This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maunus (talk | contribs) at 11:48, 30 January 2013 (Undid revision 535667365 by Darkness Shinesnot a PA - comment is constructively aimed at the topic of discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:48, 30 January 2013 by Maunus (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 535667365 by Darkness Shinesnot a PA - comment is constructively aimed at the topic of discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Rape culture. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Rape culture at the Reference desk. |
 | Women's History Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Feminism Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 Archives | ||||||
Index
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Question about how to best add with a cite.
I'm sorry if this is not the correct place to ask this question. I would like to add a bit to the Feminist Theory section, adding Schlafly's observation that a married woman cannot be raped by her husband (http://www.sunjournal.com/node/682725), but I am not sure how. Can someone please assist me?108.15.50.162 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- A simple and quite adequate procedure is to add the information and put details of the reference in brackets. Someone will notice and format the reference correctly (if the material seems helpful and complies with WP:RS and WP:DUE). To ask a "how to" question, see WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- For the technical end, just use the {{cite news}} template. (Similar templates are available for books, journals, and general web articles.) For this specifca article, you can just copy-paste the following code at the end of the sentence/paragraph you add: {{cite news |url=http://www.sunjournal.com/node/682725 |title=Schlafly cranks up agitation at Bates |author=Leonard, J.T. |newspaper=Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal |date=29 March 2007 |accessdate=10 November 2012}}
- As for the writing end: marital rape already has a well-written article, so you'll need to show why this is specifically rape culture. Per past controversy on this page, I recommend being able to cite someone with reasonable authority (i.e, an academic, a well-known feminist, etc) who has liked marital rape to rape culture. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you to everyone for their assistance. I thought it would be relevant to "For instance, sexist jokes may be told to foster disrespect for women and an accompanying disregard for their well-being. An example would be a female rape victim being blamed for her being raped because of how she dressed or acted. In rape culture, sexualized violence towards women is regarded as a continuum in a society that regards women's bodies as sexually available by default" Especially the last bit about being available by default. No? Making allowances for wives to be raped not part of rape culture?108.15.50.162 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Has there ever been a survey to determine what percentage of individuals excuse, tolerate or condone rape?
Quoting; Within feminism, rape culture is a 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 rape.
Does the framing of "'Within feminism'" excuse the lack of evidence presented that the prevalent attitudes concerning rape are "normalize, excuse, tolerate, or condone"?
What is the purpose of "Within feminism"?
'Prevalent' is easily supported by anonymous surveys yet there are none linked. Shouldn't this be noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapidave (talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Request for comment: Rape culture and incidents by nation
 |
|
I would like to file an official Request for comment on this section. There is a great deal of material that has primarily been edited by User:Media-hound- thethird, an obvious political activist who has now been indef-banned for POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE . The section focusses exclusively on three countries, India,South Africa and the United States, which, to my reading, seems like WP:UNDUE, as well as a WP:SYN implication that rape is exclusive to these countries. Furthermore, the sections are essentially a POV fork of three other wikipedia articles, Rape in India, Sexual violence in South Africa, and Rape in the United States, violating WP:POVSPLIT. It seems to me that an article on rape culture should focus on general discussions on the subject, rather than become a list of specific countries and instances cherry-picked to advance a POV. Handyunits (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Without knowing anything about the user's other edits, I don't see the additions as implying that these three countries have worse rape cultures than other places. However, I also don't think most of them were productive; the user seems to have trouble distinguishing the subject of the article, rape culture, from rape as a topic. I also don't think "geographical" and "list of incidents" are useful ways of structuring an article - we should organize by theme, with specific examples used to illustrate particular points where necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- It should not have been removed, I very must doubt that rape culture is only a concept used by feminists. And the content was reliably sourced. In fact your one edit to this article was to remove this content, one has to wonder why you would follow an editors contributions as you obviously did here just to remove content? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I was the one who originally started the country sections; when I was first expanding the article in March 2011, I added a section titled "Prominent Incidents" for lack of a better description. Most if not all of the US/UK stuff is mine (as is a bit of South Africa); the country-stratifying and the India sections were by Media-hound. If it belongs better as part of Rape in the United States etc then so be it; I originally chose to include the incidents here because they'd been specifically labeled as rape culture, quote unquote, by others. The blocked user brought up examples of what may have been labeled as rape culture in a number of countries which may yet be useful; one possibility for the article would be to have blurbs about each relevant country then {{main article}} links to Rape in $COUNTRY. That would keep the relevant material in its proper place (a neutral context), while providing reasonable connections from this article for specific declarations of rape culture.
- As for the intro: the cited source was brought in by the user specifically for POV pushing, and I'm fairly certain it's being used out of context. Definitely deserves a second look before keeping it in the article. I'm particularly very wary of their contributions to the introduction and feminist theory sections as they showed a definite POV-pushing tendency that in some cases went against non-negotiable evidence like publication dates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems like a small number of examples makes sense, but a country-by-country list would be tedious and never complete anyway. The country doesn't matter, so long as sources clearly identify it as an example of the phenomena of rape culture.
- Simply describing the situation in India, without bringing it back to academic descriptions of "Rape Culture" is just soapboxing OR.
- Perhaps that's unfair. Perhaps there are no such sources, and perhaps more should be written about India's rape-culture, but it's not WP's duty to lead that charge, or to right the world's wrongs. APL (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- As for the intro: the cited source was brought in by the user specifically for POV pushing, and I'm fairly certain it's being used out of context. Definitely deserves a second look before keeping it in the article. I'm particularly very wary of their contributions to the introduction and feminist theory sections as they showed a definite POV-pushing tendency that in some cases went against non-negotiable evidence like publication dates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- The idea of rape culture is a claim, a hotly contested one, that certain cultures are particularly conducive to sexual violence. The article should focus on the claim and the way in which it has been theoretically supported and criticized. It should not end up being a "list of cultures that have been described as rape cultures", because that would be ascribing the theory a validity that as far as can tell there is no agreement that it has.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Note : User Darkness Shines has reinstated all of the blocked user's material in this edit.
This strikes me as very improper since it was clear that there was not a consensus for this material, and there was an ongoing RFC debating its inclusion! APL (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, among the claims being reverted by Darkness Shines is one made by Brass that women were forcibly aborted in India, a claim proven in court by forensic experts to be a false Blood libel by Teesta Setalvad. Can we WP:AGF with this guy anymore?Handyunits (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Other interesting sources of material involve allegations that this "Rape culture" in India business is nothing more than a rehash of 19th century colonial racism, specifically involving British propaganda about Indian "rapists" during the 1857 rebellion. This is duscussed in numerous academic references ignored by the editors, such as Karen Beckman's "Vanishing Women: Magic, Film, and Feminism" (2003) p31-33, John Keay's famous 'India Discovered', Kent, Eliza Kent's "Converting Women" (2004), and other articles such as this one. The section, as it stands, seems to ignore this point in order to advance a conventional stereotype of black and brown-skinned people popular in the circles of racist and fascist feminism within the broader feminist movement.Handyunits (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Re APL, the content was removed without consensus. Re HU, your first source does not mention rape culture and nor does your second. Karen Beckman's book has no mention of rape culture in it, nor John Keay's India Discovered nor does Eliza F. Kent's Converting Women: Gender and Protestant Christianity in Colonial South India Would you be so kind as to explain how these sources back your position. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well "rape culture" is essentially a neologism coined by neocon feminists to demonize non-white societies as inherently rape-friendly and (implicitly) worthy only of colonization and subalternification, either by economic means (neoliberalism, Foreign direct investment) or (to more militant fascist feminists) direct military invasion and subjugation (Iraq, Afghanistan, potentially Iran and Syria in the future) in order to 'liberate the women'. This term is essentially a rehash of the 19th century racism indicated in the references cited above. Furthermore, the claims made by Paul Brass in the cited references were recycled from claims made by Islamist sympathizer and anti-Indian lobbyist Teesta Setalvad and her financier, illegal Pakistani lobbyist Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai (who is currently in jail). Forensic evidence has established (per my cited sources) that these claims are essentially lies told by the Islamists, similar to Blood libels against Jews made in Christian and Islamic societies during the middle ages and even today.I fail to see why outright lies should be included in an article to WP:SYN-support a racist position. Is that encyclopedic? It seems to violate WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE,WP:SYN and numerous other policies.Handyunits (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- What a pile of bollocks. And your sources, s I believe I have already pointed out have no mention of rape culture. You may want to remove your BLP violations from your statement above before I do BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well "rape culture" is essentially a neologism coined by neocon feminists to demonize non-white societies as inherently rape-friendly and (implicitly) worthy only of colonization and subalternification, either by economic means (neoliberalism, Foreign direct investment) or (to more militant fascist feminists) direct military invasion and subjugation (Iraq, Afghanistan, potentially Iran and Syria in the future) in order to 'liberate the women'. This term is essentially a rehash of the 19th century racism indicated in the references cited above. Furthermore, the claims made by Paul Brass in the cited references were recycled from claims made by Islamist sympathizer and anti-Indian lobbyist Teesta Setalvad and her financier, illegal Pakistani lobbyist Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai (who is currently in jail). Forensic evidence has established (per my cited sources) that these claims are essentially lies told by the Islamists, similar to Blood libels against Jews made in Christian and Islamic societies during the middle ages and even today.I fail to see why outright lies should be included in an article to WP:SYN-support a racist position. Is that encyclopedic? It seems to violate WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE,WP:SYN and numerous other policies.Handyunits (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, among the claims being reverted by Darkness Shines is one made by Brass that women were forcibly aborted in India, a claim proven in court by forensic experts to be a false Blood libel by Teesta Setalvad. Can we WP:AGF with this guy anymore?Handyunits (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Without debating the veracity of the facts in the Indian section, can we first establish if it would belong in the article if true? Do the sources describe these events as specifically resulting from a "rape culture"? If not, they are poor examples. Examples need to be sourced as examples. Since we're only looking for examples, and not a comprehensive list, any item that doesn't have a sourced connection to "Rape culture" should be removed, without a side debate about it's veracity. APL (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with you. It seems to me that the claims are being added by DS simply because the sources cited mention 'India' (or 'South Africa' and 'United States') and the term 'rape culture' in the same article. To claim that these sources are somehow representative of a widespread 'rape culture' in either of these countries is Original Research, synthesized from the opinions of a few. DS is clearly assuming bad faith with his detractors, and bullying edits into the article against a consensus that goes against his agenda. Handyunits (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- One thing that can be done is to select the sources in the section that do talk about 'rape culture' and interleave them with the sections where the corresponding aspects of this alleged phenomenon are discussed. Am article on alleged 'rape culture' should discuss the allegations and specific aspects thereof, rather than become dominated by a 'list of countries who have been attacked by some dudes for having rape culture'. The article, as it stands, is dominated by the country sections and has very little actual content discussing the term and phenomenon.Handyunits (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- For instance, the India section seems to be focussed primarily on judicial processes involving specific rape cases in India over the course of half a century. Most of the sources cited therein make virtually no mention of 'rape culture', but are being used by DS and Mediahound to advance their claim that brown people are intrinsically rapists. These judicial processes need to be removed completely. Claims of rape culture made by Baxi et al are already sources in the lead, and need not be repeated in the body of the article except in cases when they discuss if the government of alleged 'rape cultures' minimize the importance of rape cases. Similarly, the South Africa section is focussed on apartheid, the lack of legal porn, and racial polarisation rather than 'rape culture'. This can be trimmed down only to sources that specifically discuss links between apartheid, porn and rape. A couple of sentences in a 'causes' section seems to be a proper way to improve the article.Handyunits (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- One thing that can be done is to select the sources in the section that do talk about 'rape culture' and interleave them with the sections where the corresponding aspects of this alleged phenomenon are discussed. Am article on alleged 'rape culture' should discuss the allegations and specific aspects thereof, rather than become dominated by a 'list of countries who have been attacked by some dudes for having rape culture'. The article, as it stands, is dominated by the country sections and has very little actual content discussing the term and phenomenon.Handyunits (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with you. It seems to me that the claims are being added by DS simply because the sources cited mention 'India' (or 'South Africa' and 'United States') and the term 'rape culture' in the same article. To claim that these sources are somehow representative of a widespread 'rape culture' in either of these countries is Original Research, synthesized from the opinions of a few. DS is clearly assuming bad faith with his detractors, and bullying edits into the article against a consensus that goes against his agenda. Handyunits (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Without debating the veracity of the facts in the Indian section, can we first establish if it would belong in the article if true? Do the sources describe these events as specifically resulting from a "rape culture"? If not, they are poor examples. Examples need to be sourced as examples. Since we're only looking for examples, and not a comprehensive list, any item that doesn't have a sourced connection to "Rape culture" should be removed, without a side debate about it's veracity. APL (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Some sources currently cited in the article that make no mention of 'rape culture'
- For Indian Rape Laws, Change Is Slow to Come
- Social policy and administration in India
- The Agitation against Rape
- Threatened existence yada yada yada
- South Africa: Violence against Women and ICT
- South Africa's position in Africa's crime rankings
- Lawsuit Says Military Is Rife With Sexual Abuse (This talks about a culture of silence around rapes in the US military, which is a 'culture of silence', not a 'culture of rape').
- The New York Times’ sloppy, slanted child rape story .
This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Most of the offline sources cited (I don't have acces to all of them) could to be independently fact-checked in this manner. However, I suspect that none of them mention 'rape culture' either, just a 'culture of silence', or a 'culture of victim blaming', or an 'apathetic government that does little to combat rape' etc, none of which point to a 'cultie of rape' as such. Trimming doen the jenkem in these sections and finally eliminating them altogether by interleaving the residual content with the body of the article is the way to go.Handyunits (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Categories: