Tipping the Iceberg: Positionality and Male Privilege in Addressing Sexual Violence against Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 2013, the authors collaborated on a presentation called Tackling Rape Culture Requires a Team Effort. The central aim was to locate the problem where it should be located: on men, or more specifically, on the heteronormative, hypermasculine cultures of men that can breed rape culture attitudes and behaviours. In the few days prior to the presentation, the authors came to a critical point of divergence. One felt that it would be an oversight to not mention how some women contribute to and support rape culture, while the other felt that doing so would be seen as lecturing women and, thus, reinscribing patriarchy and sexism. Through their email exchange, they came to understand that their disagreement arose from positionality, specifically concerning sexuality identity. Their article addresses how positionality and privilege are key to tackling, and even talking about, rape culture on campuses. They explore the complications that they worked through as they planned for the presentation, and suggest strategies by which men who work against violence against women can address identity and positionality to enhance their activism on post-secondary campuses and in society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".