Rape Culture Theory

Remember first before reading this, this topic is highly controversial. Although I do not believe anyone should ever condone or commit rape, I do not believe that a sub-culture exists.

The theory of rape culture is a delicate matter. Rape culture can be defined as society’s

level of acceptance and tolerance for the sexual battery of women. The real question is whether

American society has become tolerant to this brutal form of abuse; although, if the accepted

premise is that American society has become complacent to the term rape, then who should carry

the blame for this horrific standard. Not only does the premise seem to be accepted, but it also

calls into question what, if anything can be done about these tragedies. Rape culture is an

unacceptable form of social contract theory and furthermore, it will be argued that rape culture

could exist as an annexed sub-culture.

Rape culture theory has become much more prominent in recent years, over reaching the

feminist blogosphere and flowing into mainstream media without a large understanding of what

the actual theory is. Rape culture can be defined as, “the environment in which rape is prevalent

and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular

culture.” (Marshall) With the recent expansion of the internet over the past decade, information

is made available to a larger amount of the populous in a very short amount of time. This ease of

access to information, leads to easy dispersion of propaganda and thus an overstatement of an

issue that has plagued mankind since the beginning. It is at this point, that it may be possible for

a sub-culture to exist, although it cannot and will not be agreed that society has come to accept

this as a standard.

Through objective criticism, it becomes easy to see who would be to blame if we accept

the premise of a possible rape culture. Hollywood and it’s over sexualization of the people that

many young people around the country idolize and in turn use as idols of endearment. Everyone

wants to be unique and special in a world where everyone is the same. By removing the simplest

of motivators and replacing it with intellectual stimulation will see the end of this supposed rape

culture. The more power that is given to a topic such as this will do nothing but empower the

violent criminals who do commit rape to commit more rape, these ideas and opinions should not

be put into the heads of impressionable young men who may take to believing in the idea of it,

only after having their minds opened up to such a horrible topic. As stated on the CNN opinion

site, “So enough with questions like: “Do you think girls dress in a way that invites trouble?”

Such questions only give rapists what they’re looking for: an excuse for violence.” (CNN)

On college campuses across the country, the answer of how to resolve this matter is very

simple. Simply increase alcohol awareness and remove the variables for underage drinking.

Although this solution may be simple for college campuses, how to resolve it for the nation as a

whole is a completely different issue. It may be possible to severely diminish the likelihood of

rape occurring, but will never be able to remove that mindset from a violent criminals psyche.

Although, with loftier sentences placed on those violent criminals who do commit rape, the

problem will eventually solve it. Many college campuses across the country have already done

their part to help curve the problem, as stated on the Huffington Post, “I applaud Princeton

University for its commitment to ensuring a community-wide culture of prevention, support, and

safety for its students, staff, and community,” Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department’s

assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. “We look forward to continuing to work

cooperatively with Princeton to implement this agreement.” (Post) With further care and planned

implementations such as these, society can bring about an end to rape culture.

Rape culture theory is a terrible concept and hearts should go out to the unfortunate men

and women who this has happened to. With the ease of access to information, more and more

people are becoming aware of what rape culture is without truly understanding the premise of the

problem at hand. Through Hollywood’s over-sexualization of everyone’s idols, it is easy for

some to believe that women may want it, or be asking for it, but that is not an accepted

generalization. With the implementation of forward thinking policy makers, this supposed

problem will cease to exist. No human being deserves to know the shame of such a terrible act.

 

Sources

Costello, Carol. “‘Sexy’ Clothes Don’t Excuse Sexual Violence.” CNN. Cable News Network, 01

Jan. 1970. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

“Women’s Center.” Womens Center. Marshall.edu, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.

 

Courts and an Overview of there Functions

Every civilized society rests on the foundation of its judicial system. The American judicial system has three primary courts. The trial courts, which handle most of the case load and deal with both criminal and civil cases, are also generally where most cases begin. The second is the appellate courts which handle the cases where one side is unhappy with the outcome, or if a judge makes a mistake in his or her ruling. The final court is the Supreme Court which will give a final judgment and a Federal Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned. It is these three court systems that make up the foundation for the American judicial system.
Trial courts serve two primary functions; to rule in cases of both criminal and civil nature. Each side has an opportunity to obtain facts and argue in front of the judge and jury their position on that specific case, mostly using examples from past cases and past rulings. There are two sides to the trial court function, the prosecutor and the defendant. The defendant will defend his or her position against the prosecutor. As stated on Civilrights.Org, “The two sides present evidence and witnesses, and either a judge or a jury makes a decision based on the evidence presented.” (CivilRights) Trial courts tend to be the first and the last link in the chain of justice, though there are a few other types of court systems.
Appellate courts serve a more advanced function then trial courts. Although no new evidence is presented in a court of appeals, the authority of the appellate courts supersedes that of the trial courts. The appellate courts are broken up into twelve districts, with Washington D.C. being the only one with two federal level appellate courts; as stated on the free dictionary by Farlax, “the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears appeals arising out of decisions of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive and nationwide jurisdiction in appeals from U.S. District Court decisions in patent, Copyright, trademark, and other specialized areas.” (Farlax) The outcome of appellate level decisions has the potential to affect many people as these court decisions are resolute throughout the district level. Appellate courts can primarily only be overruled by a Supreme Court decision.
The final tier in the hierarchy of the American judicial system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is made up of 9 justices, 1 Chief of Justice and 8 Associates of Justice, they are as follows; Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts Jr. along with Associate Justices: Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. (SupremeCourt) The authority of the Supreme Court supersedes that of all other courts, they have the power to examine state and federal law to ensure that the Constitution is being followed. The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to create or pass laws but instead to mold the development of new legislature for the sake of progress.
The American judicial system is another form of social contract theory that we encounter on a daily basis. Every civilized society must conform to rules and regulations for the protection of its citizens. The trial courts serve as the first stepping stone in the justice system and in most cases they will never reach the second step. The appellate courts give a second chance to more controversial cases, allowing for the possibility of a ruling being overturned. The last and final step in the American judicial system is the Supreme Court, who rules on the most interesting and controversial cases and who also has absolute authority in making the decisions regarding these cases.

Sources
“Appellate Court.” TheFreeDictionary.com. Farlax, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.
“A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court.” A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court. Supremecourt.gov, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
“The Difference between Trial Courts and Appellate Courts.” The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Civilrights.org, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.

Karl Marx’s Fallacy

Marxism, a very specific form of communism, relies on three key concepts: Class conflict, which is the age old imaginary divider between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The second concept, historical materialism; which is a theory of socioeconomic development based on the notion of changes in societies modes of productions. The final concept of Marxism is labor as value, which is the theory that the value of an item is determined by how much man-power went into production. Marxism, although controversial in some aspects, relies on these three key concepts for its foundation.

The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are the main players in class conflict. The bourgeoisie owns the land and the capital, which means that they also control the means of production, leaving the proletariat with only income and no way to generate the capital required to effect the means of production; thus further increasing the gap between the bourgeoisie, the man, and the proletariat, the machine. “The dominant class, according to Marx, controls not only material production but also the production of ideas.” (Britannica) Leaving a workers chance to acquire intellectual property and affect any increase on means of production very low. The class conflict is an age old concept that has a major foothold in the theory of Marxism.

Historical materialism looks for what causes human society to change its mode of production.  “For Marx, the concept of materialism is ‘the study of the real economic and social life of man and of the influence of man’s actual way of life on this thinking and feeling.’” (Struggle) Put simply, Marx theorized that man would seek out a life based upon that what he needed to survive and how this man would in turn associate in society. This also creates the concept of co-operation and thus affects a change in the mode of production for society as a whole. This is the basic condition of humanity; all humans must eat and drink. Once these basic needs are met, humans create need, or materialism. It is through materialism that a social construct in created, allowing again for the modes of production to increase.

The final key concept of Marxism is the labour theory of value, which is the notion that any item is only as valuable as the man-power that went into production. Marx argued that the theory could explain the value of all commodities, including the commodity that workers sell to capitalists for a wage. This commodity became known as “labor power.” Labor power can be considered a workers capacity to produce goods and services. “Marx, using principles of classical economics, explained that the value of labor power must depend on the number of labor hours it takes society, on average, to feed, clothe, and shelter a worker so that he or she has the capacity to work.” (Econlib) The labour theory of value is key in the aspect of effecting Marx’s mode of production.

Marxism as a whole is a very communist, anti-capitalistic theory of political science. Marx’s theorized around three key concepts, the first of which is the class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, who is able to thrive and prosper and the proletariat, who is doomed to oppression. The second concept of Marxism is the theory of historical materialism, which is mostly concerned with how society has historically changed and developed the mode of production. The final and arguably most important concept of Marxism is the labour theory of value, which Marx theorized as the value of any item could only be determined by the value of labor power. Although Marx has been dead for over a hundred years, his theories on economics and political science are still regarded with some level of intellectual validity.

Sources

“Marxism.” : The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

“Marx’s Concepts of Historical Materialism and Alienation.” Marx’s Concepts of Historical Materialism and Alienation. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. “Karl Marx’s Social Theory of Class.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

Egalitarianism as it Relates to Utilatarianism and Progressivism

America’s foundation was built on a core of egalitarianism with the words “All men are created equal.” Egalitarianism is a political philosophy with strong roots in equality. By creating an intellectually level playing field, America has dominated all of the free world in its quest for fulfilment. America is full of progressive forward thinking youth who are ready to take the next step in leading their generation to the next levels of society. The conditional equality in America has also improved greatly over recent years, leading much more of today’s youth concerned with not only what they have, but what many others are lacking. Even in relational equality, America has sent the precedent for representative democracies for over 200 years. All of these variables and more have contributed to America’s movement over the last 50 years to become an elite, intellectual society. Through humanities innate need for equality, America is moving towards an elite society.

Egalitarianism is the foundation for progressivism and egalitarianism has many fundamental aspects, including equality of opportunity. The equality of opportunity principle asserts that positions of advantage should be open to any merit able candidate and thus removes the presumption of “caste systems” or “guild societies.” America’s economy has very much conformed to the equality of opportunity principle, especially in the areas of careers and ease of access citizens have to a free market job economy. Though there are instances where the equality of opportunity principle is not followed, firms are forced to hire specific percentages of minorities, whether they have the most merit (utility) or not, to perform tasks that are better suited for another more merit able candidate. The application of merit based progressivism as it relates to the equality of opportunity principle can best be described with the concept of “The miserable working man.” Very little utility comes from a man who is miserable and hates his job. However, a simple test in the man’s youth would allow him to see what options he would be best at; creating at the same time maximum merit (utility) for society and maximum merit (happiness) for him, without removing free will.

Along with the equality of opportunity principle, there is also the equality of condition principle. The equality of condition principle asserts that every human being is born with natural rights. Natural rights can be defined as, “rights that one has independently of institutional arrangements, people’s subjective opinions, and cultural understandings.” (Arneson) These very rights are protected under America’s “Bill of Rights.” The “Bill of Rights” protects a wide range of natural freedoms, from the right to free speech to the right to defend oneself. The founding fathers of America took the first steps of egalitarianism (progressivism) when they wrote the first amendment.

The concept of equal fundamental human worth also reflects America’s constitution. Every human being is born with a sense of worth and that sense of worth can only be measured by the society around it. With a greater society, comes a greater sense of self-worth and thus a larger commitment to the society that has brought one that sense of great self-worth. Not only does this create a strong sense of worth for American’s but it also increases the global perception of worth. Not only must America take care of itself, but it is also the centerpiece of the global economy. When tragedy strikes, it is America that the world calls up. It is these steps into philanthropy that allow American society to move closer to an elite society.

Relational equality, as in the egalitarian concept of equally shared rank, power and even fundamental status quo, can also me related to the American Constitution and even dates as far back as Ancient Greece. In the time of Socrates’, the Greek’s used a three part system to impose relational equality. The first reform, isonomia, meaning equality of law, guaranteed citizens the right of equality under the law and equal participation in the laws that governed their daily lives. The second reform, isegoria, meaning equality of speech, guaranteed citizens the right to assemble and petition their colleagues as to their viewpoint on what was right and just. The third and final reform, isokratia, meaning equality of power, guaranteed citizens the right to participate in all aspects of the decision making process. Through this it can be asserted that, “While political equality in contemporary democracies has been restricted for most citizens to the voicing of preference rather than the ability to effectively participate in setting or influencing the political agenda, the Athenian reforms highlight that this is only one aspect of true political equality (relational equality).” (Equality) This point affirms that the American “Bill of Rights” is founded in the basis of egalitarianism.

Equality in democratic elections can often be confused with relational equality, though fundamentally very similar, equality in democratic elections focusing more on the sharing of power versus the relational equality concept of shared status quo. Equality in democratic elections in America dates back to the very conception of the nation itself. It is hard wired into the mind of every American. On Election Day, all eligible citizens, have the option to walk out of their home and head to their respective precinct to cast their vote on the most eligible representative. In the 2012 presidential election in America, the national voting rate was 61.8% of the population (Census), by the standards of today it may not seem to be that large of a percentage, but in fact historically it is a very large percentage of voters in a representative democracy. Although it would be ideal for all voters to vote on Election Day, it is not a mandate and this is inherent of freedom and thus a foundation for egalitarianism.

In contrast, equality in society in America has always pushed the inferior to the fringe of society. Progress for the sake of progress is not always progress in the mind of some citizens. Some people choose to live a simple, outdated life and this goes against the egalitarian doctrine. As it relates to progressivism, egalitarianism would see that maximum merit (utility) be made out of every human being on the planet, except in the case of disability, which would mandate the creation of a welfare system and thus further strengthen equality in society. Though American’s do push the weak and disabled to the fringe of society, the system of welfare in America stands strong on its own ground.

In summation, egalitarianism is the social contract founded in equality and a strong basis was created for it in the American Constitution. The concept of egalitarianism as it relates to progressivism rests strongly on a few key points. First the concept of equality of opportunity, secures that positions of advantage be open to everyone with merit. Second the concept of equality of condition, secures humanities natural rights. Third the concept of equal fundamental human worth, secures humanities right to respect. Finally the concept of relational equality, which secures humanities right to equality of power, rank and status, can all be pulled together to create a strong foundation for egalitarianism as it relates to progressivism in America. Egalitarianism is the concept of equality and it is made for the people by the people of America.

 

Bibliography

Arneson, Richard. “Egalitarianism.” Stanford University. Stanford University, 16 Aug. 2002. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.

“Equality – Overview – Ancient Views Of Equality.” – Political, Citizens, Politics, and Aristotle. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

“Voting and Registration.” Voting HotReport. Census Bureau, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

 

Political Action Committees

Political action committees, or PAC’s, are the committees of individuals and interest groups that raise money in order for candidates to run for office. PAC’s began in 1944 when the Congress of Industrial Organizations created the first one to help in the re-election campaign of Franklin D. Roosevelt and since then has created even more complex methods to raise funding for election campaigns. Two types of PAC’s have been created since the first concept was originally put into action; Leadership PAC’s are often formed by politicians who are seeking a higher office. Super-PACs were created in the wake of the Supreme Court decision of 2010. Political action committees create competition in a fast paced and constantly evolving society.
The first interest group to create a political action committee was the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or CIO. Interest groups are groups of people who have come together to represent a core sub group of people, such as the NCAA or NAACP, who in turn use funding from concerned citizens to lobby for their ideological standing. Billionaire’s donate large amounts of money to political action committees; the current figures are quite large. An article on OpenSecrets.Org stated, “As of October 25, 2014, 1,228 groups organized as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $593,694,433 and total independent expenditures of $273,458,627 in the 2014 cycle.” (OpenSecrets) This amount of money does not come without restrictions. The Federal Election Commission regulates how much money can be donated to the political action committees. (FEC)
A political action committee that is formed by current and former members of Congress is called a Leadership PAC. The Federal Election Commission has stated, “A leadership PAC is defined as a political committee that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by a candidate or an individual holding federal office, but is not an authorized committee of the candidate or officeholder and is not affiliated with an authorized committee of a candidate or officeholder.” (FEC) What this means is that these funds are used for non-campaign related expenses, such as travel, lodging, consultants, polling and other expenses. They can also be used for the funding of new candidates or by politician’s seeking to gain a higher office. Leadership PAC’s create an added avenue of funding for candidates, politician’s and elected officials.
Super PAC’s are the highly controversial new form of funding campaigns that came in the wake of the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the Speechnow.org v. FEC case. Through the first amendment right, attorneys for Speechnow.org were able to argue that individuals had the right to independently campaign without giving funds directly to candidates. This in turn created independent expenditure-only committees (Super PACs), which is also heavily monitored by the FEC. (FEC) These independent expenditure-only committees have stirred some heavy resistance, most notably by that of Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and GOP media strategist Mark McKinnon. They have created Mayday PAC, a Super PAC whose purpose is to, “reduce the influence of money in politics by helping to elect candidates who have pledged to reform campaign finance laws.” (Washington Post) Their goal is to fund long-shot candidates who support reforming campaign laws to only allow the use of public funding in campaigns, such as the system that is currently employed in France. Super PAC’s have created a controversial funding option.
Political action committees are fundamental in the way American politics work now. As long as the funding is accountable and monitored, political action committees will remain an integral part of American politics. The much more recent additions of Leadership PACs and Super PACs have diversified the system and created a new level of competition in what was a stagnant system. In an economy worth 17 trillion dollars, $593,694,433 in current contributions is not even a drop in the bucket. Innovations like the aforementioned political action committees create competition that will inevitably lead to more innovation.
Sources
“A Leading ‘anti-super PAC’ Just Backed Three More Candidates for Congress.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
“Ongoing Litigation.” Speechnow.org v. FEC. Federal Election Commission, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.
“PACs.” Opensecrets RSS. Opensecrets, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.