❤️ when I was 13 I was drinking and I was drugged and a boy dragged me into the bush and tried to rape me, luckily for me I managed to make enough of a commotion that a nearby guy heard me and came to investigate and managed to wrestle me away, this happened a few feet away from a capital city main police station, I was to scared to report because I was adamant that I would be blamed because I was drinking and I shouldn’t be. What’s more upsetting to me is not that I was denied being able to report and get support for myself because of the way rape is viewed by society, but that because of this he could of gone on to successfully hurt other girls 💔
💔 I escaped stranger/bush rape, and I had nothing that would identify the guy (except the smell and ugly shirt I wasn't sure I'd recognize in daylight) I only get to hope he didn't attack anyone after that. (I did left him with "Oh my god what have I done" because I managed to bite his finger and make him beg me to let him, while I was somehow talking "rape, this is rape"; his line was "give me sex" while he was dragging me. And I wasn't confident to let go... So I think reframinig got to him. I can only hope. I was also lucky I'm tall, almost as he was, and was fit at the time to fight/tire him. So lucky... it took me a while to realize I'm traumatized, too. )
@@aleka.. ❤️❤️❤️ it’s difficult to find the support for an ‘almost rape’ I’ve never met anyone who had a similar experience, these type of rapes are rare , it’s usually someone you know, I’ve always thought that because it didn’t actually happen I was okay, but the trauma and fear I’ve carried because of it is definitely not okay, there’s no support for these things 💔 I can’t even drink in public places anymore 💔
just wanted to say thank you for talking about this case it made me incredibly infuriated with the world in general and the fact that rape culture is highly prevalent still is disturbing
Dude, please. I've heard what SOME (fine) men say when we aren't listening. When women are assaulted suddenly it comes back on us. What were you wearing? Did you drink- take drugs? Are you sure you said 'no'? Why were you there alone? Etc. When someone is robbed nobody asks why they wore a nice watch, or if they are positive they didn't give the robber the idea that you wanted them to take your shit. Nobody gets death threats for taking a carjacker to court. For the record this affects MEN, NOT JUST WOMEN. How often does a guy get ridiculed for just admitting he was assaulted? If you deny this shit, your either delusional or you have an agenda your not saying.
It means so much to hear from men who have morality end empathy. I grew up around so much toxicity in men its easy to get blind to it and think that its just humanity that is poison.
While there can be little denying that men have committed far more oppression and violence than women, is it fair to imply most men don't have empathy and morality?
@@cchris874 Would clarify that the commenter didn't imply that most men don't have empathy and morality, they said THESE men do. But yes. It is in fact most men and I'm tired of pretending this isn't true. There are tons of men who participate in "locker room talk" and tons of men who do creepy acts and don't think it is a big deal, such as staring at someone like they're a piece of meat. It would be fair to say that their empathy and morality does not extend to women they objectify.
@@Sofia-xz4es Thank you for your thoughts. My reaction to the first post was based on "I grew up around so much toxicity in men," which I interpreted to mean, moral men aren't very common. But fair enough, maybe the poster didn't mean that. I'm male, and hope I'm one of the more sensitive ones. No one likes to hear their gender smeared with a broad brush. But I don't use that as as an argument because it's not relevant to the facts. If men as a group rank lower on the moral spectrum, then so be it, I don't take that personally. I'm very open to this possibility. Certainly I have met my share of awful men, and heard several women tell me most men are jerks. But there is one thing that I think is just not nice, and this is not in any way directed at you. There's a brand of extreme feminism which seems utterly incapable or afraid of acknowledging that there are some very decent men out there. I'm thinking of Marilyn French's book "The War Against Women," or the books of Andrea Dworkin (to be fair I haven't read most of them), and a host of others. Or Susan Brownmiller's extreme formulation that all men consciously seek to keep all women down. (I always wanted to ask her, "even Mr. Rogers?") If feminists want to work to make the world gender neutral, how do they expect to accomplish this by antagonizing men with these unconditional brush strokes? Again, not saying most feminists. I just bought a new book on how to raise boys. The women who wrote it states: "The world is full of fabulous men who are wonderful partners, fathers, uncles, coaches, educators, businessmen, academics, scientists, chefs, doctors, nurses, tradesmen, farmers, musicians and artists." I often feel if every radical feminist critique of men opened first with this qualifier, then they would be doing feminism a major favor.
@@cchris874 If feminism considered men's feelings above the subject of our safety, then it would not be feminism. I think you understand that we can't take that risk of giving every man the benefit of the doubt and we should be wary of all men. I take it you've seen feminists say "all men are this and that" and of course if you take it word to word it couldn't be correct. Problem is if we leave out all men and make a point that there's decent men out there, they would think it's not about them. Every time I saw a man comment "not all men" and I questioned them, their misogyny would come out real quick. What we need is for men to hold themselves and each other accountable because they are in power in society. We're not failing feminism for leaving out all the "nice guys", if you're a good man and a feminist then you would know this isn't about you.
@@Sofia-xz4es Agree to some extent. Because while the main reason for feminism is the welfare of women, ultimately feminism is about gender neutrality, and that means ultimately fairness for everyone. I don't know why acknowledging there are many decent men out there implies we put their feelings above women's safety. Yes, this is not about men and their feelings. I totally agree with you. But ultimately if we want men to change their ways, we have to work WITH them. Antagonizing them, I believe, is not helpful to women. "Problem is if we leave out all men and make a point that there's decent men out there, they would think it's not about them." I totally get that. But it has to be balanced by the antagonism factor. Is there perhaps a middle ground somewhere? Am I making this thread about me? To an extent, yes. Not because I think the feelings of men are more important than feminism. But every nuance has its place in a conversation involving gender. If I think there's a case for some unfairness directed at men, I don't mean to give that priority over the oppression of women. But there is a place, I think, for this conversation, and I'm tring to do it modestly and fairly. Just curious, would you care to take a stab at this. Using women as the yardstick, would you care to speculate what proportion of men are a lot worse than the female average, in terms of overall decency? It wouldn't offend me if you say 1% even.
Thank you for doing this, it’s infuriating that a lot of women’s SA gets swept under the rug. Not to mention getting blamed and questioned nonstop about whether or not you may have given constant. I wasn’t able to go out of my house because I feared being attacked again. Then these boys are worried about their lives being ruined because you report the crime.
Can I answer for her? Literally every female & a good percentage of the men I know have had something happen. The thing is it's not usually some stranger in a mask jumping out from behind a bush. It was a neighbor, an ex boyfriend, an uncle, a babysitter, someone they thought was a friend. Yes including ME. I've watched friends who were killing life be assaulted & completely fall apart, sometimes immediately, sometimes years later. Not just women, but more often women yes. Look at this case, a girl is starting to date a guy. Football player from another school. They go to a party, she gets too drunk, which we've all done. Next thing people who she thought were normal kids, her friends, are assaulting her & posting it all online.
Also I think you should really & honestly as the people in your life. Most of my friends are male, both gay & straight. Even tho I love & trust me I haven't told most my story, except in the most vague terms. I think it would be easy for even my best friends who have known me since we were teens to assume nothing ever happened to me, even tho we were hanging out at the time.
Mmm I wouldn’t give them passes so easily in saying they were laughing because their baby brains didn’t know rape was bad. They definitely knew, just as much as they knew no one in their circle would care enough to call it rape. It’s the kind of laugh where you’re in a group and someone says something everyone understands to be mean and rude, but you laugh because of the absurdity that the person saying it really didn’t care about consequences. How else do you deal with the recognition that a social norm was broken, but you have enough allegiance to the group to say nothing? You have to laugh
1:02:02 There's evidence of degrading of professions (status, pay), historically, as women enter the field. Teachers were highly respected when there were only males (especially at the beginning, when among few most literate/educated person in town, beside a priest, doctor/dentist/pharmacist) And there's a patriarchal hierarchy whenever women get into field more, that reflects & make 🔄 (perpetuate?*) general sexism in society. The more like child/women related the more denigrated ( in the field, for example pediatrician vs, say cardiologist) And names for professional positions are/were gendered, with different _respect levels_ associations, etc. *I'm not native English speaker, but there's extensive feminist literature on the phenomena.
I taught high school (and then went down to middle schools-again- High School Football Culture is insane. Especially here in some towns in the South (mainly) with SOME high schools. Especially in small towns where the games are the biggest event there! These boys, especially when the team does well-become like Super Hero. I tried to hold one boy’s feet to the fire with a grade (Told him he needed to pass), I got told he should pass, or I would “hurt the whole school.” Also, the yard and parking areas around my apartment complex was trashed was, not once, but twice. They really messed up several cars with silly strong. Then I was told my contract would not be renewed if she failed (as it was my 3rd year teaching and it takes 4-5 to get tenure). Also, I had chronic appendicitis (basically the hospital didn’t catch it at the time). I knew they were going to use it as health issue to fire me. So, he came in the mornings and sit, while I watched and made him do his work (which was mainly reading, a few small papers, and one big one. The rest of if was reading assignments-mainly OUT LOUD-so he could take the quiz in class): So yeah, I had to get up at 5am instead of 6am to help this entitled kid. I did find a new job and then refuse to renew MY contract! And then he was part of a raa was LLR awful event , with a smart and kind young woman. She went home and her mom took her to the hospital. She remembered parts of What happened is very much like what you are describing (minus Anonymous being involved). No one wanted to believes the girl.even though she had been drugged!! (Until the R-Kits came back and proved it beyond just that she had been given a drug). In the meantime, she was treated like trash and harassed by both the football players but the girls at the school. They harassed her ans did a lot of awful things to her. Honestly, the fact she kept turning up really made me admire her. Some girls physically attacked her in the girls restroom. She was the one that had to change classes and do this that and the other. She did soon changed schools (her mother had had enough). In fact, mom’s boss Had threatened her (I don’t really know how. But I assumed with her non). But it followed her (teachers from different schools and even systems talk to one another). But even then she was harassed by other students. So, she went to another local county tk finosh high school (this happened all in one year). And, then to another state for college. She also changed her last name to her mother’s maiden name! She had to CHANGE HER NAME and by the time the kit-proving they did it-came back they were all in college etc. So, when the kit came back, and proved it WAS them (as it took a lot of time for those kits to be processed. Over a year, I think). She was so traumatized (and already in college herself where she was just getting therapy) that she agreed to settle out of court with them. Two of these boys were still in high school. The other two did get kicked out of their colleges. Well, the other two had signed with colleges. BUT, they were both juvenile and the college didn’t know. Or the school and police wouldn’t call and offer them the information, yet (I’m not too sure why). Anyhow, a local teacher wrote to the schools. She was very very VERY fed up with seeing their behavior in general, how the young woman was treated (for being a victim). She also felt that there were girls at the COLLEGE/Universities they were going to would be safe! However, when she sent the letter and made the follow up cal, they were aware but told her it was more or less said considered hearasy .’🤔 So, the young woman then talked with this former teacher and a University Professor. SO...before this young woman signed the NDA (they didn’t know she would) SHE wrote letters to those colleges, sent them certified copies of police reports etc. she then sent certified mail (so she would know the two University Athletics Directors had received the letter). She timed it just right. So that when she signed the NDA the letter had been received (down to the day before or day of). I have to give her credit for that. It was genius (although it became “unfair” and “wrong” that she did that 🤔). But the police, when asked directly by the colleges, could not lie about the charges and cases. And yes, they got kicked off those football teams and out of these colleges they were going to attend. But other than that...nothing! The young woman (for those of us who now know what happened to her) is doing really well. Good job, a beautiful young daughter, and loving partner etc. BUT she doesn’t come back here to her native small town. She had to cut contact with part of her dad’s family who told her “she had it coming” based on her behavior and what she was wearing. (Yes, I did teach her and that is all I will say. I will also say that I’m not telling anything she doesn’t talk about herself publicly). She has spoken about it to large groups. As for me, I went back to teaching middle school. I doubt I will ever teach kids over 14 again. Unless they are at the Community College/University Level, 4th-6th graders. Or kids under 1st Grade! High Schools need to have honor codes where they really hold kids accountable. They learn at this age that they can get away with horrible things and get away with it (or only have minor consequences). All before their brains are done developing. It’s a great deal why more men they becomes sexist, misogynistic later. Not having equal rules for these athletes absolutely perpetuates rape cult-ire, it also puts women in danger! Because “Football.”
We need to talk more about this! I am done with being afraid of being sexually abused by guys and want to live my life not constantly in fear. I really want to be able to walk down the street without feeling it is my responsibility to not be a target.
What's always fascinating to me is the "experience divide." The women I talk with seem to be living on another planet. I once asked one my acquaintances if she trusted men as much as women. She looked at me as if I were crazy. In her eyes, the men she knew were nothing like the stereotypes we read about in rape culture . While I could be wrong of course, I know far too many men who would never dream of cat calling, harassing or worse, Yes, I do know about a few. But my father, me, my brother, my 1st cousin his father, and my trainer Dan, a man who I could never in a million years imagine being abusive. Can these men really just be a tiny fraction of a percent of men? So I am not denying your personal experiences. I believe women when they talk about their experiences. I feel badly that you experience these things. It's not your fault at all. But that also means I have no right to disbelieve by default my sister and my female friends when they don't have extensive experiences with this. I'm talking here specifically about the US/UK and Western cultures in general. So do you live in a Western country? And if so, it might be time to discuss some theories about how to account for this experience divide. Again, I do not deny women's personal experiences. I do not relentlessly question their individual claims. This is only about how we deal with an apparent divide in experiences.
@@cchris874 Hi! I'm not the author of that comment, but thought I'd chime in. You see, the issue is that you're talking about people you actually know. Of course I, as well as other women, know plenty of men who are respectful towards us. The paranoia kicks in when I'm walking down the street and there's a stranger nearby, and I don't have the luxury of knowing whether he's a normal person or one of those who'd like to hurt me. The idea isn't that I think every man is like this, but that I don't know which ones are, so I have to be careful around all the strangers just in case.
@@taboletka Hi, thank you for your comment. I may well be assuming too much about Sky's comment. But as can be seen in another thread I recently had (see thread started by Positive Horsemanship), there are no shortage of people who feel that a decent man is a rarity. Maybe they are right for all I know. Your point of view is 100% rational. It's really sad that there's an extra burden on women because of so many awful and creepy guys. If you'd like, I would be interest in your opinion of my mixed feelings about the rape culture paradigm. I feel there are elements of dogma in it, and while I don't deny it's there on some level, I think it's a question of degree. As I see things, there exists elements of a rape culture and "anti-rape" culture that exist side by side. The Brock Turner case is a very telling example. I have found in virtually every UA-cam video or Ted talk or article, the proponents of this view don't have sense of balance. In Brock Turner for example, they only mention the obvious rape culture element. But it seems anathema to them to point out the even more obvious way in which this case illustrates a strong anti-rape culture. Your thoughts are welcome, especially as I am still in a bit of flux on this topic. Thanks!
@@cchris874 I went back to the thread you mentioned, and it's curious because there are some things that I excluded from my original comment to make it shorter (and not to give away English not being my native language haha). But the thing is, while I've rarely met someone who thought that rape is fine, honestly most of the men I've met are used to using sexist language. I wouldn't describe that as being immoral, as I'm sure most of them would never betray someone, would try to help a person in need etc, but the 'female inferiority' culture is so ingrained in our society that they just don't think twice about saying some sexist or objectifying stuff. I think it's important to address that this certainly is the product of our culture, and I don't agree with those saying that men are just born like that. There are also women who participate in sexist talk, which I wish would get mentioned more, because I feel this doesn't help our case at all. I believe that most people can realize their mistake once explained to them calmly, but I can see that when other women keep regurgitating the stereotypes about their own gender, it can be hard to understand that it still doesn't make it okay and that there are plenty of other women who get offended by it. Not sure what you mean by 'anti-rape' culture though, I looked at the sentence that guy got and to be frank it doesn't inspire much hope.
@@taboletka Thank you for your perspective! When I'm talking about rape culture, I mean specifically in regards to some western societies like the US. So I am in no position to talk about say India or South Africa, where it is said that rape culture is notorious. By "anti-rape culture," I mean the opposite of rape culture - ways in wich rapists are marginalized, ways in which we (in the US) have a strong tradition of also frowning on rape. You might be aware, for exmple, of the case of "Mattress Girl," a college student at Yale? who accused her friend or rape. The university found him not guilty. Yet even so, everywhere he went, he claimed that everyone shunned him. Apparently no one wants to be associated with even an exonerated rapist. But rape culture might suggest that instead of being shunned, we should have expected this man to be praised by his male peers, pats in the back, and so on. In Brock Turner, the story generated national outrage. Even in male dominated forums, I found virtually every man condemning the behavior. The judge has since been kicked off the bench due to a petition. Joe Biden and other members of congress came to the support of the victim, not the judge. He praised her for her courageous letter speaking out against the way the case was handled. This is what I mean by "anti-rape" culture. Thanks again for your replies.
Thanks Kirk and Humberto for your depth and deep dive into these "taboo" topics. You guys are great team together always feeding off of one another. Also, thank-you Kirk for the link I asked about in regard to that Betterhelp counselling service. Warm regards, Krystle Victoria BC
Interesting how Berto defined slut shaming as “if a woman has sex then she is a slut, or loose, or a prostitute...” which kind of implies that those are bad things, which kind of perpetuates the idea of slut shaming? In a liberated world, shouldn’t women be allowed to fit the definition of “slut” or “loose” if they want to? Same goes for men of course. And if someone wants to exchange sex for money in a consensual situation, (assuming it were decriminalized) what is shameful about that?
58:13 the aztecs were an empire they were a highly advanced form of society at the time and so they brainwashed boys into serving in their armies which they need to expand into new territory and maintain their current territory (similar to the Romans). That is a not "most of our history" it is a specific period of history in a certain region.
It was not a TRAIN or GANG RAPE! It was Digital Rape (Finger Rape) They want you to believe it was penile but it was not. She didnt have any friends there because she fought the girl that brought her there ( read case file) The 2 Football players involved were Freshman and had never played a game (they were NOT star players) The Police charged the kids within 24 hours of victim coming forward. The guy that ranted about rape didnt realize she was actually going to be assaulted, he was joking (not funny) about how drunk the girl was and didnt realize people were going to think he was serious.
They believe what they're told, these people wouldn't dare look into the actual facts of case. Digital rape is Horrible but it should not be in the same ball park as Penile rape.
1:33:05 A feminist, Kate Manne, coined a term for that : Himpathy ~ 1:44:07 that's microagression! and exactly same for women. There are places *people go* to meet other people, public "minding my own business" places are not for that. Now, if you get *more* than *usual "women are conditioned to be polite" smile* after eye contact, maaaaaybe try to approach. But I stopped making even shortest eye contact with men. Rape attempt I got out started as a man trying to get to know me, after I looked up at his face in passing (it was dark, so I thought he could have been someone I knew) He turned after me and started asking me for a name, and when I was clear I want nothing to do with him he proceeded to dragg me more into the dark/bushes. And I had another similar start, couple of years later - guy started following me home, as "there are dangerous men, he'll protect me". I got rid of him by stopping at some food place (closed, but it was visible ppl are still inside, and asking him to go away, then running as fast as I could, when I thought I had enough advantage) You're all potential predators to us, I'm sorry other men ruined it for you, better guys out there.
1:00:00 It's interesting to see motherhood being described as somehow subordinate in the patriarchy when, in fact, a lot of the patriarchy actually valorizes and privileges motherhood. It's one of the key taboos of most societies - the harming of women and mothers. The Geneva Convention is all about protecting and preserving innocent civilians in war...historically speaking these would be females and infants. A president, solider or police officer are considered expendable by the State and society. We can always replace them and their system of hierarchy actually reinforces this status of expendability. Someone always gets promoted up to a senior level if a president gets killed or a solider is taken out of combat. Soldiers are expected and encouraged to lay down their lives for the greater good of a society. Such sacrifice, if bought at at high price, is often considered worthy of high praise and lasting glory and recognition in society. A truly egalitarian or matriarchal society is very, very rare. However, as Cynthia Eller points out, the notion of a universal prehistoric matriarchal past is, sadly, almost certainly simply a beguiling feminist fantasy. The axiom of the 'bargain of protection' (as it's known in Feminist theory, and emerges from Hobbesian notions of society at large, drawing in all those under the protection of the State) preserves patriarchy but seeks to maximize the defense of women in society. Clearly, not all societies have applied this equally or perfectly. But the elaborate system of male dominance is, I might argue, really one emerging from notions of male expendability with an aim to the ultimate protection of the women in society - who traditionally nurture and preserve a culture and carry the ability to birth the next generation. In many ways this is merely an efficient and sociologically sensible 'division of labour.' Until very, very recent medical technologies made it possible, men were unable to reproduce and support a fetus. If you want your society to continue you absolutely have to have women to carryout that biological requirement. There was no alternative and unlikely to be a widespread replacement for this for the foreseeable future. The protection of mothers and offspring is essential. This is one reason for the widespread abuse of women in war zones through appalling sexual violence which typically follows in war - to disrupt the 'bloodline' of the defeated. It casts into question the 'purity' of the births that follow defeat. It's as much symbolic as it is violent. Many cultures operate along blood feud lines and value tribal loyalty above national loyalty. We see examples of this in the present day and it was one aspect of collision the Ottomans found hard to manage with the management of their Empire. An empire revolving around the Muslim faith, but which contained a network of competing tribal and cultural units all wriggling around under the aegis of the sultan in Istanbul. The Ottoman rulers found loyalty to them hard to achieve; and found many peoples valued loyalty to family, village and town that trumped any allegiance offered to the Prophet or the Sultan. What values do we see considered important? The protection of the weak and innocent. Okay. We value that trait. This, however, creates hierarchies through the praxis of that value. Less 'modern' societies can afford to be more egalitarian and share the workload, etc. But that's only because as a society expands and adopts increasing numbers of functions and operations, it requires greater complexity and sophistication of social systems to operate properly. This is, arguably, why city-states emerged - through the operation and defence of agriculture and religion - in Asia, the Middle East and the Hellenic world. Complex systems of behavior and behavior regulation emerge to enable the defense against nomadic raiders and to ensure irrigation and hydraulic control of resources is properly arranged to be effective and efficient. The farmers need to be able to predict crop growth - so a system of mathematics develops to predict the seasons with accuracy. This typically falls to the nascent priest caste. Soldiers defend the crops. Defenses need to be erected and silos for food storage constructed. All in all, before you know it, you have a city going on. Hunter-gather societies have no need for such additional operations and so their social structure need not be as obviously complex and rarely develop or use systems of counting beyond 'one-two-many.' This is not to say uncivilized peoples (in the original sense of the word as 'those living in cities') are less intelligent - that is utterly wrong. Though, of course, all societies do contain complexities of hierarchies - they just might not be so obvious. Humans find all sorts of ways to figure out a 'pecking order.' But hunter-gatherer societies and their ecological requirements do not demand or require the adoption or development of a counting system anything as elaborate as, say, our modern systems. At the beginning of the Roman Empire there were four days in the Roman calendar. At the collapse of Roman hegemony there were eight days in Rome's calender. As a society becomes more complex it needs more time to function and to fulfill its operational roles and burdens. It cannot be a coincidence that the rise of the industrial and commodified society synchronized with the development of the electric lightblub to ensure we can work 24/7 without the need to invest in the expensive hunting of a diminishing supply of whales for their oil or use dangerous and unreliable gas for lighting. Hooray - we can now all work and consume 24/7! In fact, not being a 'productive' member of society brings all manner of stigma. What we see now as a toxic and malign patriarchy is, I would argue, the anthropological traces and aftermath of these millennia-old social activities designed and arranged for the reasonable function of a more or less ordered society - often a social structure (until the late 19th century) one likely develied with famine, war and pestilence of all kinds. In a post-industrial/post-scarcity society we now have the freedom and luxury to re-orientate our social systems away from those arranged for constant fighting over resources, struggling against famine and managing tensions between rival states/cities, tribes, etc. to explore and satisfy (what amount to) ideological experiments. I'd also point to Dr Stephen Pinkers and Dr Ian Morris' varied thesis of a more violent past. Though Pinkers figures are contested, there is little doubt that violence between rival hunter-gatherer groups and other tribal systems in the past was the dominant form of conflict resolution and activity. As hurtful as it may be to a hippy imagination and liberal fantasies, the evidence for a highly violent past is overwhelming. We cannot make the mistake of thinking this is anything but a modern luxury. Should we ensure women do not suffer legal/social barriers to ownership or property, access to education and careers, etc? Yes, of course. But to claim that this is due to malign system is to ignore context and the cultural and ecological requirements of the society being investigated or challenged. Where does the moral imperative lay? Thinking f unequal societies in, say, Afghanistan or the Middle East, do Western cultures have the right and mandate to re-write other cultures to bring equality everywhere? Usually such efforts are critiqued as colonialism or imperialism. Is violence against women wrong? Absolutely! Unquestionably. I'm not sure how any of my ramblings fit into the issue of a so-called rape culture, but I found it interesting to consider the notion that women are, automatically subordinate and undervalued is a sweeping one. One which ignores many aspects of Western societies which often prizes women's safety. Leading to an interesting sociological question of when and how do women fall prey to a 'rape culture? Is it when the woman doesn't 'stay in her lane'? As was pointed out in the example earlier in the episode, the victim at Steubenville was alone and without her usual group of supporters. She was alone and perhaps in a social group she was unfamiliar with and they unfamiliar with her. The de-personalization of the victim by her attackers might be what's at work here, rather than some deeper externalized misogyny. Is this an anthropological or sociological issue rather than a psychological one? Anyway, back to listening to the episode...
~30min *Moral luck* concept. And I'm really trying to do stuff that have a random chance to hurt other people or me. I don't think I'd laugh. yeah, I'm that "boring" & "fun at the party" by general society standards :/
1:57:00 No, nooo @ Berto it's evident *only* in This History Timeline. It's n=1 experiment. (No control groups and variables) We don't know, and can't know, what other history and _today_ we'd have if things went a bit different here and there. Especially early on in modern humans branch. My imagination can produce several _humanity never invented (any) hierarchy, no need for violence_ scenarios.
Interesting podcast- as always. I really enjoy your chanel and the valuable insights from the perspective of a psychologist. The comment about "positive masculinity" kind of rubbed me the wrong way, though. Why do we need to genderize something that is just an act of kindness? If my mother needs someone to lift a chair: someone who is able and willing to do that task will do it regardless of gender. I as a woman don't think it would make me "positively masculine" if I do it, nor would I expect my husband to do it if both of us were present. Just my opinion as a woman raised by very feminist parents in europe :) have a nice day
@@al.the. I mean if you cannot call out people for being delusional "here" than this place is devoid of the spirit of truth. Also you just contradicted yourself to be delusional is to lack proper understanding yet pushing it as understanding and your claiming I am that thus claiming I am delusional. I mean its obvious to people with common sense why the president is more important than child rearing, because the governance of a nation enables child rearing to exist in the first place. Without the president without a strong hierachy of governance women would be captured graped pillaged. So in order for the task of proper child rearing to take place we need the president, I mean this is common sense.
Re: Toxic Masculinity I don't think I've ever read this, (but can't be sure), generally Feminist theory is talking about it as Dr. Honda explained, But I think masculinity (and femininity) as a whole needs to go if we're going to get rid of hierarchy. If women can have "masculine traits" and we can, what's even the definition? I say psychological traits (same as colors, clothes, toys) have no gender. Physical neither, except strictly sexual reproduction ones, as we're clearly (finally) are getting more familiar with concept that neither sex nor gender are binary. This doesn't mean actual things assumed to be gender expressions go. They just get called... whatever they are. Or we invent new terms for previously considered feminine/masculine "sets" if we insist putting people in stereotype boxes. This will need time... :/
I agree with you much of the stereotypes have to go. But I'm curious if you think all of so-called masculinity and femininity are just completely arbitrary social constructs. If that is the case, then doesn't that also render the notions of "heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual" without any real meaning? I'm not sure, just thinking aloud for now.
@@cchris874 Honestly, I don't really know, but I don't think so. I don't think they are *completely* arbitrary constructs, historical factors (that could have gone different way, maybe in alternative timelines) play a role, and whatever else cintributed. And it adjoins* on biological realities, our ancestors saw as important. * /? not sure about the word, nnes here, if it wasn't already obvious :) I want to avoid "stems from" that sounds too much as bioessentialism. Again, if ancestors connected different dots, who knows what we would've had now/ Sexualities are also social constructs in a same way, it's too narrow (but wide? lol) imo, as you'd see a lot of people have a narrower? type of person they're attracted to. But that's usually preference not a strict must, if choosing monogamous relationship partner. /writing and deleting personal situations bordering TMI twice, lol, I hope you get what I mean without it, I saved it, so may reconsider posting if you think it'll help, and/or want to read) I really don't see any of it useful as it is now. Beside gender/sexual minorities finding people like them, and fighting for equal rights fights, ofc, that's crucial, but we're talking distant future, utopia🤔 here. (main?) Part of today's problem with sexualities is that irrational idea (steming from bigotry) that my attraction to a person assumes _their_ sexuality. And it's seen as an insult in cishetnormativity. Which is nonsense! So. I'm imagining people being relaxed and attracted to whomever, approaching - flirting, and being rejected seen as _not-a-big-deal_ (rejecting tying self-worth to sexual "conquest" success) And personal, psychological characteristics we prefer being more important, so much that we make labels for those "boxes" That would be much more useful to ensure people's love life happiness, than making huge number of ppl your "choice". Many people ended up in misery because few generalities were enough to get committed (as dr Honda's reality show watching expose) Half of population within some age range, minus gay, if you're straight, all the gays of your preferred gender if you're gay... makes no sense to me, really. Even within smaller? minorities known, aro, ace, there sure are sub-preferences (? again language) you'd need to communicate. So I envision: Meet a person you like, communicate openly, no assumptions, no judgments (some "old" labels useful, some needs additional info) and if you match enough so you can make it work - that's it. You try it and see how it goes. I hope this wasn't too confusing, thanks for your interest, I like questions that make me think, and try to phrase it (however successful, lol) and this was it.
@@shane4018 they are a whitewashed mirror of Erised. but my point is that the history we know of is bloody, unjust, and chaotic. we are here now thanks to our ancestors prevailing brutally and surviving luckily. bloody dice rolls, all of us.
@@phonuz i think one of us may certainly have watched too many movies but it's more Conan the Barbarian than disney. Some parts of history containing bloody conflict and struggle does not somehow make all of history a bloody conflict. Saying that "the history we know is bloody, unjust and chaotic" is just silly. Perhaps you meant that the history YOU know is those things. Am i to believe that the life of your average peasant farmer, whether in China or Germany or anywhere, was as bloody and chaotic as the French revolution? Or the Roman Civil war? Or WW2? Not very plausible. I'm here to tell you that many people over many periods and locations led stable, peaceful if not mundane lives. Focusing on times of extreme conflict and change where the most blood is spilt and chaos reigns and characterizing all of history as such is simply incorrect.
@@shane4018 if you want me to validate a strawman that there are spots of calm in any chaotic system, then sure. IMO, that is still not an accurate portrayal of either human history, nor of the larger universal history.
This was so frustrating to listen to if you want professional conversation and insight into rape culture as it pertains to men with the power. Getting information from a doctor's/therapists you will be disappointed, this was like a pub conversation. As soon as the professor starts giving information from studies he is interrupted and down the rabbit hole we go again. 60%+ time was filled by guest talking off topic so less researched information.
I would like to see research that shows rape culture is "the prevailing view" in our society (US in this case.) I would also like to see an honest acknowledgement that there exists both elements of rape culture and anti-rape culture. Then maybe some of the confusion around the subject can be cleared.
I’m always fascinated by rape culture presentations and debates. It seems both sides are always talking past each other. To me, “rape culture” is a question of degree. Yes, it’s out there on some level. But the gripe I have is the bold and unproven assertion that it’s normalized and it’s the “prevailing attitude.” That claim is clearly up for grabs. I’ll give a great example. The Brock Turner case is mentioned early above. You can argue it’s rape culture for obvious reason. You can also argue it’s “anti-rape culture”: it caused national outrage, due to a petition the judge has since been kicked off the bench, and Joe Biden (and other congress members) offered support for the victim, saying she was courageous to write the letter. Certainly this is not what you would expect in a rape culture. I see a lot of what I think is outdated thinking in thee discussions. Much progress has been made. IMO There’s a mix of sexist/rape culture and a strong traditional anti-rape culture that has become even more dominant in recent years. They exist side by side. To speak of a rape culture in a way prejudges the debate by implying there’s no such thing as anti-rape culture. It’s all implied to be a one-way street. That to me is part of the problem, not its solution. I appreciate the high level of discussion here, but there’s no real proof on offer: is rape culture the norm, or the exception, or perhaps somewhere in between? Talk of normalization and “prevailing view” I think hurts the cause. Why do we have to quantify something that’s impossible to quantify? I think it’s more helpful and much more modest to just say, rape culture is still widespread, and leave it at that. The “prevailing view” is that element that goes too far, and reflects an undue influence of the more exaggerated elements of academic feminism, again just my perception. The complete lack of balance in all the rape culture talks and presentations I have seen is testament to this. It’s always a one-sided affair. When was the last time you heard a rape culture theorist call the Brock Turner case an example of anti-rape culture? Probably never.
Just wanted to add that "sexual negativity" can also work both ways. One of the interesting claims made by the accused in the case of "mattress girl" is everywhere he went, he was shunned by his classmates. Apparently no one wants to be around even an exonerated rapist.
If you watch Sam vatkin on hookups and youth culture the statistics of girls being forced into things is very high. Also, if you watch storytimes in UA-cam there are many cases where girls talk about how guys justified their behavior.
@@ifjc7216 Thanks for your reply. I'm sure this all exists. I'm all for eliminating whatever rape culture is out there. The hook-up culture serves men, but is not particularly good for women. I could go on and on agreeing with you. But it's not going to do much to resolve which is the "prevailing" culture. I can also point to the somewhat unresolved stats on the prevalence of campus rape. You have one set of stats, the campus stats, that lump unwanted kissing and drunken sex always = sexual assault all into the same boat, and you get your one in 5 figure. But the Bureau of Justice statistics, which does not conflate these things together, gives you what, one in 50? That's still totally unacceptable. But why is this not debated? And so on. We live in an age when patriarchy's grip has been in flux, and loosening in many ways. Look at the downfall of Epstein, Weinstein, Cosby & Co. The problem with rape culture discussions is all these controversial things are just ignored. As I said, it's always a one-way street. No wonder people are confused and often react with anger.
@@cchris874 I think the stats for hooking up was about one in four girls or more I forget said they were forced to do something...so it's frighteningly high. These guys are told from the seduction community that girls don't want to feel like sluts so you have to move forward because they are going to say no just to save face... Porn, too, really normalizes this culture. I'm concerned if anything the problem is getting worse. It's concerning and makes it more dangerous for girls out there when this behavior is seen as acceptable. 😔
@@ifjc7216 Well it seems difficult to take account of all the trends and which way they are going as a whole. On one hand MeToo has brought about the downfall of some pretty powerful men. The fight to end rape culture itself is arguably indicative of this positive trend. On the other hand when 10s of millions of Americans think it's OK to vote for a man accused by 26 women of sexual assault, we cannot be complacent!
❤️ when I was 13 I was drinking and I was drugged and a boy dragged me into the bush and tried to rape me, luckily for me I managed to make enough of a commotion that a nearby guy heard me and came to investigate and managed to wrestle me away, this happened a few feet away from a capital city main police station, I was to scared to report because I was adamant that I would be blamed because I was drinking and I shouldn’t be. What’s more upsetting to me is not that I was denied being able to report and get support for myself because of the way rape is viewed by society, but that because of this he could of gone on to successfully hurt other girls 💔
💔
I escaped stranger/bush rape, and I had nothing that would identify the guy (except the smell and ugly shirt I wasn't sure I'd recognize in daylight)
I only get to hope he didn't attack anyone after that.
(I did left him with "Oh my god what have I done" because I managed to bite his finger and make him beg me to let him, while I was somehow talking "rape, this is rape"; his line was "give me sex" while he was dragging me. And I wasn't confident to let go... So I think reframinig got to him. I can only hope. I was also lucky I'm tall, almost as he was, and was fit at the time to fight/tire him. So lucky... it took me a while to realize I'm traumatized, too. )
@@aleka.. ❤️❤️❤️ it’s difficult to find the support for an ‘almost rape’ I’ve never met anyone who had a similar experience, these type of rapes are rare , it’s usually someone you know, I’ve always thought that because it didn’t actually happen I was okay, but the trauma and fear I’ve carried because of it is definitely not okay, there’s no support for these things 💔 I can’t even drink in public places anymore 💔
I'm so so sorry that all of you had to go through this.
just wanted to say thank you for talking about this case it made me incredibly infuriated with the world in general and the fact that rape culture is highly prevalent still is disturbing
Rape culture is a myth.
Dude, please. I've heard what SOME (fine) men say when we aren't listening. When women are assaulted suddenly it comes back on us. What were you wearing? Did you drink- take drugs? Are you sure you said 'no'? Why were you there alone? Etc. When someone is robbed nobody asks why they wore a nice watch, or if they are positive they didn't give the robber the idea that you wanted them to take your shit. Nobody gets death threats for taking a carjacker to court. For the record this affects MEN, NOT JUST WOMEN. How often does a guy get ridiculed for just admitting he was assaulted? If you deny this shit, your either delusional or you have an agenda your not saying.
It means so much to hear from men who have morality end empathy. I grew up around so much toxicity in men its easy to get blind to it and think that its just humanity that is poison.
While there can be little denying that men have committed far more oppression and violence than women, is it fair to imply most men don't have empathy and morality?
@@cchris874 Would clarify that the commenter didn't imply that most men don't have empathy and morality, they said THESE men do.
But yes. It is in fact most men and I'm tired of pretending this isn't true. There are tons of men who participate in "locker room talk" and tons of men who do creepy acts and don't think it is a big deal, such as staring at someone like they're a piece of meat. It would be fair to say that their empathy and morality does not extend to women they objectify.
@@Sofia-xz4es Thank you for your thoughts. My reaction to the first post was based on "I grew up around so much toxicity in men," which I interpreted to mean, moral men aren't very common. But fair enough, maybe the poster didn't mean that.
I'm male, and hope I'm one of the more sensitive ones. No one likes to hear their gender smeared with a broad brush. But I don't use that as as an argument because it's not relevant to the facts. If men as a group rank lower on the moral spectrum, then so be it, I don't take that personally. I'm very open to this possibility. Certainly I have met my share of awful men, and heard several women tell me most men are jerks.
But there is one thing that I think is just not nice, and this is not in any way directed at you. There's a brand of extreme feminism which seems utterly incapable or afraid of acknowledging that there are some very decent men out there. I'm thinking of Marilyn French's book "The War Against Women," or the books of Andrea Dworkin (to be fair I haven't read most of them), and a host of others. Or Susan Brownmiller's extreme formulation that all men consciously seek to keep all women down. (I always wanted to ask her, "even Mr. Rogers?") If feminists want to work to make the world gender neutral, how do they expect to accomplish this by antagonizing men with these unconditional brush strokes? Again, not saying most feminists. I just bought a new book on how to raise boys. The women who wrote it states:
"The world is full of fabulous men who are wonderful partners, fathers, uncles, coaches, educators, businessmen, academics, scientists, chefs, doctors, nurses, tradesmen, farmers, musicians and artists."
I often feel if every radical feminist critique of men opened first with this qualifier, then they would be doing feminism a major favor.
@@cchris874 If feminism considered men's feelings above the subject of our safety, then it would not be feminism. I think you understand that we can't take that risk of giving every man the benefit of the doubt and we should be wary of all men.
I take it you've seen feminists say "all men are this and that" and of course if you take it word to word it couldn't be correct. Problem is if we leave out all men and make a point that there's decent men out there, they would think it's not about them. Every time I saw a man comment "not all men" and I questioned them, their misogyny would come out real quick.
What we need is for men to hold themselves and each other accountable because they are in power in society. We're not failing feminism for leaving out all the "nice guys", if you're a good man and a feminist then you would know this isn't about you.
@@Sofia-xz4es Agree to some extent. Because while the main reason for feminism is the welfare of women, ultimately feminism is about gender neutrality, and that means ultimately fairness for everyone. I don't know why acknowledging there are many decent men out there implies we put their feelings above women's safety. Yes, this is not about men and their feelings. I totally agree with you. But ultimately if we want men to change their ways, we have to work WITH them. Antagonizing them, I believe, is not helpful to women.
"Problem is if we leave out all men and make a point that there's decent men out there, they would think it's not about them."
I totally get that. But it has to be balanced by the antagonism factor. Is there perhaps a middle ground somewhere?
Am I making this thread about me? To an extent, yes. Not because I think the feelings of men are more important than feminism. But every nuance has its place in a conversation involving gender. If I think there's a case for some unfairness directed at men, I don't mean to give that priority over the oppression of women. But there is a place, I think, for this conversation, and I'm tring to do it modestly and fairly.
Just curious, would you care to take a stab at this. Using women as the yardstick, would you care to speculate what proportion of men are a lot worse than the female average, in terms of overall decency? It wouldn't offend me if you say 1% even.
Thank you for doing this, it’s infuriating that a lot of women’s SA gets swept under the rug. Not to mention getting blamed and questioned nonstop about whether or not you may have given constant. I wasn’t able to go out of my house because I feared being attacked again. Then these boys are worried about their lives being ruined because you report the crime.
Can I answer for her? Literally every female & a good percentage of the men I know have had something happen. The thing is it's not usually some stranger in a mask jumping out from behind a bush. It was a neighbor, an ex boyfriend, an uncle, a babysitter, someone they thought was a friend. Yes including ME. I've watched friends who were killing life be assaulted & completely fall apart, sometimes immediately, sometimes years later. Not just women, but more often women yes. Look at this case, a girl is starting to date a guy. Football player from another school. They go to a party, she gets too drunk, which we've all done. Next thing people who she thought were normal kids, her friends, are assaulting her & posting it all online.
Also I think you should really & honestly as the people in your life. Most of my friends are male, both gay & straight. Even tho I love & trust me I haven't told most my story, except in the most vague terms. I think it would be easy for even my best friends who have known me since we were teens to assume nothing ever happened to me, even tho we were hanging out at the time.
Mmm I wouldn’t give them passes so easily in saying they were laughing because their baby brains didn’t know rape was bad. They definitely knew, just as much as they knew no one in their circle would care enough to call it rape. It’s the kind of laugh where you’re in a group and someone says something everyone understands to be mean and rude, but you laugh because of the absurdity that the person saying it really didn’t care about consequences. How else do you deal with the recognition that a social norm was broken, but you have enough allegiance to the group to say nothing? You have to laugh
Thank you so much for talking about this subject. It is such a big issue that we need to change!!
1:02:02
There's evidence of degrading of professions (status, pay), historically, as women enter the field.
Teachers were highly respected when there were only males (especially at the beginning, when among few most literate/educated person in town, beside a priest, doctor/dentist/pharmacist)
And there's a patriarchal hierarchy whenever women get into field more, that reflects & make 🔄 (perpetuate?*) general sexism in society.
The more like child/women related the more denigrated ( in the field, for example pediatrician vs, say cardiologist)
And names for professional positions are/were gendered, with different _respect levels_ associations, etc.
*I'm not native English speaker, but there's extensive feminist literature on the phenomena.
You guys have to react to the movie promising young woman !!
My brother works for a metropolitan police department and they use social media for sure to investigate.
I taught high school (and then went down to middle schools-again- High School Football Culture is insane. Especially here in some towns in the South (mainly) with SOME high schools. Especially in small towns where the games are the biggest event there!
These boys, especially when the team does well-become like Super Hero. I tried to hold one boy’s feet to the fire with a grade (Told him he needed to pass), I got told he should pass, or I would “hurt the whole school.” Also, the yard and parking areas around my apartment complex was trashed was, not once, but twice. They really messed up several cars with silly strong. Then I was told my contract would not be renewed if she failed (as it was my 3rd year teaching and it takes 4-5 to get tenure). Also, I had chronic appendicitis (basically the hospital didn’t catch it at the time). I knew they were going to use it as health issue to fire me. So, he came in the mornings and sit, while I watched and made him do his work (which was mainly reading, a few small papers, and one big one. The rest of if was reading assignments-mainly OUT LOUD-so he could take the quiz in class): So yeah, I had to get up at 5am instead of 6am to help this entitled kid. I did find a new job and then refuse to renew MY contract! And then he was part of a raa was LLR awful event , with a smart and kind young woman. She went home and her mom took her to the hospital. She remembered parts of What happened is very much like what you are describing (minus Anonymous being involved). No one wanted to believes the girl.even though she had been drugged!! (Until the R-Kits came back and proved it beyond just that she had been given a drug). In the meantime, she was treated like trash and harassed by both the football players but the girls at the school. They harassed her ans did a lot of awful things to her. Honestly, the fact she kept turning up really made me admire her. Some girls physically attacked her in the girls restroom. She was the one that had to change classes and do this that and the other. She did soon changed schools (her mother had had enough). In fact, mom’s boss Had threatened her (I don’t really know how. But I assumed with her non). But it followed her (teachers from different schools and even systems talk to one another). But even then she was harassed by other students. So, she went to another local county tk finosh high school (this happened all in one year). And, then to another state for college. She also changed her last name to her mother’s maiden name! She had to CHANGE HER NAME and by the time the kit-proving they did it-came back they were all in college etc. So, when the kit came back, and proved it WAS them (as it took a lot of time for those kits to be processed. Over a year, I think). She was so traumatized (and already in college herself where she was just getting therapy) that she agreed to settle out of court with them. Two of these boys were still in high school. The other two did get kicked out of their colleges. Well, the other two had signed with colleges. BUT, they were both juvenile and the college didn’t know. Or the school and police wouldn’t call and offer them the information, yet (I’m not too sure why). Anyhow, a local teacher wrote to the schools. She was very very VERY fed up with seeing their behavior in general, how the young woman was treated (for being a victim). She also felt that there were girls at the COLLEGE/Universities they were going to would be safe! However, when she sent the letter and made the follow up cal, they were aware but told her it was more or less said considered hearasy .’🤔 So, the young woman then talked with this former teacher and a University Professor. SO...before this young woman signed the NDA (they didn’t know she would) SHE wrote letters to those colleges, sent them certified copies of police reports etc. she then sent certified mail (so she would know the two University Athletics Directors had received the letter). She timed it just right. So that when she signed the NDA the letter had been received (down to the day before or day of). I have to give her credit for that. It was genius (although it became “unfair” and “wrong” that she did that 🤔). But the police, when asked directly by the colleges, could not lie about the charges and cases. And yes, they got kicked off those football teams and out of these colleges they were going to attend. But other than that...nothing! The young woman (for those of us who now know what happened to her) is doing really well. Good job, a beautiful young daughter, and loving partner etc. BUT she doesn’t come back here to her native small town. She had to cut contact with part of her dad’s family who told her “she had it coming” based on her behavior and what she was wearing. (Yes, I did teach her and that is all I will say. I will also say that I’m not telling anything she doesn’t talk about herself publicly). She has spoken about it to large groups. As for me, I went back to teaching middle school. I doubt I will ever teach kids over 14 again. Unless they are at the Community College/University Level, 4th-6th graders. Or kids under 1st Grade! High Schools need to have honor codes where they really hold kids accountable. They learn at this age that they can get away with horrible things and get away with it (or only have minor consequences). All before their brains are done developing. It’s a great deal why more men they becomes sexist, misogynistic later. Not having equal rules for these athletes absolutely perpetuates rape cult-ire, it also puts women in danger! Because “Football.”
We need to talk more about this! I am done with being afraid of being sexually abused by guys and want to live my life not constantly in fear. I really want to be able to walk down the street without feeling it is my responsibility to not be a target.
What's always fascinating to me is the "experience divide." The women I talk with seem to be living on another planet. I once asked one my acquaintances if she trusted men as much as women. She looked at me as if I were crazy. In her eyes, the men she knew were nothing like the stereotypes we read about in rape culture . While I could be wrong of course, I know far too many men who would never dream of cat calling, harassing or worse, Yes, I do know about a few. But my father, me, my brother, my 1st cousin his father, and my trainer Dan, a man who I could never in a million years imagine being abusive. Can these men really just be a tiny fraction of a percent of men?
So I am not denying your personal experiences. I believe women when they talk about their experiences. I feel badly that you experience these things. It's not your fault at all. But that also means I have no right to disbelieve by default my sister and my female friends when they don't have extensive experiences with this. I'm talking here specifically about the US/UK and Western cultures in general.
So do you live in a Western country? And if so, it might be time to discuss some theories about how to account for this experience divide. Again, I do not deny women's personal experiences. I do not relentlessly question their individual claims. This is only about how we deal with an apparent divide in experiences.
@@cchris874 Hi! I'm not the author of that comment, but thought I'd chime in. You see, the issue is that you're talking about people you actually know. Of course I, as well as other women, know plenty of men who are respectful towards us. The paranoia kicks in when I'm walking down the street and there's a stranger nearby, and I don't have the luxury of knowing whether he's a normal person or one of those who'd like to hurt me. The idea isn't that I think every man is like this, but that I don't know which ones are, so I have to be careful around all the strangers just in case.
@@taboletka Hi, thank you for your comment. I may well be assuming too much about Sky's comment. But as can be seen in another thread I recently had (see thread started by Positive Horsemanship), there are no shortage of people who feel that a decent man is a rarity. Maybe they are right for all I know.
Your point of view is 100% rational. It's really sad that there's an extra burden on women because of so many awful and creepy guys.
If you'd like, I would be interest in your opinion of my mixed feelings about the rape culture paradigm. I feel there are elements of dogma in it, and while I don't deny it's there on some level, I think it's a question of degree. As I see things, there exists elements of a rape culture and "anti-rape" culture that exist side by side. The Brock Turner case is a very telling example. I have found in virtually every UA-cam video or Ted talk or article, the proponents of this view don't have sense of balance. In Brock Turner for example, they only mention the obvious rape culture element. But it seems anathema to them to point out the even more obvious way in which this case illustrates a strong anti-rape culture. Your thoughts are welcome, especially as I am still in a bit of flux on this topic. Thanks!
@@cchris874 I went back to the thread you mentioned, and it's curious because there are some things that I excluded from my original comment to make it shorter (and not to give away English not being my native language haha). But the thing is, while I've rarely met someone who thought that rape is fine, honestly most of the men I've met are used to using sexist language.
I wouldn't describe that as being immoral, as I'm sure most of them would never betray someone, would try to help a person in need etc, but the 'female inferiority' culture is so ingrained in our society that they just don't think twice about saying some sexist or objectifying stuff. I think it's important to address that this certainly is the product of our culture, and I don't agree with those saying that men are just born like that.
There are also women who participate in sexist talk, which I wish would get mentioned more, because I feel this doesn't help our case at all. I believe that most people can realize their mistake once explained to them calmly, but I can see that when other women keep regurgitating the stereotypes about their own gender, it can be hard to understand that it still doesn't make it okay and that there are plenty of other women who get offended by it.
Not sure what you mean by 'anti-rape' culture though, I looked at the sentence that guy got and to be frank it doesn't inspire much hope.
@@taboletka Thank you for your perspective! When I'm talking about rape culture, I mean specifically in regards to some western societies like the US. So I am in no position to talk about say India or South Africa, where it is said that rape culture is notorious.
By "anti-rape culture," I mean the opposite of rape culture - ways in wich rapists are marginalized, ways in which we (in the US) have a strong tradition of also frowning on rape. You might be aware, for exmple, of the case of "Mattress Girl," a college student at Yale? who accused her friend or rape. The university found him not guilty. Yet even so, everywhere he went, he claimed that everyone shunned him. Apparently no one wants to be associated with even an exonerated rapist. But rape culture might suggest that instead of being shunned, we should have expected this man to be praised by his male peers, pats in the back, and so on.
In Brock Turner, the story generated national outrage. Even in male dominated forums, I found virtually every man condemning the behavior. The judge has since been kicked off the bench due to a petition. Joe Biden and other members of congress came to the support of the victim, not the judge. He praised her for her courageous letter speaking out against the way the case was handled. This is what I mean by "anti-rape" culture.
Thanks again for your replies.
Thanks Kirk and Humberto for your depth and deep dive into these "taboo" topics. You guys are great team together always feeding off of one another.
Also, thank-you Kirk for the link I asked about in regard to that Betterhelp counselling service.
Warm regards,
Krystle
Victoria BC
Interesting how Berto defined slut shaming as “if a woman has sex then she is a slut, or loose, or a prostitute...” which kind of implies that those are bad things, which kind of perpetuates the idea of slut shaming? In a liberated world, shouldn’t women be allowed to fit the definition of “slut” or “loose” if they want to? Same goes for men of course. And if someone wants to exchange sex for money in a consensual situation, (assuming it were decriminalized) what is shameful about that?
58:13 the aztecs were an empire they were a highly advanced form of society at the time and so they brainwashed boys into serving in their armies which they need to expand into new territory and maintain their current territory (similar to the Romans). That is a not "most of our history" it is a specific period of history in a certain region.
It was not a TRAIN or GANG RAPE! It was Digital Rape (Finger Rape) They want you to believe it was penile but it was not. She didnt have any friends there because she fought the girl that brought her there ( read case file) The 2 Football players involved were Freshman and had never played a game (they were NOT star players) The Police charged the kids within 24 hours of victim coming forward.
The guy that ranted about rape didnt realize she was actually going to be assaulted, he was joking (not funny) about how drunk the girl was and didnt realize people were going to think he was serious.
They believe what they're told, these people wouldn't dare look into the actual facts of case. Digital rape is Horrible but it should not be in the same ball park as Penile rape.
@@redknights4life384 💯
1:33:05
A feminist, Kate Manne, coined a term for that : Himpathy
~ 1:44:07 that's microagression!
and exactly same for women.
There are places *people go* to meet other people,
public "minding my own business" places are not for that.
Now, if you get *more* than *usual "women are conditioned to be polite" smile* after eye contact, maaaaaybe try to approach.
But I stopped making even shortest eye contact with men.
Rape attempt I got out started as a man trying to get to know me, after I looked up at his face in passing (it was dark, so I thought he could have been someone I knew)
He turned after me and started asking me for a name, and when I was clear I want nothing to do with him he proceeded to dragg me more into the dark/bushes.
And I had another similar start, couple of years later - guy started following me home, as "there are dangerous men, he'll protect me". I got rid of him by stopping at some food place (closed, but it was visible ppl are still inside, and asking him to go away, then running as fast as I could, when I thought I had enough advantage)
You're all potential predators to us, I'm sorry other men ruined it for you, better guys out there.
1:00:00 It's interesting to see motherhood being described as somehow subordinate in the patriarchy when, in fact, a lot of the patriarchy actually valorizes and privileges motherhood. It's one of the key taboos of most societies - the harming of women and mothers.
The Geneva Convention is all about protecting and preserving innocent civilians in war...historically speaking these would be females and infants. A president, solider or police officer are considered expendable by the State and society. We can always replace them and their system of hierarchy actually reinforces this status of expendability. Someone always gets promoted up to a senior level if a president gets killed or a solider is taken out of combat. Soldiers are expected and encouraged to lay down their lives for the greater good of a society. Such sacrifice, if bought at at high price, is often considered worthy of high praise and lasting glory and recognition in society. A truly egalitarian or matriarchal society is very, very rare. However, as Cynthia Eller points out, the notion of a universal prehistoric matriarchal past is, sadly, almost certainly simply a beguiling feminist fantasy.
The axiom of the 'bargain of protection' (as it's known in Feminist theory, and emerges from Hobbesian notions of society at large, drawing in all those under the protection of the State) preserves patriarchy but seeks to maximize the defense of women in society. Clearly, not all societies have applied this equally or perfectly. But the elaborate system of male dominance is, I might argue, really one emerging from notions of male expendability with an aim to the ultimate protection of the women in society - who traditionally nurture and preserve a culture and carry the ability to birth the next generation.
In many ways this is merely an efficient and sociologically sensible 'division of labour.' Until very, very recent medical technologies made it possible, men were unable to reproduce and support a fetus. If you want your society to continue you absolutely have to have women to carryout that biological requirement. There was no alternative and unlikely to be a widespread replacement for this for the foreseeable future.
The protection of mothers and offspring is essential.
This is one reason for the widespread abuse of women in war zones through appalling sexual violence which typically follows in war - to disrupt the 'bloodline' of the defeated. It casts into question the 'purity' of the births that follow defeat. It's as much symbolic as it is violent. Many cultures operate along blood feud lines and value tribal loyalty above national loyalty. We see examples of this in the present day and it was one aspect of collision the Ottomans found hard to manage with the management of their Empire. An empire revolving around the Muslim faith, but which contained a network of competing tribal and cultural units all wriggling around under the aegis of the sultan in Istanbul. The Ottoman rulers found loyalty to them hard to achieve; and found many peoples valued loyalty to family, village and town that trumped any allegiance offered to the Prophet or the Sultan.
What values do we see considered important? The protection of the weak and innocent.
Okay. We value that trait. This, however, creates hierarchies through the praxis of that value. Less 'modern' societies can afford to be more egalitarian and share the workload, etc. But that's only because as a society expands and adopts increasing numbers of functions and operations, it requires greater complexity and sophistication of social systems to operate properly. This is, arguably, why city-states emerged - through the operation and defence of agriculture and religion - in Asia, the Middle East and the Hellenic world. Complex systems of behavior and behavior regulation emerge to enable the defense against nomadic raiders and to ensure irrigation and hydraulic control of resources is properly arranged to be effective and efficient.
The farmers need to be able to predict crop growth - so a system of mathematics develops to predict the seasons with accuracy. This typically falls to the nascent priest caste. Soldiers defend the crops. Defenses need to be erected and silos for food storage constructed. All in all, before you know it, you have a city going on. Hunter-gather societies have no need for such additional operations and so their social structure need not be as obviously complex and rarely develop or use systems of counting beyond 'one-two-many.' This is not to say uncivilized peoples (in the original sense of the word as 'those living in cities') are less intelligent - that is utterly wrong. Though, of course, all societies do contain complexities of hierarchies - they just might not be so obvious. Humans find all sorts of ways to figure out a 'pecking order.'
But hunter-gatherer societies and their ecological requirements do not demand or require the adoption or development of a counting system anything as elaborate as, say, our modern systems. At the beginning of the Roman Empire there were four days in the Roman calendar. At the collapse of Roman hegemony there were eight days in Rome's calender. As a society becomes more complex it needs more time to function and to fulfill its operational roles and burdens. It cannot be a coincidence that the rise of the industrial and commodified society synchronized with the development of the electric lightblub to ensure we can work 24/7 without the need to invest in the expensive hunting of a diminishing supply of whales for their oil or use dangerous and unreliable gas for lighting. Hooray - we can now all work and consume 24/7! In fact, not being a 'productive' member of society brings all manner of stigma.
What we see now as a toxic and malign patriarchy is, I would argue, the anthropological traces and aftermath of these millennia-old social activities designed and arranged for the reasonable function of a more or less ordered society - often a social structure (until the late 19th century) one likely develied with famine, war and pestilence of all kinds. In a post-industrial/post-scarcity society we now have the freedom and luxury to re-orientate our social systems away from those arranged for constant fighting over resources, struggling against famine and managing tensions between rival states/cities, tribes, etc. to explore and satisfy (what amount to) ideological experiments.
I'd also point to Dr Stephen Pinkers and Dr Ian Morris' varied thesis of a more violent past. Though Pinkers figures are contested, there is little doubt that violence between rival hunter-gatherer groups and other tribal systems in the past was the dominant form of conflict resolution and activity. As hurtful as it may be to a hippy imagination and liberal fantasies, the evidence for a highly violent past is overwhelming.
We cannot make the mistake of thinking this is anything but a modern luxury. Should we ensure women do not suffer legal/social barriers to ownership or property, access to education and careers, etc? Yes, of course. But to claim that this is due to malign system is to ignore context and the cultural and ecological requirements of the society being investigated or challenged. Where does the moral imperative lay? Thinking f unequal societies in, say, Afghanistan or the Middle East, do Western cultures have the right and mandate to re-write other cultures to bring equality everywhere? Usually such efforts are critiqued as colonialism or imperialism.
Is violence against women wrong? Absolutely! Unquestionably.
I'm not sure how any of my ramblings fit into the issue of a so-called rape culture, but I found it interesting to consider the notion that women are, automatically subordinate and undervalued is a sweeping one. One which ignores many aspects of Western societies which often prizes women's safety. Leading to an interesting sociological question of when and how do women fall prey to a 'rape culture? Is it when the woman doesn't 'stay in her lane'? As was pointed out in the example earlier in the episode, the victim at Steubenville was alone and without her usual group of supporters. She was alone and perhaps in a social group she was unfamiliar with and they unfamiliar with her. The de-personalization of the victim by her attackers might be what's at work here, rather than some deeper externalized misogyny. Is this an anthropological or sociological issue rather than a psychological one?
Anyway, back to listening to the episode...
I’m so happy i found this… this case enraged me
~30min *Moral luck* concept.
And I'm really trying to do stuff that have a random chance to hurt other people or me.
I don't think I'd laugh.
yeah, I'm that "boring" & "fun at the party" by general society standards :/
I'm from the 70s... short shorts were always ugly :D
1:57:00 No, nooo @ Berto
it's evident *only* in This History Timeline.
It's n=1 experiment.
(No control groups and variables)
We don't know, and can't know, what other history and _today_ we'd have if things went a bit different here and there.
Especially early on in modern humans branch.
My imagination can produce several _humanity never invented (any) hierarchy, no need for violence_ scenarios.
Interesting podcast- as always. I really enjoy your chanel and the valuable insights from the perspective of a psychologist.
The comment about "positive masculinity" kind of rubbed me the wrong way, though. Why do we need to genderize something that is just an act of kindness? If my mother needs someone to lift a chair: someone who is able and willing to do that task will do it regardless of gender. I as a woman don't think it would make me "positively masculine" if I do it, nor would I expect my husband to do it if both of us were present.
Just my opinion as a woman raised by very feminist parents in europe :) have a nice day
"why would child rearing be less important than being the president" I have never heard something so delusional in my life
whoa, we don't use delusional as an insulting adjective here, yikes for that ableism.
you not understanding the point ≠ wrong
@@al.the. I mean if you cannot call out people for being delusional "here" than this place is devoid of the spirit of truth. Also you just contradicted yourself to be delusional is to lack proper understanding yet pushing it as understanding and your claiming I am that thus claiming I am delusional. I mean its obvious to people with common sense why the president is more important than child rearing, because the governance of a nation enables child rearing to exist in the first place. Without the president without a strong hierachy of governance women would be captured graped pillaged. So in order for the task of proper child rearing to take place we need the president, I mean this is common sense.
Re: Toxic Masculinity
I don't think I've ever read this, (but can't be sure), generally Feminist theory is talking about it as Dr. Honda explained,
But I think masculinity (and femininity) as a whole needs to go if we're going to get rid of hierarchy.
If women can have "masculine traits" and we can, what's even the definition?
I say psychological traits (same as colors, clothes, toys) have no gender. Physical neither, except strictly sexual reproduction ones, as we're clearly (finally) are getting more familiar with concept that neither sex nor gender are binary.
This doesn't mean actual things assumed to be gender expressions go. They just get called... whatever they are.
Or we invent new terms for previously considered feminine/masculine "sets" if we insist putting people in stereotype boxes.
This will need time... :/
I agree with you much of the stereotypes have to go. But I'm curious if you think all of so-called masculinity and femininity are just completely arbitrary social constructs. If that is the case, then doesn't that also render the notions of "heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual" without any real meaning? I'm not sure, just thinking aloud for now.
@@cchris874
Honestly, I don't really know,
but I don't think so.
I don't think they are *completely* arbitrary constructs,
historical factors (that could have gone different way, maybe in alternative timelines)
play a role, and whatever else cintributed. And it adjoins* on biological realities, our ancestors saw as important.
* /? not sure about the word, nnes here, if it wasn't already obvious :) I want to avoid "stems from" that sounds too much as bioessentialism. Again, if ancestors connected different dots, who knows what we would've had now/
Sexualities are also social constructs in a same way,
it's too narrow (but wide? lol) imo, as you'd see a lot of people have a narrower? type of person they're attracted to. But that's usually preference not a strict must, if choosing monogamous relationship partner.
/writing and deleting personal situations bordering TMI twice, lol, I hope you get what I mean without it, I saved it, so may reconsider posting if you think it'll help, and/or want to read)
I really don't see any of it useful as it is now. Beside gender/sexual minorities finding people like them, and fighting for equal rights fights, ofc, that's crucial, but we're talking distant future, utopia🤔 here.
(main?) Part of today's problem with sexualities is that irrational idea (steming from bigotry) that my attraction to a person assumes _their_ sexuality.
And it's seen as an insult in cishetnormativity.
Which is nonsense!
So.
I'm imagining people being relaxed and attracted to whomever, approaching - flirting, and being rejected seen as _not-a-big-deal_ (rejecting tying self-worth to sexual "conquest" success)
And personal, psychological characteristics we prefer being more important, so much that we make labels for those "boxes"
That would be much more useful to ensure people's love life happiness, than making huge number of ppl your "choice". Many people ended up in misery because few generalities were enough to get committed (as dr Honda's reality show watching expose)
Half of population within some age range, minus gay, if you're straight, all the gays of your preferred gender if you're gay... makes no sense to me, really.
Even within smaller? minorities known, aro, ace, there sure are sub-preferences (? again language) you'd need to communicate.
So I envision:
Meet a person you like, communicate openly, no assumptions, no judgments
(some "old" labels useful, some needs additional info)
and if you match enough so you can make it work - that's it.
You try it and see how it goes.
I hope this wasn't too confusing,
thanks for your interest, I like questions that make me think, and try to phrase it (however successful, lol)
and this was it.
So inappropriate comment, but I've missed Berto!
Thank you for covering this
54:25 that is definitely not the "history of humanity"
i think you may be watching too many disney movies
@@phonuz didn't realise those movies are of an anthropological nature
@@shane4018 they are a whitewashed mirror of Erised. but my point is that the history we know of is bloody, unjust, and chaotic. we are here now thanks to our ancestors prevailing brutally and surviving luckily. bloody dice rolls, all of us.
@@phonuz i think one of us may certainly have watched too many movies but it's more Conan the Barbarian than disney. Some parts of history containing bloody conflict and struggle does not somehow make all of history a bloody conflict. Saying that "the history we know is bloody, unjust and chaotic" is just silly. Perhaps you meant that the history YOU know is those things.
Am i to believe that the life of your average peasant farmer, whether in China or Germany or anywhere, was as bloody and chaotic as the French revolution? Or the Roman Civil war? Or WW2? Not very plausible.
I'm here to tell you that many people over many periods and locations led stable, peaceful if not mundane lives. Focusing on times of extreme conflict and change where the most blood is spilt and chaos reigns and characterizing all of history as such is simply incorrect.
@@shane4018 if you want me to validate a strawman that there are spots of calm in any chaotic system, then sure. IMO, that is still not an accurate portrayal of either human history, nor of the larger universal history.
This was so frustrating to listen to if you want professional conversation and insight into rape culture as it pertains to men with the power. Getting information from a doctor's/therapists you will be disappointed, this was like a pub conversation. As soon as the professor starts giving information from studies he is interrupted and down the rabbit hole we go again. 60%+ time was filled by guest talking off topic so less researched information.
I would like to see research that shows rape culture is "the prevailing view" in our society (US in this case.) I would also like to see an honest acknowledgement that there exists both elements of rape culture and anti-rape culture. Then maybe some of the confusion around the subject can be cleared.
I’m always fascinated by rape culture presentations and debates. It seems both sides are always talking past each other. To me, “rape culture” is a question of degree. Yes, it’s out there on some level. But the gripe I have is the bold and unproven assertion that it’s normalized and it’s the “prevailing attitude.” That claim is clearly up for grabs.
I’ll give a great example. The Brock Turner case is mentioned early above. You can argue it’s rape culture for obvious reason. You can also argue it’s “anti-rape culture”: it caused national outrage, due to a petition the judge has since been kicked off the bench, and Joe Biden (and other congress members) offered support for the victim, saying she was courageous to write the letter. Certainly this is not what you would expect in a rape culture.
I see a lot of what I think is outdated thinking in thee discussions. Much progress has been made. IMO There’s a mix of sexist/rape culture and a strong traditional anti-rape culture that has become even more dominant in recent years. They exist side by side. To speak of a rape culture in a way prejudges the debate by implying there’s no such thing as anti-rape culture. It’s all implied to be a one-way street. That to me is part of the problem, not its solution. I appreciate the high level of discussion here, but there’s no real proof on offer: is rape culture the norm, or the exception, or perhaps somewhere in between? Talk of normalization and “prevailing view” I think hurts the cause. Why do we have to quantify something that’s impossible to quantify? I think it’s more helpful and much more modest to just say, rape culture is still widespread, and leave it at that. The “prevailing view” is that element that goes too far, and reflects an undue influence of the more exaggerated elements of academic feminism, again just my perception. The complete lack of balance in all the rape culture talks and presentations I have seen is testament to this. It’s always a one-sided affair. When was the last time you heard a rape culture theorist call the Brock Turner case an example of anti-rape culture? Probably never.
Just wanted to add that "sexual negativity" can also work both ways. One of the interesting claims made by the accused in the case of "mattress girl" is everywhere he went, he was shunned by his classmates. Apparently no one wants to be around even an exonerated rapist.
If you watch Sam vatkin on hookups and youth culture the statistics of girls being forced into things is very high. Also, if you watch storytimes in UA-cam there are many cases where girls talk about how guys justified their behavior.
@@ifjc7216 Thanks for your reply.
I'm sure this all exists. I'm all for eliminating whatever rape culture is out there. The hook-up culture serves men, but is not particularly good for women. I could go on and on agreeing with you. But it's not going to do much to resolve which is the "prevailing" culture. I can also point to the somewhat unresolved stats on the prevalence of campus rape. You have one set of stats, the campus stats, that lump unwanted kissing and drunken sex always = sexual assault all into the same boat, and you get your one in 5 figure. But the Bureau of Justice statistics, which does not conflate these things together, gives you what, one in 50? That's still totally unacceptable. But why is this not debated? And so on. We live in an age when patriarchy's grip has been in flux, and loosening in many ways. Look at the downfall of Epstein, Weinstein, Cosby & Co. The problem with rape culture discussions is all these controversial things are just ignored. As I said, it's always a one-way street. No wonder people are confused and often react with anger.
@@cchris874 I think the stats for hooking up was about one in four girls or more I forget said they were forced to do something...so it's frighteningly high. These guys are told from the seduction community that girls don't want to feel like sluts so you have to move forward because they are going to say no just to save face... Porn, too, really normalizes this culture. I'm concerned if anything the problem is getting worse. It's concerning and makes it more dangerous for girls out there when this behavior is seen as acceptable. 😔
@@ifjc7216 Well it seems difficult to take account of all the trends and which way they are going as a whole. On one hand MeToo has brought about the downfall of some pretty powerful men. The fight to end rape culture itself is arguably indicative of this positive trend. On the other hand when 10s of millions of Americans think it's OK to vote for a man accused by 26 women of sexual assault, we cannot be complacent!
Rape culture is not a thing. Argue with your ancestors