Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.

[Karen]

An excerpt of this column explains quite well one of the main reasons there is such a low percentage of young women who identify themselves as feminists. I think it speaks to a radicalization that to me, is offensive, and is not the feminism I was ever familiar with in the '70's.

Column: Why millennial women don’t want to call themselves feminists, by Denise Cummins, Feb 12, 2016

"The term “feminism” has been hijacked by a minority of vocal extremists who have redefined it as “gender feminism,” claiming that gender is a patriarchal social construct created in order to oppress women.
Gender feminism is based on the discredited belief that humans are born as blank slates and all sex differences are artifacts of socialization. They believe the only way to achieve true political and economic equality is to erase all differences between men and women by rigidly socializing boys and girls to be the same."

[Anne]

Egads more phone typos sorry: If grab them by the pussy doesn't convince you of rape culture then nothing I say is going to. And if using the term rape culture is objectionable to rape victims which I can understand then call it subjugation via sexual power, any gender, sometimes deadly. Rape culture terminology is an academic abstraction and can be used for good or evil or as a tool in working through this social issue.

[Somerandom]

Mickey wrote: "Well, Somerandom, it seems you will be getting two pieces of advice that are directly opposed to each other. Gary is in effect saying that you must generalize more (by thinking of rape as a tool me..."

I would agree with your assertion. Many times society will just assume that because a victim (male or female) doesn't react in a way that is logical to them, means they aren't really resisting "correctly." Or they secretly wanted it or what have you.
Well I just assumed that the meaning came across as "generally speaking this is potentially how it would make them feel."
Sorry for not being specific in my wording.
Long day.

[Somerandom]

Gary wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "But like you said, the definition as it stands now does nothing to help. It erases male victims, it paints women as defenseless damsels and men as predators prowling the streets...."
If the very definition used directly ignores men as victims, then it is in effect erasing their experiences from Rape Culture. If the definition that was most popular was less vague on the various nuances then I wouldn't have a problem with it. As it stands now, it essentially erases experiences of rape victims simply because they are in the minority of those cases.
I'm not saying "this is not the same in every case"
I'm saying that there are far more nuances that rape culture, as it is being used in the vernacular sense, does nothing to address.

Look at the stats for Men who have sex with men and HIV/AIDS. Obviously it affects that particular subset of people more frequently so there are campaigns directed towards them. But just because men who have sex with women or women who have sex with women do not contract HIV in the same numbers doesn't mean that general discussion avoids or doesn't stress them. They are included, because to not include victims in discussions on ways to help just because it doesn't affect them as much as other people (for whatever reason) is just plain callous.

You have to include the gray areas, you have to include the minority of cases, you have to include everyone it effects. Because this sort of thing is too damaging not to.

[Gary]

Somerandom wrote: "If the very definition used directly ignores men as victims, then it is in effect erasing their experiences from Rape Culture. If the definition that was most popular was less vague on the various nuances then I wouldn't have a problem with it. As it stands now, it essentially erases experiences of rape victims simply because they are in the minority of those cases."

Well, this is going to be a bit pointed, but I can't really not be in response here. You may not realize it, but that, right there, is exactly an example of what I'm talking about. Not only does your assessment critique the concept by focusing on a particular aspect of it, claiming it is incomplete, but it dismisses the entire concept on that basis. You may think you're trying to be inclusive, but you're effectively nullifying.

Somerandom wrote: "I'm not saying "this is not the same in every case" I'm saying that there are far more nuances that rape culture, as it is being used in the vernacular sense, does nothing to address."

What if it really does include those things, though? What if the discussion of rape culture is dealing with your concerns, but you've missed it because you've read the critiques from people who are (purposefully or simply out of ignorance) mis-representing the situation? What if the actual definition of "rape culture" defined by Wikipedia says "a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse." That is, in fact, gender neutral. It already includes, as the common definition, the kinds of acts you're talking about.

Further, what if the on-going dialogue about the term does include your concerns? For example, if you google "rape culture definition" the first result is, predictably, from Wikipedia. The next three articles are:

#2: This one doesn't include specific examples like those you raise, but it does illustrate the broadening definition over time:

http://www.wavaw.ca/what-is-rape-cult...

#3: "Most women and girls limit their behavior because of the existence of rape. Most women and girls live in fear of rape. Men, in general, do not."

http://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexua...

#4: "In reading through feminist forums and articles online, particularly in articles about rape or sexual assault, I notice that sometimes in the comments section, people make statements about how rape culture is just a phrase that’s made up to make men look bad or to make it seem like rape is something that happens far more often than it actually does."

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/e...

Skipping #5, The Urban Dictionary entry for reasons that I hope will be obvious.

#6: "FACT: While the majority of victims of domestic violence are women, men may also be victims of relationship violence. Men face many of the same barriers as women that prevent them from reporting abuse, but also face a different kind of stigma since many do not believe that men can be victims of dating/domestic violence. "

https://www.southernct.edu/sexual-mis...

If you take a look at those articles, you'll find the conversation is much more nuanced than you're suggesting here, and is lead by concerns that mirror the ones you've expressed.

The objection that the concept of rape culture excluding particular kinds of sexual assault just isn't backed up by reading even casually on the subject. Are the less frequent kinds of assaults the focus of the conversation? No, of course not. Nor should they be if we're going to be at all guided by the numbers. However, if your objection that they don't exist just isn't backed up by looking at the actual discussion.

[Gary]

Anne wrote: "Rape culture terminology is an academic abstraction and can be used for good or evil or as a tool in working through this social issue."

I'd have to say that's very accurate. But here's the bizarre thing about contemporary socio-political discourse: there's a very large segment of the population that are almost entirely immune to facts. So, what happens when one of these folks reads a neutral, objective assessment, they're take-away from it is not neutral or objective. They'll read something like your description and say/think, "See?! She acknowledges the evil of the term. She just said it 'can be evil,' therefore, it's evil!"

And on that basis they'll argue that it is, effectively, nullified. The relative good or evil of the term, its merits in application or its relative demerits in misuse, have no bearing on their assessment. Your introduction of the term with broad, cultural examples are ignored. Your hedging in the terminology to account for the suffering of victims is seen as encroachment by a leftist thought police.

For some people, I'm sure, it is merely a rhetorical device, but really I think we have to say it goes far beyond rhetoric. It's a feature of the culture itself now.

[Karen]

Many of the examples given in this article below are condoned by very few people and is not how most people think. Maybe it's condoned by thug culture, but not American culture.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/e...

[Petergiaquinta]

Humbert may be a pedophile, but I think Donald Trump

[Petergiaquinta]

just surpassed him as objectionable pervert...

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: "What if it really does include those things, though? What if the discussion of rape culture is dealing with your concerns, but you've missed it because you've read the critiques from people who are (purposefully or simply out of ignorance) mis-representing the situation? What if the actual definition of "rape culture" defined by Wikipedia says "a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse." That is, in fact, gender neutral. It already includes, as the common definition, the kinds of acts you're talking about. "

But didn't you just say in message 821 that the reason why there is such a focus on women being raped is because there are statistically more female than male rape victims? Now, apparently, this focus on women is a "mis-representation" hatched by enemies of progress? Such an about-face (on the exact same page!) is rather cynical, isn't it? As if you don't expect others to notice this.

I would say anyone looking at the Wikipedia entry would find that it is (again!) focused on women. Looking at the history section, you will find it all about gender relations.

This is not mentioning the fact that I have twice given Rebecca Solnit's definition of "rape culture". This is the author whom you shared her essay in these threads. In fact, if I remember that conversation, when a woman disagreed with the author, you called her stupid and unfriended her. Later on when another feminist asked why you would share her work in a general (not a feminist) forum, you made the comment that she was not getting the respect she deserved. Now you are completely disavowing her work and pretending that she didn't say what she did.

Not to mention that your other links also give a definition that is exclusive to women victims.

I have to say, this pattern of behavior is typical of feminists. It's one of the reasons why they are so unpopular. They backtrack and seem to think no one can see it. They play semantics. A case in point which I have seen a few times: When in a conversation with a woman who says she is not a feminist, I've seen them insist that she is (so much for the empowerment of self-definition). They'll ask her if she believes in equal rights for women, and when she says, "Yes," they then say, "That's the definition of feminism." It's all semantics and sleight of hand, and they don't register that other people can see through that. It's insulting. There are countless definitions of "rape culture" that specifically say that women are the victims and men are the perpetrators. You yourself shared some of them.

So now we're all supposed to believe that "rape culture" has been deemed as equally committed to both male and female victims because Wikipedia maintained gender neutrality for a few sentences (enough to get a quote from), never mind the other links you shared which do specifically mention gender in their definitions and the excerpt from the author you had previously blasted others for disagreeing with (which dealt only with female victims and male perpetrators) as well as the rest of the Wikipedia definition.

But the real culprits (according to you) are these ignorant people who are spreading the false idea that male victims are conspicuously absent from the term "rape culture". It's absurd, and everyone can tell it's absurd.

[Mickey]

Anne wrote: "...If grab them by the pussy doesn't convince you of rape culture then nothing I say is going to. And if using the term rape culture is objectionable to rape victims which I can understand then call it subjugation via sexual power, any gender, sometimes deadly. Rape culture terminology is an academic abstraction and can be used for good or evil or as a tool in working through this social issue. "

People commit rape. I do not see society as a whole condoning or encouraging it. On the contrary, people are routinely prosecuted for rape. This does not mean that every rapist is brought to justice, but neither are all thieves, murderers, or child abusers. What is it that sets rape apart from these other crimes? Can I not find similar outrages where a murderer gets off with a light sentence? I don't see the leap in logic that necessitates a separate category for rape except in one area:

There is a segment of the population that has fetishized victimhood, and they have created this false narrative of "rape culture" to rail against. You seem to think that this side show is not damaging to rape victims, but I would disagree with this. For one, the false narrative excludes victims of rape due to their gender. Why? Because male victims don't fit the narrative. This exclusion seeks to silence them and make light of what happened to them simply because it doesn't fit into the pattern they are trying to establish (that all women are victims whether they've been raped or not and all women are uniquely vulnerable).

Saying that a wide variety of people are complicit in rape (which they are not) will not help people understand rape better than they already do or educate them concerning areas such as children's silence about ongoing abuse. It's simply about hurling insults and acting righteous. Does this help or hurt rape victims?

"Rape culture" is not a tool in working through this social problem. It's an unwelcome distraction from the real business of helping rape victims and understanding rape. The concept of "rape culture" does not reflect reality. Using rape to try to gain acceptance for a false general narrative of victimized women and aggressive men is cynical and (I would even say) evil.

[Mickey]

I would like to ask those who say there is such a thing as a "rape culture" (Anne and Gary) in the interest of pinning definitions down so that we don't have to play "Definition Musical Chairs" to either agree or disagree with this definition of "rape culture" as found in Rebecca Solnit's book Men Explain Things to Me:

Rape culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture. Rape culture is perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies, and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards
women’s rights and safety. Rape culture affects every woman. Most women and girls limit their behavior because of the existence of rape. Most women and girls live in fear of rape. Men, in general, do not. That’s how rape functions as a powerful means by which the whole female population is held in a subordinate position to the whole male population, even though many men don’t rape, and many women are never victims of rape.

I believe I have asked both of you before if you agreed with this excerpt, but I have not received an answer. In the interest of clarity, I'd like to know if this is something you agree with and if it is a workable definition of "rape culture".

[Mickey]

There is such a thing as a "culture of rape" within certain institutions, but to claim that there is a "rape culture" in the United States as a whole is preposterous. When I talk about a "culture of rape", I am referring to much smaller organizations than a nation. There are many families in which rape has been normalized, but these are widely seen by the general population as aberrations. In no way is it possible to claim that such a state of affairs exists in the nation at large. In fact, victims from such families often struggle with the idea of how different their experiences are from than their peers.

A case in point is the children who were brought up in the Children of God cult in the 70's and 80's. Within that organization, there was widespread sexual abuse of children. One man (Ricky Rodriguez), who was raised by the leader to take over as prophet, ended up murdering his former nanny while trying to find his mother so he could kill her, too. He claimed both women sexually abused him when he was a child. Here is a link to a documentary about the story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3W_H.... The organization in which he grew up could accurately be termed as a "rape culture" insomuch as rape was widespread and encouraged. There is a huge gulf between the culture in The Children of God and American culture at large, and it's a struggle for many victims to bridge that gap after the abuse is over and to find some sense of connection with people who did not go through their experiences. This play-acting and posturing that America is a "rape culture" does little to address the problems of victims of actual organizations or units that encourage rape by denying that there is a difference between their experiences and what Americans experience at large. The rhetoric that authors such as Solnit uses to describe the American experience is false and deliberately misrepresented. They do not seek to relieve the suffering or raise awareness about rape victims but to push this idea that all women are victims.

[Anne]

I agree with Mickey about terminology, culture of rape is perhaps a better way to say it in a civilized context. I would have agreed a lot more strongly before 11/8.

To answer Mickey's question I agree with Solnit except where she excludes men and speaks for their experience. I understand Mickey's position but I don't share it and as beautifully as it is written, it feels somewhat semantic and like ruminating (which my therapist forbids :) ) instead of moving forward. I see a nuanced thread that ties the concept of rape culture to actual rape. Examples of how the concept helps are rape kits are getting more attention and resources and college campuses are changing how they handle sexual assault.

example of "rape culture" aka "culture of rape" stolen from a facebook post:
.... in English class and they were talking about Shakespeare and the teacher asked "what is love?" ...kids were yelling out various things when one said "Rape", ... the class laughed and .... waiting to see if the teacher said anything...the student then said "Rape" again .... raised her hand ..... "Are we really laughing at that...rape? I find that disgusting and it's NOT funny and how do you think somebody who's been raped would feel about your laughing?" the teacher then went onto explain to the class ...

[Karen]

I do agree with Mickey's position and she has made a strong case for it with evidence, especially with the example of the documentary. I think ignoring real victims and portraying all women as victims minimizes the experiences of people traumatized by a horrific crime. It is not equal- women who have never been raped but who may be fearful of it is quite different than women who have been raped.

[Mickey]

Anne wrote: "I agree with Mickey about terminology, culture of rape is perhaps a better way to say it in a civilized context."

You mistake my meaning completely. I am saying that there are places where rape is normalized and encouraged: within particular families and in some organizations like The Children of God. I gave these examples of places to show that there are places where rape is normalized and encouraged in an effort to show the differences between that and American culture. I am certainly not quibbling about the name. Neither one strikes me as more "civilized" than the other and I never used one or the other to signify that I agree with the idea that rape is normalized or encouraged in American culture.

There's been no credible defense here of the idea that rape is widely encouraged and applauded in American culture. It seems that it is just taken as an article of faith among those who believe in it since they cannot explain it or even come up with a definition. I'm left thinking to myself, 'So, these are the people who take it upon themselves to tell others how to think about rape?' Despite dropping words like 'macro' and 'micro' (which definitely seek to minimized rape victims own voices), there is no real attempt at looking comprehensively at the reality of rape. There is no respect for rape victims. Whole populations of victims are deliberately erased from the picture in order to continue the obsession with creating a divide based on gender lines which does not exist in rape.

Anne wrote: "it feels somewhat semantic and like ruminating"

My opposition to the concept of "rape culture" is not based on semantics. It's based on many problems with the key concept and the way it is used and the people using it.

Anne wrote: "Examples of how the concept helps are rape kits are getting more attention and resources and college campuses are changing how they handle sexual assault."

None of the benefits named have a direct correlation to the concept of "rape culture". You do not need to believe in a false narrative to process a rape kit or to hold someone accountable for raping someone.

I have given clear examples of how the idea of "rape culture" hurts rape victims. For one thing, it takes the focus off the perpetrator and onto "culture". It encourages a paranoia among women as the one vulnerable group and excludes male victims. It uses the experiences of rape to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being "rape apologists". It's an unpopular idea (for obvious reasons) and it distracts from the real problems of rape with silly notions of female subjugation. Its advocates don't develop a very comprehensive defense for their views and seem to know next to nothing about rape.

Anne wrote: "example of "rape culture" aka "culture of rape" stolen from a facebook post:
.... in English class and they were talking about Shakespeare and the teacher asked "what is love?" ...kids were yelling out various things when one said "Rape", ... the class laughed and .... waiting to see if the teacher said anything...the student then said "Rape" again .... raised her hand ..... "Are we really laughing at that...rape? I find that disgusting and it's NOT funny and how do you think somebody who's been raped would feel about your laughing?" the teacher then went onto explain to the class ... "

I just don't see how this is an example of the idea that rape is considered normal and is encouraged in American culture. All of the examples you've given so far don't show this, and it makes me wonder if have a good grasp on what "rape culture" is pushing.

I believe that rape is roundly condemned in American culture. This does not mean that it does not happen, because there are always people who will do things in spite of the general consensus against it; murder, theft, and assault also fall in this category. In all societies past and present, rapes happened. Looking over how rapes are handled (and I am a former teacher, so I probably have more experience with mandatory reporting than most), I don't see that the problem is that people think rape is normal and or that they encourage it. I think a far bigger problem is that rape is seen as irreparably damaging to the victim than that it is considered a normal state of affairs.

I can remember other students giggling over the word 'rapier' when I was in the 8th grade and reading Shakespeare for the first time. This isn't an isolated or alarming incident.

I don't doubt that conversations like that happen all the time. I've worked in middle schools. The kids will often come up with the most shocking things they can think of about Nazis, gays, blacks, women, etc. I don't think you should give them so much credit as being cultural barometers. If you watched the documentary I shared about The Children of God, how is a kid saying, "Rape" compare to a what was going on there? That's a culture that normalized rape.

[Mickey]

I'll give an example from my own experience concerning ignorance about rape (and other abuse) victims and how their particular problems sometimes manifest:

When I was working as an 8th grade English teacher, I had a student who was known throughout our team of teachers as one of our "problems". She was just loud, mouthy, and rude. She would burst out laughing for no reason during work time. In short, she was a big pill, and her teachers talked about the best ways to handle her (as they did with other problematic students.)

This girl had an IEP, so there was always a special ed teacher present when she was in class. The special ed teacher attached to my room during her block was male, and he spent a lot of time dealing with her. Soon, it was noticed that she didn't like it when he positioned himself directly behind her. In fact, she would immediately stop whatever she was doing (usually talking) so she could twist around to keep an eye on him. It was as instantaneous a reaction as a cat has when lifted by the scruff of the neck. It was widely known that she had been sexually abused when she was younger, so it was surmised that this reaction was due to that. In spite of this knowledge, all her other teachers had no problem with using this method to get her to stop distracting others. There were even code phrases and signals created for it.

I was rather shocked and horrified by the whole idea of her teachers purposefully triggering her in order to get her to be quiet. I was physically abused by my mother's boyfriend from ages 10-13. As a result, I intensely dislike standing near males who are much taller than me. The reaction can get so bad that I'll start visibly panting and shaking. It's extremely fortunate that I am really tall for a woman (5'10"), and even then, I usually wore at least 3" heels when I worked with 8th graders so there were very few who towered over me. I could also arrange my classroom to suit myself. My regular seat was a very high bar stool. The students were strongly encouraged not to bother me when I was seated at my desk and I always circulated around as opposed to having them come up to me. In short, I could control a lot of the factors without anyone knowing-or even suspecting- the reason behind why I was making any of those choices.

Do I think that the other teachers were monsters who liked torturing students and reminding them of harsh things in their past? No. I think that they were ignorant of what it feels like to be placed back into a situation that causes you to panic. I think they thought, 'We have finally found a strategy that works!' It's simply a lack of understanding.

While there has been some more recent awareness of the idea of triggers, the term has been hijacked by people who want to use it to shut down other people's opinions. I've never known an honest-to-God trigger to manifest like this. Now many people (and rightfully so, considering their limited experience with it) believe that triggers are simply a tactic for shutting down a discussion by claiming invisible harm. This co-opting of the term has set back the term's real acceptance. I've never told anyone that I've worked with about it, and now I'm even less likely to, because the whole concept has been turned into a joke.

The same thing is happening to rape (and by largely the same people). They are using ideas and experiences that they have no claim to, changing them to suit their own purposes, and making a mockery out of them. This is not helpful.

[Anne]

I keep saying I'm moving on. Janet is right about me. One last time.

I appreciate Mickey's heartfelt comments and extensive experience but I still don't agree. (btw I also provided darn good receipts/evidence for my position. I also taught and am Creole, a culture with a genesis in documented rape.) Can we agree to disagree with the relief of knowing that some people we disagree with are still cool, passionate and smart?

First and foremost, no one is ignoring rape victims because of the concept of rape culture and in my opinion, on the contrary. The open discussion gives a big political and social voice to victims. I also don't think rape culture implies that people cannot recover from rape. On the contrary imo openly discussing it helps us heal each other.

I think what is happening is that the word rape is being used for all sexual assault and that is what is causing some people to reject the term. Charlatans jumping on bandwagons can't be counted as part of the real discussion.

I get the documentary. Dancing boys of Afghanistan is one with boy victims. That is an open culture of rape. America may not be open about it anymore everywhere but that does not mean it is not present. (We're not open about a lot of things.) Most perps are family members (or clergy) and never get turned in because of social pressure. Enslaved people were part of a culture of rape. Rape is often an expectation for the incarcerated. Rape is in the bones of the American culture. It is part of our animal nature that we are collectively and consciously trying to evolve beyond.

Many in this discussion are victims, as I am. Maybe that is why we feel strongly about it. How many women do you know who haven't experienced some sort of abuse? I don't know many. I know tons of men who are victims too. But times are changing. Working together against abuse and rape and allowing people to do that the best way they see fit and are able, seems like the logical thing to do.

I respect everyone here and wish you all a fantastic 2017. I bid you adieu and hope to see you at other books. :)

[Karen]

Anne, I did not mean to imply that as a culture we are ignoring rape. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

[Karen]

Mickey
I work with special ed students in 7th and 8th grade, and have had the experience of knowing students who have been abused. I am also sorry you also experienced this.
This part of your post I quoted below reflects a lack of understanding that needs to change in schools. More often than I would like to see, this does happen, because it makes the job of a teacher easier. But, that situation should have been changed by the special ed involved, if possible. It is sometimes frustrating for me as a special ed assistant to see this kind of thing happening.
"Do I think that the other teachers were monsters who liked torturing students and reminding them of harsh things in their past? No. I think that they were ignorant of what it feels like to be placed back into a situation that causes you to panic. I think they thought, 'We have finally found a strategy that works!' It's simply a lack of understanding."

[Mickey]

Anne wrote: "First and foremost, no one is ignoring rape victims because of the concept of rape culture and in my opinion, on the contrary. The open discussion gives a big political and social voice to victims. I also don't think rape culture implies that people cannot recover from rape. On the contrary imo openly discussing it helps us heal each other."

How can you say that certain rape victims are not being ignored? Look at Rebecca Solnit's definition of rape culture. Is she including all rape victims in her writing? As a writer, does she not have an obligation to know certain things about the topics she writes about such as to whom it happens? She's either wildly negligent in her professional duties or she is deliberately falsifying. I don't see any other viable option.

If you look back at the other links that have been shared on this thread, you will continually see that in feminist literature, the victims and the reasons given for the offenses are heavily gender related. How can this be when both genders are involved in both roles? It's painting a false picture. Can a false picture of rape ever be considered as "giving a voice to victims"? I would say no. The victims are not the ones speaking here. They are not being given a voice; they are either being used and spoken through like puppets or they are being completely ignored. This is not to mention the scenario where a rape victim says something different than what feminists say. Then they are quick to turn on her. I mentioned Elizabeth Smart earlier. She would be a prime example of this.

Proclaiming ownership over a population or an issue is not new territory for feminists. Feminists have been claiming to speak for women for decades. When asked about their low numbers of approval with women, they usually either complain about how ignorant women are or blame it on other external factors (I've heard some blame male radio personalities, religion, other media). Feminists do not have the widespread support of women but with women being half of the population, everyone knows that feminists do not speak for women. However, with rape victims being more of a minority and less publicly identifiable, they face complete submersion into the feminist ideology in a way that would be impossible for women. Rape victims would be far better served if they created their own organizations and were not publicly yoked to the feminist movement.

I don't see feminism's role as encouraging open discussion. Instead, I find their pushing of the concept of "rape culture" to be self-serving. Its centerpiece is the perennial feminist fixation on female victimization. The term "rape apologist" for anyone who finds the concept of "rape culture" lacking doesn't add to the discussion. They are taking a position that most people would agree with (rape is wrong) and attempting to pair it with statements that are false and way more tenuous (rape is a product of culture, rape is encouraged and normalized, rape is a tool to subjugate women, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators). There is no benefit to these ideas for rape victims. In fact, I think the shrillness of books like Solnit's with their insistence on the uniqueness of female vulnerability can leave women feeling paranoid, especially traumatized women. I don't think Solnit will feel this way, because I think that most of what she writes is simply rhetorical for her. She doesn't live her life anticipating being raped (which is what state you would be in if you did live in a "rape culture" such as she describes). My life isn't like that, either. No woman I know deals with that unless she finds herself in a smaller environment which actually does fit the definition of a "rape culture" (such as a family or relationship where rape is normalized) which would be considered by the culture at large to be deviant.

Anne wrote: "I get the documentary. Dancing boys of Afghanistan is one with boy victims. That is an open culture of rape. America may not be open about it anymore everywhere but that does not mean it is not present. (We're not open about a lot of things.) Most perps are family members (or clergy) and never get turned in because of social pressure. Enslaved people were part of a culture of rape. Rape is often an expectation for the incarcerated. Rape is in the bones of the American culture. It is part of our animal nature that we are collectively and consciously trying to evolve beyond."

Again, I did not choose to highlight The Children of God situation because there were boys involved. I shared it to show what an actual culture where rape is permitted and encouraged looks like. It does not look like American culture at large. You mention scenarios in which people are raped but do not make a case for the culture at large encouraging this. There is a wide gulf between the concepts of "open" and "present". You have only given me examples of rape being "present" (which means that it exists) but pretend that its existence means that it is "open" or "accepted", which is again a step down from Solnit's claim that it is "normalized" and "encouraged".

I'm going to leave the idea of progress alone, since I don't believe in the moral evolution of people as a species. I'm pretty sure that rape will always be around, because there will always be a part of the "we" you mention who don't share your particular aspirations of evolving.

Anne wrote: "I think what is happening is that the word rape is being used for all sexual assault and that is what is causing some people to reject the term. Charlatans jumping on bandwagons can't be counted as part of the real discussion. ""

I've literally never heard of this before. What people are rejecting the word "rape"? Do you mean "rape culture"? I don't think the the problem with that term is in quibbling with the actual physical acts it covers. There have been several people here who have discussed their problems with the word "rape culture". What bandwagons?

Anne wrote: "Can we agree to disagree with the relief of knowing that some people we disagree with are still cool, passionate and smart? "

Sure. I think you should be commended on sticking around. As you can see, the others who were throwing around terms like "rape culture" didn't stay to defend their ideas. I find this to be typical of feminists. I think it has to do with the way they are taught to think. They are not taught apologetics as many minority opinions are, so they don't excel at proselytizing or even simply explaining their positions to outsiders. The rank and file generally have a few key concepts and tend to function in open platforms on indignation and accusations.

[Somerandom]

I feel like Mickey expressed everything I would have only 100 times more eloquently.

[Mickey]

Thinking it over, I think the term "rape culture" is being used as a Trojan horse in order to try to gain a wider acceptance for the feminist cornerstone belief of a "patriarchy". Rape is being repackaged to fit into the same sort of narrative: the belief in a pervasive but shadowy social force that creates female victims and male aggressors in an effort to keep females down. Any hesitation or qualification to support this conspiracy theory is grounds to be called "sexist" or a "rape apologist" and proves your membership into the framework that needs to be "smashed".

The idea that rape is encouraged and allowed in the culture at large is a very serious charge, yet it is stated without much in the way of evidence or explanation. For instance, how does a middle school boy responding with, "Rape," to the question, "What is love?" evidence of "rape culture"? Was it likely that he was sincere in that belief and was honestly confused over the terminology that he equated one term with the other? Or was he trying to get a rise out of the teacher by saying something provocative? Does his response prove that there is such a thing as "rape culture"?

Isn't it a more sane and logical view that individual people choose to commit rape out of their own free will? Wouldn't this explain the fact that, although we all live in this supposed "rape culture", not all of us are rapists? But the idea that the rapists are the problems is not palatable to people who are interested in furthering the belief that there are vast conspiracies against women. And this is not saying that there aren't some ignorant beliefs out there about rape- but why would adding to those ignorant beliefs by pushing the idea that there is a "rape culture" in the U.S. be a step forward? How can making up false narratives help actual victims?

[Sheryl]

My problem with the term "rape culture" is that it ignores the underlying problems driving the whole thing, and puts too much focus on sex and on male/female relationships.

For instance, so many of the people defending Humbert Humbert in this thread, and arguing that Lolita was culpable, remind me forcefully of the people who defend Mother Gothel in Disney's movie Tangled, and condemn Rupunzel for her disobedience. Tangled is not remotely as complex as Lolita, and I'm pretty sure the guys who made it had no intention of making Gothel the character people most identify with -- and yet, some people do.

There are probably a lot of reasons for a reader to identify with Humbert Humbert, but there only seems to be one with Mother Gothel (at least when it comes to her fans who see her as a victim). Despite the fact that we know she kidnapped Rapunzel; and despite the fact that we see her repeatedly discount Rapunzel's reality; and despite the fact that she refuses to do the work of a parent, which is to raise a child to become an independent adult, but rather keeps Rapunzel isolated and, insofar as possible, infantalized; and despite the fact that we see Gothel outright terrorize Rapunzel, some people see Mother Gothel as "a good mother" and Rapunzel's escape as "a betrayal."

By the same token, despite the fact that we know Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator, and despite the fact that he admits Dolores cries herself to sleep every night, and despite the fact that she tries to escape and he drags her back, etc. etc., some people insist that Lolita is a love story -- or is the story of a man seduced by a calculating little girl.

The underlying belief these two positions have in common is that, in a relationship where one person has way more power than the other, it's the person with the power or the authority who should have all the rights, and the person without power or authority who should have all the responsibilities. Delores is blamed for being seductive; Humbert is excused for being seduced. Rapunzel is blamed for being selfish and rebellious; Gothel is excused for being selfish and bullying. And so on.

Even if I agreed the Dolores was seductive (which I don't), or that Rapunzel was being simply rebellious and disobedient (I'd say her motives are a lot more complex than that), I still wouldn't agree with this definition of rights and responsibilities. The one with the most power ought to be the one with the most responsibility -- but Humbert and Mother Gothel flip that interpretation on its head, and so do many of their fans.

As a survivor of sexual abuse myself, sometimes I do get mad at Nabokov for writing a novel that so many use as a defense or justification for sexual abuse, and wish he'd made it clearer that Dolores was a victim. But then I remember the Mother Gothel fans who label her a cruelly murdered victim of betrayal....

[Gary]

Sheryl wrote: "My problem with the term "rape culture" is that it ignores the underlying problems driving the whole thing, and puts too much focus on sex and on male/female relationships."

I have to admit, I'd never heard the pro-Mother Gothel argument. It seems to me that one of the things that has really been embraced by contemporary culture is satirical deconstruction. So, we get things like the presentation of Darth Vader as representing the black man being defeated by "a whole Klan!" of rebels in Kevin Smith's Chasing Amy or the characterization of the film Top Gun as a sublimated struggle of sexual identity with "Maverick" eventually succumbing to his homosexuality. Where it gets weird, though, isn't in the deconstruction, but when the satire starts to fall away from the re-interpretation, and people become not just deadly serious, but impassioned in a way that I can only compare to religious beliefs or political rhetoric, and in that context we get a weird kind of fantasy presentation of "facts" that are, often, invented whole-cloth with no sense whatever of the disconnect between the invention and the original. The wink and nod turns into the unblinking stare and scowl of the fanatic or self-righteous.

It's not a new phenomenon, of course. Characterizing one's opponents in derogatory or pejorative ways is a time-honored practice. However, it does seem to happen at a pace and volume that I assume has to do with the speed with which information is exchanged these days, and the financial potential of the attention economy in which we now live....

Watching it happen objectively is, at the very least fascinating, if a little horrifying.

With all that said, however, I don't think it's tied directly to the concept of "rape culture" in the way you're suggesting. Rather, I think your objections to the way the victim is being blamed in a modern interpretation of a fantasy/myth story is part of what the term "rape culture" is meant to describe, and the objection that it is too focused on actual sex or only male/female relationship is to miss the point. The dominance/submission of fairy tales, for instance, are a discussion within bounds of "rape culture" as a concept, and all one has to do is include them in the conversation.

EDIT: In fact, if I recall correctly, I think I first heard the term "rape culture" in association with fairy tales, in particular the more rape-aspects of several Disney versions. I'm of an age where that might not have been when I first heard it, of course, so take that with a grain of salt. However, I'm sure everybody reading this has picked up on more contemporary objections to the gender portrayals in those animated films.

[Mickey]

Sheryl wrote: "As a survivor of sexual abuse myself, sometimes I do get mad at Nabokov for writing a novel that so many use as a defense or justification for sexual abuse, and wish he'd made it clearer that Dolores was a victim."

I think the portrayal of a victim as a total innocent comes with its own set of problems. Then you are making victims into paragons of virtues. What happens when real-life victims are not so spotless? That's when you start hearing the victim blaming from people.

For instance, I've already shared that I was physically abused from the ages of 10-13 by my mother's boyfriend. All the portrayals of abused children that I saw on television had all these children who always helped out with chores and were really great kids. They would cry and cling to the abuser when he was finally confronted and say, "No, it was my fault." This confused me because I knew that I didn't fit that template, and I thought that was an important point. This is how a lot of kids are manipulated by adults: they are told that they don't fit the image of a victim. They are too loud or too stubborn or too seductive. Or maybe they didn't yell for help or didn't fight or whatever. But it's the focus on their actions that makes the difference.

So I kind of like that Lolita is more of what I'd consider a "typical" girl. I don't think that portraying a falsely sweet image of victims helps actual victims. On the contrary, it makes actual victims unsure of whether their situation applies, and it reinforces in the public mind that real victims act a certain way. It becomes a measuring stick in which to gauge victim status, as if the real test lies in the victim's utter blamelessness.

I've always viewed Lolita to be like a Rohrschach test: there are parts of the narrative in which you can build the picture your mind naturally "sees". There are parts you can use to state her culpability and there are parts that show her as a victim. Which parts you use to make sense of the story reveal your natural bent. It's like those pictures that show either an old woman or a young one, depending on how you interpret the lines.

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: "Rather, I think your objections to the way the victim is being blamed in a modern interpretation of a fantasy/myth story is part of what the term "rape culture" is meant to describe, and the objection that it is too focused on actual sex or only male/female relationship is to miss the point. The dominance/submission of fairy tales, for instance, are a discussion within bounds of "rape culture" as a concept, and all one has to do is include them in the conversation. "

The tone-deaf way in which the concept "rape culture" is being applied is indicative of the problem feminism has always had: lack of popular appeal and sub-par attempts at persuasion.

Following this thread, I have seen many objections to the specifics of the idea of a "rape culture" and the only response is a condescending, "You're missing the point." The point of rape is not to create a fantasy about gender victimization, which is something that is expressly done by writers like Solnit who are pushing the concept and the idea that there is a "macro" aspect to rape or abuse in general where individual victims do not count. The cannibalization of serious social issues like rape, abuse, and triggers in order to feed into this fantasy is not noble or virtuous but self-serving and damaging to those they are pretending to champion. Rape victims are not helped by the concept of "rape culture". "Rape culture" is itself a false narrative which purposely falsifies. Look at how the discussion on "rape culture" started on this thread: In message #777, Shaynuh said that boys who are sexually abused like Lolita are not blamed for it. You responded by agreeing with this and saying that this was an instance of "rape culture". This is false. Boys are blamed routinely for being kidnapped and sexually abused. This is well-documented. How does it help either girl or boy victims to have this layer placed on their experience where random people feel confident in claiming that a certain gender experiences one thing differently than the other gender? Yet I'm sure that this objection is due to my misunderstandings and failure to recognize the noble aim of those who push this idea of "rape culture" and graciously invites me to have a discussion about victimization within its boundaries.

[Esdaile]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Ah, the Nazi apologist is weighing in here now, bemoaning our lost intelligence and civility..."

Your completely unwarranted abuse and lack of civility bear out what I say

[Petergiaquinta]

If you have the time and the stomach for it, here is Esdaile the Nazi apologist in full bloom:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

The review where he called William Shirer a Jew has finally been edited after many words have been exchanged on the thread, but if you read along on that lengthy thread, you'll find much from Esdaile that will trouble you, unless of course you too are a Nazi apologist yourself.

Sorry to be off topic here, but I think these sorts of people must be exposed for what they are and called out whenever they spread their filth on the Web.

[Mickey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "if you read along on that lengthy thread, you'll find much from Esdaile that will trouble you, unless of course you too are a Nazi apologist yourself."

The list of people to excoriate just grows and grows, doesn't it? It's interesting to see your trajectory. I seem to remember this self-important person who thought everyone should be talking about "chasing beauty" and Apolloian/Dionysian elements in Lolita while condemning our 'Jerry Springer Show' discussions which did not contain a single reference to a work of Thomas Mann. I'm not an expert on 'The Jerry Springer Show' (I've actually never seen an episode), but wouldn't flinging around 'Nazi apologist' fit right in there?

[Petergiaquinta]

Mickey, you're mostly full of shit and your self-important screeching presence on Good Reads is tiresome, but I never figured you to go to bat for a Nazi...

[Mickey]

Petergiaquinta, look to your own recent posts on this thread: beyond name-calling, what have you contributed? How is calling someone a Nazi not fall under the definition of 'screeching'?

Now to raise the level of the conversation from the gutter where Petergiaquinta brought it, I recently read a book about public shaming called So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson. It talked a lot about this outrage culture that started showing up on the internet by a guy who participated in it but became increasingly uncomfortable by it. Here's an excerpt:

After a while, it wasn't just the transgressions we were keenly watchful for. It was the misspeakings. Fury at the terribleness of other people had started to consume us a lot. And the rage that swirled around seemed increasingly in disproportion to whatever stupid thing some celebrity had said. It felt different to satire or journalism or criticism. It felt like punishment. In fact, it felt weird and empty when there wasn't anyone to be furious about. The days between shamings felt like days picking at fingernails, treading water.

...We were the mob. I'd been blithely doing the same thing for a year or more. I had drifted into a new way of being. Who were the victims of my shamings? I could barely remember. I had only the vaguest recollection of the people I'd piled onto and what terrible things they had done to deserve it. (page 88-89)

[Petergiaquinta]

Mickey wrote: "Petergiaquinta, look to your own recent posts on this thread: beyond name-calling, what have you contributed? How is calling someone a Nazi not fall under the definition of 'screeching'? "

You screech with the best of them...take a look in the mirror and calm down.

Again, I ask, why do you wish to give this person a free pass to spread his hatred and lies?

I don't particularly enjoy your online presence, and sometimes I have disagreed with your opinions about books, but as far as I am aware you have never polluted GoodReads with Nazi screed or other hateful speech disguised as book discussion.

This is not gutter-level conversation. And this person's opinions are not "misspeakings." If you look at his discussion thread you'll see what I mean. My response is what must occur when evil expresses itself in the marketplace of ideas disguised as rational discourse.

Based on your online footprint here, I'm pretty sure you would and have responded in like manner. You have spent yards of electronic ink harping on those who use the term "rape culture." I can't imagine you would passively ignore someone who is encouraging rape in these forums or defending those who do. I hardly think you would sit (or have sat) mute when encountering the various idiots on Lolita discussion threads here who have defended sex with children in their posts or who have read this novel as an expression of or apology for their own perverted viewpoints or behaviors.

[Mickey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Based on your online footprint here, I'm pretty sure you would and have responded in like manner."

Actually, I have yet to follow a person into a discussion with the sole purpose of calling him a Nazi apologist. There is a world of difference between disagreeing (and giving reasons for disagreeing) and attempting a pile-on by crying 'Nazi'. Don't compare your behavior to mine. You obviously have no talent for understanding people and little insight into your own behavior.

[Petergiaquinta]

Hahahahaha!

Please, Mickey. Don't be so funny.

[Karen]

Peter wrote;
"The review where he called William Shirer a Jew has finally been edited after many words have been exchanged on the thread, but if you read along on that lengthy thread, you'll find much from Esdaile that will trouble you, unless of course you too are a Nazi apologist yourself."

? I don't quite get what you are trying to do here either Peter, sorry to say. Esdaile has every right to be here, as do we. I for one am not tired of Mickey, she's an excellent writer and expresses herself very well. She has made insightful arguments concerning the rape culture phenomenon, and I find them valuable.

[Petergiaquinta]

Of course this person has a right to be here, and he can say anything he likes, even attempt to lecture others on this thread about decorum and decency. But I can also point out his hateful rhetoric, his anti-semitic tendencies and his pro-Nazi leanings. That is my right, and I will exercise it as well. I'd go even farther and say it is a necessity, even a responsibility.

I'm reminded of the words of Dr. King, what he has to say about the hottest place in hell, as well as the silence of good people. And this, "There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

[Karen]

Who is ignorant and stupid?

[Petergiaquinta]

A lot of folks these days...

[Laureen]

Micky, I have been following this discussion for a long time and although you don't need my back-up, I thoroughly agree with you.

[Karen]

Laureen wrote: "Micky, I have been following this discussion for a long time and although you don't need my back-up, I thoroughly agree with you."

She doesn't need anyone's back up, she defends herself quite well!

[Michael]

Yikes

[Mickey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Of course this person has a right to be here, and he can say anything he likes, even attempt to lecture others on this thread about decorum and decency. But I can also point out his hateful rhetoric, his anti-semitic tendencies and his pro-Nazi leanings. That is my right, and I will exercise it as well. I'd go even farther and say it is a necessity, even a responsibility.

I'm reminded of the words of Dr. King, what he has to say about the hottest place in hell, as well as the silence of good people. And this, "There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Honestly, I don't think Martin Luther King, Jr. would approve of following someone around and then proclaiming him a Nazi apologist when he tries to participate in an unrelated conversation, leaving aside saying that anyone who doesn't join you in condemning him must be a Nazi apologist, too. Perhaps you need to read some more about MLK's philosophy before you invoke his name. Don't presume to tie him to your silly buffoonery.

Overall, I see a real lack of content in your exchanges with other people. As far as I can tell, you don't even figure in the review that you shared. So how are you engaging Esdaile in any sort of meaningful way? By stalking him on threads and proclaiming his supposed allegiances to a group at large? Attempting to assemble a lynch mob is hardly something you should be proud of yourself for. Although you may find it tedious and screechy, perhaps you should think of refuting things you don't agree with. Of course, this would cut down on the name-calling and preening aspects (I'd advise you not to use them in your arguments) that seem to be how you usually function around here, but I'd say their removal would not be a great loss.

As an example of engagement, I offer an exchange that I engaged in about eight months ago. The conversation was with a Finnish person who was defending her country's WWII alliance with the Nazis. Notice the actual exchange of ideas and the lack of name-calling:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

The conversation starts on message 920.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "Yikes"

Yep, yikes. Too much of calling people Nazi's is going around these days. It's a lazy political argument.

[Petergiaquinta]

I'm not engaging him on a meaningful way. I refuse to. Why would I? I'm calling him out and identifying his filth for what it is.

As for my buffoonery Mickey,, touché! I think you nailed it.

But at least I'm not a screeching know-it-all, hectoring others in a self-righteous tone of indignation.

You aren't the most tiresome nit on Goodreads, but goddam if you ain't top five, fo sho.

And thanks for helping me out with my understanding of Dr. King...you are a guiding light to so many of us benighted souls here at Goodreads.

[Karen]

I've read Esdaile's review of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" three times, my husband read it once, and we both cannot come to the conclusion that Esdaile is a pro-Nazi apologist. It's an opinionated, well written and thorough review of an important book. I don't see his comments in the book review discussion as being pro-Nazi either.

[Mickey]

There's a significant connection between the recent detour into name-calling and "rape culture": both take righteous causes (almost knee-jerk causes) such as being against rape or Nazism and transform these causes into vehicles that run on a calculated outrage and empty rhetoric. These new versions are roundly rejected by the majority (as they should be!), but it is not because of an underlying sympathy with either rapists or Nazis.

I always wonder at the special skills it takes to start with such a popular stance and then make it so unpalatable that most people reject it. I think with "rape culture", its weaknesses are the layer of gender politics that were added to it and this insistence on vilifying the entire culture. Its adversarial bent will appeal to only a small portion of the population. With the anti-Nazism? From what I can see, it's the people who engage in it. It's simply a trendy way to express outrage and to claim the moral high ground.

What I find the most irritating is the mockery made of real problems and victims by people who are just play-acting this internal fantasy. They are "fighting against rape or Nazis", but their version of reality is so cartoonish that it's embarrassing to have to witness.

Do I think that Petergiaquinta should quote Martin Luther King, Jr. as if his actions are in any way similar when he calls someone an inflammatory name out of the blue? It's a silly conceit that name-calling is a high, moral activity.

[Petergiaquinta]

Hahahaha...again with the hectoring, Mickey.

As often is the case, Mickey, you're wrong. Right now, it is absolutely essential to call out racists, antisemites, and white supremacists. The current political climate is giving them a currency they have not had in years. Trump and Bannon are granting them a sad legitimacy, and they are crawling out from under their rocks.

Yes, what Dr. King said is absolutely relevant to what is happening today, so just hush now, Mickey. I was more tongue in cheek than anything, but I'll bite. Good people need to stand up to racists and Nazis today. Good people must not be silent as these foul cretins attempt to take their hatred into the mainstream. If the president won't speak up, then the rest of us should. If it takes a punch to the face of that moron like we saw in that great viral video a couple of weeks ago or me mocking that stooge on Goodreads for his Shirer review, then heck yeah.

But you just be quiet, Mickey, if you aren't up to it yourself.

[Karen]

Good luck with your "moral" outrage Peter

[Petergiaquinta]

You paying attention to your country, Karen?