Sexist humor increases rape proclivity and victim blaming

[GAMEchief]

The effect of sexist humor and type of rape on men's self-reported rape proclivity and victim blame | Manuela Thomae - Academia.edu

Just so you know, whenever you're laughing at sexist jokes, there is objective and scientific evidence that doing so normalizes the belief portrayed in the joke, even though it may have been portrayed sarcastically or ironically.

Here is a review of the publication I made, with a tl;dr:

Introduction:
The operational definitions (rape proclivity, rape myth acceptance, etc.) seem well operationally defined through previous, cited research.
But I don't think the end of the second paragraph is a valid statement for a scientific article ("This finding is consistent with the feminist argument that rape functions as an instrument of social dominance of women by men in broader society"). While true that it's consistent (unproven if the theory is true), there is no reason to bring in that particular theory as opposed to other theories, and I ultimately think such a focus will do more to harm the publicity of this research, since again, the theory is not proven but merely not disproven.

Prejudiced Norm Theory:
Lots of citations to previous research that essentially said the same thing -- bigoted humor begets bigot tolerance. Do note that it does not find that it spawns actual bigotry, but merely tolerance to perceived bigotry. Instead, only a correlation is found between sexists and their enjoyment of sexist humor, with the causal relationship being between all people (technically, the average person) being exposed to sexist humor and their tolerance of sexism.
The last study listed does attempt to make a causal relationship between sexist jokes and sexism (high rape proclivity), but it also states that the people most receptive to adopting sexist norms already scored high in sexism. Without seeing the data (and even so, depending on how much data was collected), it's hard to say if an already-present sexist mindset skewed the average or if everyone did actually show in increase in sexism. That is, mathematically, after being exposed to sexist humor, you will see something along the lines of a 50% increase in sexist norm acceptance -- which is no change at all if you are not sexist to begin with. I imagine this study itself was designed to address the lacking conclusion of its citation here, to close the open gap of interpretation.

The Present Research
Question: Does the rapist being an acquaintance or stranger make a difference?
Application: To what extent do these newly adopted sexual norms influence victim blaming? i.e. What effect will sexist humor have in the real world, such as in court or through social communication?
I think the application question is precisely why this research is important. If a behavior is having a real world impact, such as legal and social ramifications for citizens, it needs to be known. It is not longer a debatable philosophical issue of what constitutes well-being, and it enters into a much harder science of causal relationships. The application becomes that is much harder to dispute and much more important for us as a society to acknowledge.
This study was only ran on men. Perceptions by women of rape as a result of sexist humor was not studied.

Prediction: Sexist humor will only have an influence on perception of rape scenarios wherein the rapist is an acquaintance of the victim.

Results:
The sexist jokes were rated to be equally as funny as the non-sexist jokes, thus the hilarity of the different jokes should have had no impact on the results.

Rape Proclivity and Sentence Length:
Confirmed: Sexist humor increased rape proclivity against acquaintances (but not strangers!). In fact, rape proclivity is higher against acquaintances without sexist humor than it is against strangers with sexist humor.
In the same vein, sentence length for rapists was determined to be lower after exposure to sexist humor when the victim was an acquaintance (but not a stranger!). The second shortest sentence length was for acquaintances following no exposure to sexist humor.
Like rape proclivity, sexist humor had no influence on sentence length when the rapist was a stranger.

Victim Blame and Seriousness of Rape:
Victim blame and seriousness of rape were increased by sexist humor only when the rapist was an acquaintance.
Unlike the other two areas, being an acquaintance without sexist humor created no change. Like the other two areas, being a stranger with sexist humor created no change either.

TL;DR:
Sexist humor will create sexist belief and sexist action, but only when the rapist is an acquaintance.
Sexist humor will create sexist belief, but only when the rapist is an acquaintance.
If the rapist is a stranger, sexist humor has no impact on sexist belief or action.
And lastly, if the rapist is an acquaintance, sexist action is more likely with or without sexist humor.

[C0FFINCASE]

It's an interesting idea. I don't know that I find it compelling. I understand how it could work via the long term presentation of a group in a certain way slowly altering how that group is treated but I also feel like humanity has evolved to a point that just because I make "kitchen" jokes means I will slowly change my norms to allow for rape.
I also feel like the person that would commit a rape might manifest that tendency in sexism and befriending victims to create situations to rape. Not that those thing lead to norms that make sexism and rape ok.

[GAMEchief]

Idea? You realize I linked to a research article, right? It's already been tested and proven.

I don't know if the norms are changed long-term, but following the joke, the average person shows higher rape proclivity and victim blaming, a decreased sense of the seriousness of rape, and desires that rape be punished with shorter jail sentences.

That factually happens. Not theoretically. It does.

I also feel like the person that would commit a rape might manifest that tendency in sexism and befriending victims to create situations to rape.

I don't think you know how rape proclivity works. Many do not believe that what they are doing is rape. They aren't creating special situations. They don't have that goal in mind. They don't even realize they're doing it, because it's normalized. As someone who knows multiple victims, the acquaintances/perpetrators victim-blamed and were in denial.

[C0FFINCASE]

Idea? You realize I linked to a research article, right? It's already been tested and proven.

I don't know if the norms are changed long-term, but following the joke, the average person shows higher rape proclivity and victim blaming, a decreased sense of the seriousness of rape, and desires that rape be punished with shorter jail sentences.

That factually happens. Not theoretically. It does.


I don't think you know how rape proclivity works. Many do not believe that what they are doing is rape. They aren't creating special situations. They don't have that goal in mind. They don't even realize they're doing it, because it's normalized. As someone who knows multiple victims, the acquaintances/perpetrators victim-blamed and were in denial.

No, the article doesn't load for me so I just assumed it was a broken link.
Given that these kind of things get published and overturned and that there are undoubtedly different schools of thought that disagree and find fault with any "proven" theory in almost every field I don't feel compelled to accept anyone's theory on anything as fact unless I find the argument compelling. But I do understand how the theory works by normalizing the behavior, I just don't feel like it's an accurate understanding of humanity as a whole. I think that the people that are normalizing humor and then acting on those norms might be a special case. It seems like you'd have to bombard a person with sexist humor for a long period of time and provide a culture of and examples of the behavior for them to actually start emitting the behavior.

I get rape proclivity. I get that consciously they aren't aware what they are doing but somewhere in their mind they do know, that's what denial is for. It's a coping mechanism. If the acquaintanceship correlates to an increase in the chance of rape I'd view that as special circumstance. The rapist is using the "relationship"to justify the rape. I think it makes more sense that they consciously or not created the relationship to pursue their victim sexually. Rape may not have been the intention, just the pursuit, perhaps rape is the by product of failure to win their mate of choice.

[GAMEchief]

No, the article doesn't load for me so I just assumed it was a broken link.
Given that these kind of things get published and overturned and that there are undoubtedly different schools of thought that disagree and find fault with any "proven" theory in almost every field I don't feel compelled to accept anyone's theory on anything as fact unless I find the argument compelling. But I do understand how the theory works by normalizing the behavior, I just don't feel like it's an accurate understanding of humanity as a whole. I think that the people that are normalizing humor and then acting on those norms might be a special case. It seems like you'd have to bombard a person with sexist humor for a long period of time and provide a culture of and examples of the behavior for them to actually start emitting the behavior.

I get rape proclivity. I get that consciously they aren't aware what they are doing but somewhere in their mind they do know, that's what denial is for. It's a coping mechanism. If the acquaintanceship correlates to an increase in the chance of rape I'd view that as special circumstance. The rapist is using the "relationship"to justify the rape. I think it makes more sense that they consciously or not created the relationship to pursue their victim sexually. Rape may not have been the intention, just the pursuit, perhaps rape is the by product of failure to win their mate of choice.

The entire point of my analysis was to address the objective scientific validity of it. There are no "schools of thought" in my analysis or conclusion. It is literally a causal relationship.
Also stopped at 'school of thought,' because it seems the premise of your response is based on a misconception.

[C0FFINCASE]

The entire point of my analysis was to address the objective scientific validity of it. There are no "schools of thought" in my analysis or conclusion. It is literally a causal relationship.
Also stopped at 'school of thought,' because it seems the premise of your response is based on a misconception.

Rest of my opinion had next to nothing to do with that concept.

[GAMEchief]

I think that the people that are normalizing humor and then acting on those norms might be a special case. It seems like you'd have to bombard a person with sexist humor for a long period of time and provide a culture of and examples of the behavior for them to actually start emitting the behavior.

The study literally shows that this isn't the case...
Did you read more than the title?

I get rape proclivity. I get that consciously they aren't aware what they are doing but somewhere in their mind they do know, that's what denial is for. It's a coping mechanism.

Only after being confronted with it. They do not believe it is rape when they do it, and denial or not, most don't believe it is rape after it being explained to them.

If the acquaintanceship correlates to an increase in the chance of rape I'd view that as special circumstance.

This sentence doesn't make sense.

The rapist is using the "relationship"to justify the rape.

There is no rapist. These are hypothetical situations. No one attempts to justify the rape. An objective story is told with no perspectives given on the matter. The only justification for anything would be by the participants. Thus the participants use the relationship to justify the rape -- precisely the normalization sexist humor causes.

I think it makes more sense that they consciously or not created the relationship to pursue their victim sexually.

But you are literally wrong... Why are you just speculating things? This is science, not philosophy.

Rape may not have been the intention, just the pursuit, perhaps rape is the by product of failure to win their mate of choice.

Or rape culture. The idea that women owe sex sometimes, that no doesn't always mean no, that drunken or drugged consent is always valid, that there are ever exceptions, that victim blaming is ever okay, that any justification given when blaming the victim is ever valid. So much is normalized regarding when it is okay to have sex with someone without their consent, and while it may not be consciously acknowledged by us (either denial or subconscious), sexist humor has been objectively shown to increase this normalization.

[Drakonid]

Idea? You realize I linked to a research article, right? It's already been tested and proven.

>Being published in an article=proven and truth

[GAMEchief]

Scientifically validating a hypothesis = proven and truth.

Ergo the review in the very first topic that addresses the scientific validity of the study and its external validity.

This is like research methods 101 all over again.

[Drakonid]

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GAMEchief]

It is falsifiable. And has not been falsified.

At least read the research methods before commenting on their flaws.

[Drakonid]

I'm not saying it's flawed, I'm just saying it's not right to say it's been proved. You can "prove" almost anything nowadays with studies...

[GAMEchief]

Except it has been proven, so there's that.