalk originated from the comments of Constable Michael Sanguinetti, of the Toronto Police, it would seem Rational for Canada to be listed under "Prominent Incidents" and for Slutwalks origins and relationship to "Rape Culture" to be listed there.

Also, it is very interesting to read the following:

"Press Release: RINJ Campaign Says University of Calgary Campus Culture and Afghanistan Rape Culture have Too Much in Common"

Rape Is No Joke - RINJ - Source and RINJ press release - Ref "University of Calgary Debate Society - Resolution "This house would hold women partially accountable for rape.".

It is very odd that this "Prominent Incident" has not been alluded to, and yet so many similar incidents from USA based media and sources have. I take this as clear evidence of Systemic Bias and Advocacy Editing.

Also - February 22, 2012 - Rape Culture Supported by Crown as They Refuse to Fight Sexualized Violence - Women Against Violence Against Women, Press Releases Link reads as follows:

"Vancouver, B.C. – Women Against Violence Against Women Rape Crisis Centre is appalled and angry at Crown’s decision to stay charges against Colton Ashton McMorris. This decision was made after Crown prosecutors determined the evidence would not support conviction.

Through these decisions, rape culture continues to be sanctioned by a system that is meant to represent our society’s values, to denounce unlawful conduct, and to keep our communities safe. By staying sexual assault charges the message to all of us is that sexual assault is acceptable."

It would appear Note worthy that a leading group in Canada dealing with Sexual Violence should criticise the Canadian Government - Canadian Crown Prosecution Service - and Canadian Law enforcement in general of acting to promote "Rape Culture".

Discuss! Media-hound- thethird (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism - New Source?

City Journal - Winter 2008- Vol 18 No1:

Heather Mac Donald The Campus Rape Myth The reality: bogus statistics, feminist victimology, and university-approved sex toys

Mac Donald is critical of how Rape/Rape Culture is defined and managed in eductional/campus settings. She refers to "The campus rape industry" and also provides a comprehensive analysis of criticism from 1987 to the present.

In particular she states:

"An army of salesmen took to the road, selling advice to administrators on how to structure sexual-assault procedures, and lecturing freshmen on the “undetected rapists” in their midst. Rape bureaucrats exchanged notes at such gatherings as the Inter Ivy Sexual Assault Conferences and the New England College Sexual Assault Network. "

and also:

"None of the obvious weaknesses in the research has had the slightest drag on the campus rape movement, because the movement is political, not empirical. In a rape culture, which “condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as a norm,” sexual assault will wind up underreported, argued the director of Yale’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources and Education Center in a March 2007 newsletter. You don’t need evidence for the rape culture; you simply know that it exists. But if you do need evidence, the underreporting of rape is the best proof there is."

Heather Mac Donald is a John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She also is a recipient of 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mac_donald.htm

Discuss! Media-hound- thethird (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Prominent Incidents - New Zealand - Systemic Bias

Additional Source:

ACT on Campus perpetuates rape culture Wednesday, 5 January 2011, 1:39 pm Press Release: National Union of Student Associations

Source 1 - Source 2 - Source 3

"ACT on Campus perpetuates rape culture

Students are condemning deplorable comments recently highlighted by Act on Campus which link the current situation of universal student association membership to rape.

On their public Facebook page, ACT on Campus quoted a Calgary Beacon opinion piece which wrote: “After all, if two men corner a woman in a dark alley and force her to have sex with them because they, the majority, have voted in favour of it, that would still be rape, not the exercise of their group right to freedom of association.”

The Tertiary Women’s Focus Group (TWFG) condemns this analogy. There are no similarities between Universal Student Membership and rape, nor will there ever be."

The rape trivialisation, linked to student culture, is self evident. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion section for outside comments

How about this for a section of dedicated space for outside comments in response to the RFC? Factseducado (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please give a specific, narrowly focused, actionable question which you would like your RFC to focus on. Factseducado (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh specific, narrowly focused, actionable questions?P^)

1) Given the level of sources that have been highlighted for discussion and inclusion, providing a global scale, and resources that show historical perspective, does the present page suffer from systemic bias - relating to "World View" - "US/Euro centric bias" - "Slanting to recent events"?

Yes. Systemic bias in the form of an Anglo-American bias on English Wikipedia is well-known. This policy section demonstrates this fact and mentions how systemic bias is evident in some non-English Wikpeidias also: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. Factseducado (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your response is welcome, in that you appear to provide tacit agreement that the concerns over systemic Bias are valid. Thank you. However, you have not directly answered the question "..does the present page suffer from systemic bias - relating to "World View" - "US/Euro centric bias" - "Slanting to recent events"?". Could you respond more directly to the direct question? Media-hound- thethird (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

By writing the word "Yes," at the beginning that was meant to say, "Yes, the present page suffers from systemic bias." Factseducado (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

2) If so, how is this best addressed?

It is best addressed by reading the WikiProject page dedicated to this problem. Then go to the member section of the page and follow the instructions to become a member. This is the WikiProject site for Countering systemic bias: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias.

I have been reading - and repeatedly highlighted issues and requested input. It has been lacking - hence the RFC. Any other suggestions which may address the issue rather than just rehashing what has already been read? I fear that just being told to reread will just promote the very poor status quo - and so in not really a valid suggestion, or response. Maybe if you revisit the direct question - point 1 above - your response may have more "specific, narrowly focused, actionable". Media-hound- thethird (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not tell you to read more; I told you to read that page and join. Your present course of action is not working to your satisfaction. You need to join forces with others and I told you to "go to the member section of the page and follow the instructions to become a member." Once you are a member of the WikiProject these problems could be addressed by the WikiProject for Countering systemic bias. Factseducado (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

3) I have highlighted that there is an editorial focus upon the term "Rape Culture", which fails to address the concept of "Rape Culture", and this leads bias and systemic bias. Is this best dealt with by Disambiguation, or by rational focus upon both in the single page?
Media-hound- thethird (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Systemic bias effects more than just this article and endless arguments don't fix problems. I have found the more I try to work together with others on an article, the more energy can be focused on improving the article. For more on this please see: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Avoiding_constant_disputes. Factseducado (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have read all about constant disputes - and it appears that some simply obfuscate by ignoring matters and not responding - a pattern of Passive Aggressive behaviour. You have not addressed the specific point about disambiguation - and the repeated focus upon the "Term" Rape Culture Vs the "Concept". Do you have any valid response to those specific points? For clarity I will restate the question again "Is this best dealt with by Disambiguation, or by rational focus upon both in the single page?" You have not actually answered the direct question and provided a response that is "specific, narrowly focused, actionable".Media-hound- thethird (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation is not necessary in this instance. Focus on this single page is also not a solution both because it has not worked and because avoiding constant disputes is covered under the NPOV policy. This single focus on this page can be viewed as hectoring in your editorial actions and I am suggesting that you avoid the semblence of that. The actionable solution is the one I provided under point 2: become a member of the WikiProject for Countering systemic bias so this issue can be dealt with comprehensively and by joining forces with others. Factseducado (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)