create 4questions and answer it

Women's Studies International Forum 62 (2017) 116–124

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Women's Studies International Forum

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wsif

Perception of rape culture on a college campus: A look at social media posts

Ashley Giraldi, Elizabeth Monk-Turner ⁎ Department of Sociology & Criminal Justice, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, United States

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Giraldi), eturne

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2017.05.001 0277-5395/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 18 August 2016 Revised 18 March 2017 Accepted in revised form 2 May 2017 Available online 15 May 2017

© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Rape culture “refers to multiple pervasive issues that allow rape and sexual assault to be excused, legitimized and viewed as inevitable” (White & Smith, 2004: 174). In rape culture, women and men assume sexual violence is a fact of life (Buchwald, Fletcher, & Roth, 2005). Like- wise, Wilhelm (2015) argues that rape culture normalizes, trivializes, and condones sexual assault against women. Notably, 91% of those assaulted are women, most (8 in 10) know their assailant, and the vast majority (90%) never report the sexual assault or rape to the police (NSVRC, 2015). Rape is the most under-reported crime in the United States (NSVRC, 2015). Young women in the U.S., between the ages of 16–24, are considered to be at the greatest danger for sexual assault (Lombardi & Jones, 2009). According to the Campus Sexual Assault Study, nearly 1 in 5 women experienced an attempted or completed sexual assault since entering college (Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007). Notably, sexual victimization rates among college women are about three times greater than in the general population (White & Smith, 2004). In a study of men at one university, more than half (63.3%) self-reported acts that qualify as attempted rape or rape and revealed that they had repeatedly engaged in this behavior (NSVRC, 2015).

In 2015, banners flew off a fraternity balcony on move-in day: “Rowdy and fun. Hope your baby girl is ready for a good time;” “Fresh- man daughter drop off;” and “Go ahead and drop off mom too.” The re- sponsible fraternity said it was all meant in fun; however, they were suspended by their national chapter and an outcry against rape culture emerged around the campus community. Across the country, college and university students engage and maintain rape culture. Yale Univer- sity was a prime example, when one of their fraternities was caught chanting, “no means yes, yes means anal” in 2010 (Gasso & Greenberg 2010). Likewise, the 2016 sentencing of Brock Turner to six months in county jail after he was convicted of three felonies for sexually

[email protected] (E. Monk-Turner).

assaulting and raping a Stanford student, who sent a remarkable open letter to her assailant, stirred many calling for change including the Vice President of the United States. The current work analyzes social media comments to a local media post about the banner story to better understand societal attitudes toward rape culture on university campuses.

Social media has arguably become a staple in our culture with less separation between our online and real-life interactions (Strain, Saucier, & Martens, 2015). This can be attributed to the countless uses of social media including as a form of public justice through media trials (Chagnon & Chesney-Lind, 2015; Machado & Santos, 2009), as a method to gain public visibility (Yar, 2012), or for informational reasons, social support, or friendship (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Some universities have switched from traditional Learning Management Systems to Facebook communities designed to help students in their programs (Garavaglia & Petti, 2015). The reaches of social media touch nearly every aspect of our lives, which makes it an extremely powerful and influential tool in the dissemination of information, particularly regarding rape culture.

1. Two approaches to understanding perceptions of rape culture in social media

1.1. Hegemonic masculinity—boys will be boys

Allison and Risman (2013) and Crapo (1991) argue that men are so- cialized to believe that achieving hegemonic masculinity is the best way to prove their manhood. Achieving hegemonic masculinity entails sex- ual dominance over women, sexual freedom, and fostering aggressive tendencies. Quackenbush (1989) concurs suggesting that the end result limits a man's capacity for empathy and sensitivity. Ultimately, men's belief in gendered stereotypes and hegemonic masculinity allows for the justification of malevolent behaviors in which they engage, as well as the entitlement to feel that their behaviors are morally right. In other words, hegemonic masculinity fosters the notion that “boys will

117A. Giraldi, E. Monk-Turner / Women's Studies International Forum 62 (2017) 116–124

be boys” which allows for the belief that misogyny is tolerable by ratio- nalizing acts of gender violence as singular, deviant, and justified through both masculinity and ensuing gender stereotypes (Klein, 2005).

Reinforcing hegemonic masculinity often means reinforcing the gender binary, in which genders fall into two neat categories with ‘nat- ural’ roles and social characteristics assigned to each gender. Women have been described as the “softer” sex and are thought to be more pas- sive, meek, and nurturing than men. In their work, Chesney-Lind and Eliason (2006: 34) argue that women “exist in a world that basically ig- nores and marginalizes them, all the while empowering [men].” Alter- natively, gender stereotypes empower men by foregrounding hegemonic masculine characteristics and establish societal conventions to regulate anything outside of the norm, such as labeling non-conform- ists as weak or homosexual. Ellis, Sloan, and Wykes (2013) support this notion of hegemonic masculinity and maintain that these norms have been institutionalized in both the public and private spheres. The “boys the boys” ideology promotes the idea that men's sexuality is more natural, acceptable, and uncontrollable than women's which ex- empts men from culpability of acquaintance rape and other sexually ag- gressive behaviors (Miller & Marshall, 1987).

Sexually assaulted women continue to bear the burden of blame and tend to be reluctant to report offenses for fear of society's backlash and devaluing of their experiences (Burnett et al., 2009). McMahon (2010) argues that college students, along with the larger society, typically con- sider women responsible for the sexual violence acted out against them (Boyle, 2015; Burnett et al., 2009; Fraser, 2015; Nurka, 2013; Tieger, 1981). The concept of hegemonic masculinity may well promote the perception in social media that the activities some college men engage in are just for fun. It is after all just “boys being boys” and what is the real harm of that?

1.2. The normalization of rape culture in fraternity subcultures

Fraternities and sororities are known as social spaces for students to get involved with campus life and establish lifelong friendships. Rape culture manifests within fraternity norms and values through actions such as disrespecting women when in group settings, exercising domi- nating control over women who attend their parties, and engaging in sexual assault either individually or as a group (Armstrong, Hamilton, & Sweeney, 2006; Boswell & Spade, 1996). One of the key ways fraterni- ty men may perpetuate rape culture is through peer support of disrespecting women. Peer support can range from being informational, making a joke or a new nickname for the brother who ‘scored,’ or be- coming ‘in’ with the other members by adhering to perceived pressure to have sex (Allison & Risman, 2013; Armstrong et al., 2006; Humphrey & Kahn, 2000; Tieger, 1981). Boswell and Spade (1996: 141) quoted a senior male student who agreed with this logic: “In gen- eral, college-aged men don't treat women their age with respect be- cause 90 percent of them think of women as merely a means to sex.” Clearly, not all fraternity men engage in this type of behavior, however, research has shown that they are disproportionally involved (Allison & Risman, 2013; Armstrong et al., 2006; Boswell & Spade, 1996; Humphrey & Kahn, 2000; Martin & Hummer, 1989; Tieger, 1981).

Armstrong et al. (2006) found that gender roles within the social hi- erarchy at college parties contribute to women's degradation. When at- tending parties, men exercise control over every aspect of the party, i.e. the alcohol, the music, the transportation, the theme, and even who is granted admission, in part, because some college sororities cannot throw parties. This creates a male regulated party culture where frater- nity men control who parties, enabling them to reach the type of women that they want to meet. Fraternities also exercise their control over women by enforcing dress codes, or themes, that expose women in a demeaning manner such as CEO/Secretary Hoe (Armstrong et al., 2006). Because women who attend these parties feel pressure to be amiable to fraternity members, they are placed in a position of potential

danger for sexual assault by “fulfilling the gendered role of partier” (Armstrong et al., 2006: 491). For example, it is women who face the challenge of having to choose an appropriate outfit that fits with the theme of the party while still appearing attractive, but the outfit must not be too revealing to the point that others may believe she is “looking for it” (Burnett et al., 2009). Additionally, women engage in party life to maintain a social status on campus, which may include drinking at a party; however, she must not drink too much for fear of being sexually exploited. The conflict, complicatedness, and imposition of rape culture on college women demonstrate how hegemonic masculinity and the notion that “boys will be boys” becomes a challenge that women must navigate.

College campuses continue to struggle with the seriousness of date rape (Tieger, 1981). Boswell and Spade (1996) found that fraternity men thought of rape as someone popping out of the bushes and attacking a woman rather than having sex with a woman who is too in- toxicated to consent. One participant volunteered this: “I don't care whether alcohol is involved or not; that is not rape. Rapists are people that have something seriously wrong with them” (Boswell & Spade, 1996: 141). Likewise, Tieger (1981: 155) found that men felt that date rape was not a serious crime and found more “enjoyment in rape” than women, meaning that men believed rape was normative and ac- ceptable to sexually enjoy. Fraternity members report that strategically getting women intoxicated and then engaging in intercourse is accept- able. Fraternity culture and parties, then, construct a predatory environ- ment. Indeed, in the most recent case, Brock Turner defended himself on sexual assault charges by blaming the party culture and prevalence of alcohol and drugs on the Stanford campus. These environments pro- duce a domain in which some fraternity men feel that “no can mean yes,” as Denes (2011) stated, which entraps women who feel immense pressures to engage in campus social life.

Burnett et al. (2009) found yet another issue on college campuses that aids in the maintenance of a rape culture. Specifically, the muted nature surrounding the communication of date rape and assault on col- lege campuses maintains its prevalence today (Burnett et al., 2009). Cul- turally, the ambiguous understanding and definition of ‘consent’ promotes confusion among students identifying, experiencing, and reporting sexual assault. Individually, rape myths and societal pressures to follow dominant gendered expectations often leave women silenced and uncomfortable in certain sexual situations. Situationally, women may attempt “shadowboxing” against date rape by going to parties with trusted friends and making their own drinks. However, assuming responsibility for self-protection from rape and assault places account- ability on the victim. If a sexual assault occurs, then it becomes the woman's fault for not effectively protecting herself from ‘natural’ male behaviors (Burnett et al., 2009). This victim-blaming is common even from other women and among friends, leaving the victim with no safe space to speak about the event freely and without judgement (Burnett et al., 2009). The muted nature of rape on college campuses before, dur- ing, and after the assault strongly aids in the maintenance of a rape cul- ture (Burnett et al., 2009). The normality of these incidents on college campuses tends to remove all accountability from those who engage in these behaviors. Thus, the judge, in the Sanford college sexual assault case in 2016, rationalized giving Brock Turner a six-month county jail sentence (when looking at a possible 14-year prison sentence) as some- thing that made sense as he feared the severe impact of a longer sen- tence on the young man's life.

2. Method

This work utilizes grounded theory to explore how rape culture is perceived in social media. The ‘banner incident’ occurred at a large southeastern university, on freshmen move-in day of the fall semester of 2015. Most (76%) first-year students live in on-campus housing, 54% are female, and 7% of men participate in fraternity life.

118 A. Giraldi, E. Monk-Turner / Women's Studies International Forum 62 (2017) 116–124

2.1. Procedures and instrumentation

In grounded work, the sampling process tends to focus more on collecting relevant theoretical data than setting a specific number of participants or responses to reach (Johnson, 2015). Instead of setting a fixed sample size prior to engaging in the research, the researcher con- tinues to collect data until no new themes emerge and all relevant data is completely saturated, allowing the research to shape the sample size itself (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In this work, the sample consists of com- ments in response to a local news station's article posted about the ban- ner incident. A content analysis was performed on these comments until no new themes emerged. Initially, comments to the banner inci- dent were categorized as either dismissive (boys will be boys) of rape culture or intolerant and concerned that this incident fostered rape cul- ture on campus.

Three local channels covered the banner incident; however, one did not make a post on their Facebook page and another received few re- sponses to this post (N = 87). The third channel posted an immediate reaction on its Facebook page stating: “signs like this one, that was hung at a home on 43rd Street near the university's campus this week- end, will not be tolerated” and featured an article about the banners along with pictures of the three banners. Facebook users who follow and have ‘liked’ this page were able to see this post on their page and re- spond to it through comments or by ‘liking’ it. The post received 1947 likes and 940 direct comments. Likes on Facebook do not necessarily mean that the user enjoys the content, but rather that they appreciate being able to have read it and are using the ‘like’ feature as a gesture of acknowledgement. There were many replies to comments; however, they were not included in this analysis due to the often tangential na- ture of the replies. They often became sites of trolling in which the con- versation diverged from the topic at hand. Trolling is the act of disrupting conversations on the internet for the purpose of achieving “lulz” or amusement derived from another person's anger (Phillips, 2015). Essentially trolls create profiles on social media sites simply for the purpose of harassing, disorienting, and exploiting others who ap- pear vulnerable. Identifying trolls is difficult and we acknowledge that they may exist in the data though we aimed to identify possible offenders.

No membership or registration was required to view the comments included in the data; however, in order to comment on the media post, users would have needed to possess or create a profile on Facebook. No- tably, this television channel has been the most followed and most watched news channel in the area for the past 24 consecutive years, ac- cording to Pinto (2015), making it the most representative of the com- munity and thus the prime candidate to include for analysis.

Analyzing the comments on a public, online forum, resulted in the collection of unmediated and unfiltered responses to a controversial topic. Analyzing online data has become more common in the academic world and has developed into its own field, named digital sociology, which examines the impact of the internet and social media outlets in the perception and formation of relationships and ideas (Dewey, 2015). Digital sociology “acknowledges that the constructs of relation- ships, sexuality, community … and gender have been affected by the massive influence of the Internet” (Dewey, 2015: 1). Thus, Dewey (2015: 1) argues that gathering data through online resources, such as social media, provides researchers insight on human interaction and so- cial construction with “unprecedented rapidity”, allowing for constant shifting of the research. Social media interactions, including posts, com- ments, and likes, provide researchers an alternative means of engaging in a culture even while lacking a physical presence. Therefore, analyzing posts online, rather than through conventional research methods, pro- vides the researcher with visceral, immediate responses not influenced by the researcher's presence. Also, due to the partial anonymity provid- ed by the online world, some people gain a sense of bravery to make comments that they may not make in face to face interaction (Rainie & Wellman, 2012). In this light, online content analysis may be even

more insightful than perhaps a focus group or interview on the same topic due to the freedom of expression that the online world provides for its users. Using Facebook as a tool of analysis then, has provided for an exhaustive and in-depth understanding of how some feel about rape culture on a local college campus.

The primary data used here derived from Facebook user responses to the initial message posted on one local television channel's Facebook page posted between August 22–25, 2015. The average length of com- ments was 27.65 words. Comments also included posts from users who only posted a photo, or a meme, meant to add humor or sarcasm to the conversation. Each comment, excluding the replies to comments, was read and recorded separately, before coding proceeded. During this first reading, each comment was separated by the assumed gender of the commenter. To code for gender, Facebook profile pictures and the name of the commenter were reviewed. Next, comments were read through again, one by one, this time noting key codes or concepts that seemed to frequently reoccur. This process was repeated four times. All possible codes were recorded during this time and were developed organically.

The ideas that emerged from reading the social media comments were transcribed and then clustered into groups to create larger themes. This continued until theoretical saturation was reached, meaning that no new data appeared and all of the themes were well-established and saturated enough to create a grounded theory. At this point, the themes were systematically ordered into an integrated theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The software program, Dedoose, was utilized in this process to identify and differentiate themes and the codes that com- prised those themes. As Glaser and Strauss (1967: 4) state, “grounded theory is derived from data and then illustrated by characteristic exam- ples of data,” therefore, exemplary quotes were pulled from the data in order to more clearly demonstrate the codes and themes.

While including exemplary quotes, the anonymity and confidential- ity of Facebook commenters was upheld by not displaying usernames and creating pseudonyms for each user who was quoted. Quotes by the same person were attributed to the same pseudonym. In addition, the times and dates of the comments were not disclosed, providing less ability to track the comment. Although precautions have been taken to uphold the privacy of commenters, the data is still public and online, meaning there is a chance, although minimal, that readers could find the comments should they persist. This work utilizes direct quotes “as not doing so would decrease the credibility and trustworthi- ness of the findings” (Ferguson, Piché, & Walby, 2015: 6). As an addi- tional precaution, an exemption form was filed with the college human subject committee to ensure that this method of research did not violate any ethical codes. Human subject permission was granted before work on this project began.

3. Results

Out of 938 comments on the original Facebook thread, 220 com- ments from 216 different people were coded and analyzed. Theoretical saturation was reached at this point, in which no new themes emerged from the data and comments began to seem repetitive. The sample consisted of 125 females (56.8%), and 95 males (43.2%). Most respon- dents (48.6%) deemed that the banners were acceptable, whereas a third (33.6%) thought the banners were unacceptable (5% posted com- ments that were difficult to code such as “Ridiculous” or “Wow….”). Lastly, 13% of those in the sample posted comments that were unrelated to the banners.

Thirty-four codes emerged from the data. Table 1 lists each code, a description of the code, an exemplary quote, and the number of hits each code received. The names for most codes were derived from the data; however, some phrases were shortened in order to make the code names more concise. Out of all 34 codes, “funny; hilarious” was the most frequently noted with 37 hits, followed by “just college fun” with 25, “mention rape; not okay!” with 21, and lastly “tacky; poor

119A. Giraldi, E. Monk-Turner / Women's Studies International Forum 62 (2017) 116–124

taste” with 20. These four top categories indicate that majority of those who posted a comment to this post felt that the banners were accept- able as a joke and thus permissive of rape culture on college campuses.

In order to gauge how the community responded to certain types of comments, the number of likes for each comment were compared to whether the comments exhibited an overall acceptable attitude toward the banners or not (i.e. number of likes vs acceptable?). In general, com- ments that suggested the banners were acceptable received more likes than comments that were critical of the banners. Overall, the communi- ty posted more comments displaying a permissive attitude toward the banners which also received more likes and attention from the online Facebook community.

Additionally, shorter comments received more likes than longer comments. The longer the comment, the fewer the number of likes the comment received. Most comments (177) were between 0 and 37 words and received between 0 and 76 likes. Only one rather short com- ment received more than 307 likes (between 38 and 75 words). Fur- thermore, only one comment that was over 228 words received likes at all, demonstrating that longer comments did not receive much atten- tion from others.

4. Favorable or critical of the banners

Each code was analyzed separately to determine which codes had an overall favorable or critical attitude toward the banners and rape culture in general. Table 1 lists each code in its respective category.

Both categories (permissive or critical) had an almost equivalent amount of codes in them, with permissive having a slightly higher num- ber of codes at 15 vs the critical number at 13. Most codes, 28 out of 34, were easily distributed into the permissive/critical categories; however, some codes were more challenging as they either fit into both groups or neither. The few that fit into both groups were “grow up”, “university af- filiate”, and “parents (upbringing)”. Within these groups, some state- ments exhibited a favorable attitude toward the banners, while some displayed an overall critical attitude toward them. For example, within the code “Grow up”, one individual stated, “Wait, people have sex on a college campus?? And to all of the people spouting off about rape, this sign does not say anything about raping anyone. Grow up.”, which ex- hibits a permissive attitude toward the banners. Another individual within the “Grow Up” category was clear about her intolerant attitude toward the banner and said “Grow up people. This is college, not high school.” A further example of a dually-fitting code was “Parents (Up- bringing)” in which some participants made comments such as, “If you're a parent of a girl and you're offended by that sign and you get scared and worried and are having regrets about letting your daughter attend the university then maybe that might be a sign that you're questioning your parenting…” and then continued on to say that the banners were just college fun, clearly expressing his permissive attitude toward the banners. On the reverse side, an individual stated, “Parents need to raise their boys to be respectful. These boys and their parents should be ashamed of themselves”, which is indicative of an intolerant attitude in regards to the banners. Comments in these three categories were thus challenging to neatly categorize into either category.

Table 1 Permissive vs critical.

Permissive

Funny; Hilarious Not that Serious. Get Over It Reference to the Past Haha/LOL/LMAO Society Offended by Everything I'm a Girl; Not Offensive They're Just College Kids. It's a Joke. This isn't Rape. Just College Fun Women as Sexual Objects Lighten up! Young Kids Have a Sense of Humor!

In addition, some codes were not clearly permissive or critical and were placed into the unrelated category. The unrelated category applied to the codes “Off-Campus”, “First Amendment” and “Fraternity”. These comments did not exhibit any clear attitude toward the banners and in- stead discussed unrelated content, such as “Joining the fraternity? Your first task, piss as many people off in one day and let the internet people voice their “concerns”” or “So why do they tolerate the actual criminal activity that is “not” on campus.” These codes varied from the other codes in that they did not speak directly about the obscenity of or the humor in the banners.

Most of the codes, 28 out of 34, were easily identifiable in terms of how they felt about the banners. However, even though the codes were easily split into permissive and critical depending on the language used, that is not to say that each comment was only coded once for ei- ther category. Meaning, each comment was separated phrase by phrase and categorized according to each code the person presented. For exam- ple, the comment “Oh lighten up. It's actually hilarious. This overly sen- sitive society we have now is pathetic” was actually coded three different times. “Oh lighten up” was coded for “lighten up”, “It's actually hilarious” was coded for “funny; hilarious”, and finally “This overly sen- sitive society we have now is pathetic” was coded for “society offended by everything”. Then, because the comment exhibited an overall per- missive attitude toward the banners, it was labeled permissive for de- scriptor purposes. All comments were coded in this fashion in order to properly gauge how often participants used specific language in regards to the banners. Some comments included codes that fell on both sides of the permissive-critical spectrum which were coded as such. If all com- ments had just been coded as an overall acceptable or critical attitude, much of the data would have been overlooked.

5. Pictures

There were three photos in all 220 comments. Two were posted by men, and one was posted by a woman. The first picture, posted by a man, was an animated photo of an ambulance with a baby's head as the driver, captioned with “Oh no, somebody call the Waaaaambulance”. The second photo was a meme stating “The winner for banners on Move In Day” and displayed a picture of a banner from West Virginia University stating, “She called you daddy for 18 yrs. Now it's OUR TURN.” Lastly, the third photo was an animated picture of Patrick from the Nickelodeon show, Spongebob Squarepants, in which he is drooling and googly-eyed, admiration and desire explicit in his expression. Each picture displayed a nonchalant attitude toward the banners, clearly acceptable of their underlying meaning. The first photo implied that the banners were not serious enough or worthy of complaining about, let alone receiving news time. The participant made it clear through this picture that the people who were bothered with the banners were babies, worthy of sarcastic and demeaning jokes. The second photo carried with it the underlying message that these banners were nothing in comparison to others and thus not wor- thy enough to take seriously. In this light, the banners seemed funny and friendly, not worthy of all of the trouble that the banners were caus- ing. The final picture was captioned with “Yeeee haaaaaw” and portrayed all of the lust that the fraternity members packed into the

Critical

Advice to College Ladies Rude; Ignorant Banners Disrespectful Stupid If My Kids Were At This College… Tacky; Poor Taste Mention Rape; Not Okay! These are Boys – Not Men. Not Funny; Bad Joke This is Offensive Not boys anymore – ADULTS. Warning Sign Represent University/Reputation

120 A. Giraldi, E. Monk-Turner / Women's Studies International Forum 62 (2017) 116–124

meaning of the banners. The picture of Patrick is a representation of the fraternity members on freshmen move-in day, in which fraternity members drool in lust over the “new meat” on campus.

6. Gender

Gender was relatively easy to identify among those who posted comments about the banner incident. The profiles that did not display characteristics of a male or female, or had a unisex name, were clicked on and investigated further in order to come to a conclusion on the gen- der of the participant. This only happened for three individuals. In each case, their profile was clicked on and the first sentence that appeared, which says “if you do not know XXX, send him/her a message”, was uti- lized as the final means of categorization since this sentence shows how the user wishes to be identified.

Overall, more women in general responded to this post than men; however, most comments, regardless of gender, displayed an explicit acceptance toward the banners, explaining them as justifiable and ex- cusable. For each category that deemed the banners funny, such as the codes “funny; hilarious” and “Haha/LOL/LMAO”, women were more likely than men to utilize this type of language to describe the banners. Women more frequently referred to the banners as a joke, as seen in the category “It's a joke”, dismissing the banners as comical. They expressed on a more frequent basis that the banners were funny and laughable be- havior, regardless of being the intended target of the banners. In fact, women were frequently explicit in stating that they understood being the intended target and the potential disrespect directed toward them, while still expressing that the comments were funny. This was done frequently enough that a separate category was created simply for these types of comments labeled “I'm a girl; Not offensive.” Com- ments such as, “As a female, that went away to college for 4 yrs, I found this very funny....” display how some women in the sample wanted to be clear that they were both a female and educated, and still believed the banners to be laughable behavior. Such comments sup- port Strain et al.' (2015) work which found that women were so accus- tomed to sexism that they could not differentiate between sexist and non-sexist jokes.

In addition, women were more likely than men to state the banners did not portray or suggest rape. Comments such as, “It is an awful big leap to say that because these boys hung these signs that they are advo- cating for violence and rape” and “Eh, who cares. Says nothing about rape” display that these women were not able to see the clear connec- tion between these banners and sexual violence. Notably, women were more likely than men to state that the banners were not funny and that they constituted a bad joke. In addition, they were more likely to call the banners and the perpetrators “Stupid”, “Rude and/or Igno- rant”. This adheres to gender expectations in which one would expect women to be able to recognize that the banners display misogynistic characteristics and thus disapprove of them. Several women made their disapproval of the banners even more explicit by clearly linking the banners to rape, under the code labeled “Mention Rape; Not Okay!” It was in this category that women made clear that the banners do, in fact, reference sexual assault and rape, and thus are not acceptable or tolerable. For example, one commenter posted this: “pretty sure the people commenting that this is a joke have never been sexually assaulted or had a family member who had been raped, but “lighten up its not about rape!!” right?” The comments in this category brought to light the severity of even the most seemingly unimportant and min- iscule of actions, such as posting banners meant originally as a harmless joke. The fact that women fell into this category significantly more than men did speaks to women being and understanding the reality of rape.

Throughout the data, indications for rape myth acceptance were noted. For example, women wrote all of the comments that included the code “Advice to College Women”, in which the commenters advised college women how to behave properly in order to avoid problems. For example, “If you subject yourself to a frat house or an off campus party,

use your brain. Don't drink a drink given to you, and don't go off by yourself with a stranger.” All of these comments were written by women to other women; however, none addressed college men and how they might behave. These types of comments adhere to rape myths and victim-blaming, in which solely women are held responsible for any sexual assaults taken against them due to not protecting them- selves properly (i.e. not drinking or walking off with a stranger). Advice, like these comments, for women to avoid sexual confrontations by not walking alone at night, being “smart”, using “common sense”, and over- all adjusting their actions provides men with a scapegoat if and when they sexually assault or rape a woman. Reinforcing the mindset within women that it is ultimately their fault if they are raped maintains women's silence about rape, which then perpetuates the cycle in which men are placed in dominant positions over women.

In accordance to gender stereotypes, women were more likely than men to show care and concern toward their children. They reference, in the category “If my kids were at this college…” the fact that if their chil- dren attended a university, they would be disappointed, angry, or pull the children out of the school. One participant said, “If I was a parent and saw this on my way to drop my child off I might change my mind. And if I was a parent of someone that lived here and saw this, I would yank them out and back home you go!” Another participant noted, “I would feel MUCH better dropping off my daughters at a place that didn't make a joke of advertising my baby girls as potential sex toys.” Such comments imply that women were concerned for their children's wellbeing in a hostile or predatory environment more often than men were, which conforms to societal standards for women as the primary caretakers.

More women (63.2%) mentioned the reputation of the university being diminished than men (36.8%). This would make sense according to women's constant worry of being judged or scrutinized according to societal expectations to uphold a proper status. In this case, women immediately felt the concern that the school reputation was being dam- aged, which would in turn tarnish their own reputation by poorly representing their place of education (Armstrong et al., 2006).

Interestingly, women (83.7%) were much more likely to make the distinction between the perpetrators being boys and not men. Only 16% of the comments that fell into this category were written by men, which demonstrates that men may be less willing to judge their coun- terparts for being immature. It could mean that men are likely to under- stand the mentality that the perpetrators and other college men have, and are thus less likely to judge them due to the collective brotherhood that men feel toward each other, such as in fraternities. It is also possible that it simply did not come to mind for the men who commented on this post, and instead it was more readily identifiable to the women. Women may be more likely to judge men due to their own standards for what constitutes a “real man” based on the hegemonic masculinity ideal being engrained in our culture as a whole. Gender stereotypes and ex- pectations have become so intrinsic that both genders have begun polic- ing the opposite gender on what is right, or in this case, what defines the proper behavior of a “real man.”

Men were more likely to mention the First Amendment and freedom of speech in their responses than women, which displays that men were more likely to seek out and utilize logical responses than emotionally- driven responses to the banners, conforming to hegemonic masculine characteristics. Men were significantly more likely to include “get over it” in their comments than women (80% vs 20%), which, again, validates the idea that men strive to be stoic and unemotional, following the heg- emonic masculine ideology. Men were also more likely than women to mention fraternities in their comments. Additionally, men were more likely to portray women as sexual objects in their comments than women. This data falls directly in line with characteristics that define hegemonic masculinity, such as men being aggressive sexual beings who see women as simply a means to sex. Comments such as “Female will be lining up to get into places like this just because some have been sheltered for 18–19 years & finally getting the freedom to

121A. Giraldi, E. Monk-Turner / Women's Studies International Forum 62 (2017) 116–124

experiment” display that men believe that college-aged women, partic- ularly freshmen who are just receiving their freedom, are prone to en- gaging in sex. This becomes problematic when college men anticipate and expect such behavior from women who do not wish to engage in in- tercourse, at times leading to sexual assault and/or rape.

Lastly, the code “Just College Fun” was utilized very frequently with- in the data and most participants who used this term to describe the banners were men. This is very telling as to what men believe fun in the college age or time period consists of. Perhaps, to men, college is a time of sexuality and promiscuous behavior, or a time in which fraterni- ty men should be able to dehumanize women without consequence due to their environment. If an abundance of men feel this way (i.e. that the banners are excusable due to simply being all in good, college appropri- ate fun), then there should be no question as to why rape culture still exists on college campuses. That is not to alleviate any of the guilt or blame from women, as some women in the sample referred to the ban- ners as “good ole college fun” as well. Overall, this is a prime example of the profound internalization of sexism and gender stereotypes within society. Both men and women alike were able to make light of the grav- ity of the banners and the real harm that rape culture causes on college campuses.

7. Emergent themes

The codes analyzed above were clustered into themes depending on their underlying connections. They represent the core topics that partic- ipants referenced in their comments. Out of the 34 codes, four themes emerged. These themes were: humor, college, age, and sexuality.

Humor was the dominant theme, encompassing eight codes. Those codes were “Funny; Hilarious”, “Haha/LOL/LMAO”, “Have a Sense of Humor!”, “It's a joke.”, “Not funny; Bad joke”, “Lighten Up!”, “Get over it”, and “Not that serious…” Overall, these codes were clustered due to their obvious connection to humor in some fashion. All of these codes, with the exception of “Not Funny; Bad Joke” implied that the banners were humorous and negligible, demonstrating their attitude of accep- tance toward the banners. As long as humor is used in the degradation and sexual oppression of women, such dehumanization becomes ac- ceptable to society at large.

“Not Funny; Bad Joke” was formed into a sub-theme due to its con- nectedness with other similar codes and disapproval of the banners. Five codes fell under “Not Funny; Bad Joke”, including “Stupid”, “Rude/ Ignorant”, “Tacky; Poor Taste”, “Banners Disrespectful”, and “This is of- fensive.” All of these codes made clear their apparent disgust with and denunciation of the banners, thus making their clustering very straight- forward. This sub-theme represents those who recognize women's deg- radation as problematic, even if the degradation is in the form of a joke.

The next theme, college, was comprised of six codes, including “Just College Fun”, “They're Just College Kids”, “Off-Campus”, “Fraternity”, “University Affiliate”, and “Represent University/Reputation”. All of these codes mentioned some aspect of college, whether it was describ- ing the type of fun that is allegedly normal college behavior, or discussing that the banners are a poor representation of the college. This theme exhibited a mostly permissive attitude toward the banners, excusing the banners as typical college behavior and thus permissible. Together, this theme uses college as a location scapegoat, in which im- mature and sexually crude behaviors are tolerable, normalized, and expected.

Age formed the next theme, which included five codes. Those codes were “These are boys—Not men”, “Not boys anymore—ADULTS”, “Young Kids”, “Grow Up”, and “They're Just College Kids.” All five of these codes made reference to the age of the perpetrators; however, some fell on the permissive side while others fell on the critical side. Codes like “Young Kids” and “They're Just College Kids” excused the banners as normal, immature behavior expected from this age group. Other codes, such as “Not boys anymore—ADULTS”, made clear that the perpetrators are now in college, and are thus adults who need to

be held accountable for their actions. Some examples of these types of quotes are: “Let's stop calling them boys, they are adults who apparently don't understand that there are consequences for their actions” and “I'm tired of college students being called “kids”, it's time to grow up”, which also included the code “Grow Up”.

“Grow Up” became a sub-theme under age because it was directly linked to other, similar comments that referenced parents and the up- bringing of children. Under this sub-theme, the codes “Parents (Up- bringing)”, “If My Kids Were at This College…”, “Advice to College Women”, and “Warning Sign” were included. All of these codes referred to the perpetrators and potential victims as not being grown adults. “Parents (Upbringing)” made it very clear that the blame should not have been placed on the perpetrators, and instead on their parents for not having “raised their boys right.” “If My Kids Were at This College…” established that the parents would ultimately make the decision for their college-aged daughters on whether or not to attend the university, indicating that the daughters were not capable of making a decision themselves. “Advice to College Women” and “Warning Sign” were both written by parents who were attempting to aid the potential vic- tims of the banners by guiding them in the right direction (i.e. away from the banners), indicating that females on college campuses still needed supervision in critical situations. Together, this sub-theme rep- resents that the college age is a time when parents still feel that their college-aged children are only children, clearly not adults capable of making decisions on their own or being held responsible for their ac- tions. Such beliefs implicitly reinforce the notion that “boys will boys”, due to men's apparent never-ending youth in which their actions are nearly always admissible.

The last theme, sexuality, is made up of four themes, including “Women as Sexual Objects”, “This isn't Rape”, “Mention Rape; Not Okay!”, and “I'm a girl; Not Offensive.” “Women as Sexual Objects” clearly portrayed women as sexual toys, there for men's enjoyment. Some of these comments also portrayed women as equally capable of posting similar banners and believed women to be just as sexually ag- gressive as men. “This isn't Rape” comments made very clear that partic- ipants did not believe the banners referenced rape or sexual assault on any level, and in fact, were not sexually driven. An example of such a comment includes, “You guys are assuming sexual assault... What if he actually baked cookies for them, who knows, stop thinking so negative... Geesh.” Additionally, the code “I'm a girl; Not Offensive” explicitly displayed that these participants are comfortable with both their op- pression and their sexuality. As a woman, to have no regard for the harm these banners and types of beliefs, in general, pose, speaks to how engrained women's sexual oppression is in our society. Lastly, the code “Mention Rape; Not Okay!” referenced past and potential victims of sexual assault and rape in order to bring reality to the alleged joke that constituted the banners. This sentiment exhibits frustration with the nonchalant attitude of other commenters due to the danger of mak- ing light of misogynistic actions, such as the banners. Together, this theme represents the varying beliefs society holds about sexuality and rape, also giving insight to how men's sexuality is privileged over women's. Overall, the codes and themes give an idea about what lan- guage is commonly used in describing sexually-driven incidents, as well as what ideologies are frequently utilized when discussing sexist humor.

8. Discussion

The overall attitude of acceptance toward the banners suggests that rape culture not only exists, but is prevalent, and seen as permissible to a large portion of society. Most of those who posted comments on social media in this study did not recognize the banners as rape culture, seeing as they were initially meant as a joke and were accepted that way to most observers. The attitudes displayed by participants adhered to the problematic ideologies presented in previous literature, such as hege- monic masculinity, the notion that boys will be boys, and sexist

122 A. Giraldi, E. Monk-Turner / Women's Studies International Forum 62 (2017) 116–124

humor. The comments illustrated that while disguised as humor, sexism and rape culture are acceptable due to the excusal of men's behavior through the notion that this is tolerable behavior because “boys will be boys.”

The language that was used to describe the banners speaks to this apparent excusal of men and women's continued battle for equality in today's society. Women who proclaimed their gender and acceptable attitude toward the banners illustrated clearly how engrained sexism is within our society. Sexism and women's oppression has become so ubiquitous that it is hardly recognizable and is thus, cast off as unimpor- tant and tolerable. The comments displayed this overall permissive atti- tude by showing a lack of empathy, i.e. by saying get over it, the banners are not that serious, or have a sense of humor. Further, only one-third of the comments addressed the banners as an issue, and even less specifi- cally referenced the reality of sexual assault or rape as a result of rape culture. This use of language suggests that sexism and rape culture are seen as funny or humorous to majority of society, and suggests that there is a general ignorance surrounding the real harm of rape culture. Thus, the majority of respondents proclaiming that the banners are funny illustrate that sexism, and thus rape culture, is deep-seated in today's society.

As seen from the findings above, gender plays a significant role the type of language used to describe the banners. Nearly every category that men dominated displayed a lackadaisical attitude toward the ban- ners, such as “Get Over It”, “Just College Fun”, “Lighten Up!”, “Not that serious”, “Society Offended by Everything”, “They're Just College Kids”, and “Young Kids.” Only two categories that men dominated exhibited frustration with the banners. In addition, men were also more likely to portray women as sexual objects. The fact that men fell predominantly into these categories suggests that they share common beliefs about how unimportant and worthless women's sexual liberation is. Men viewed the banners as light-hearted fun, unworthy of news attention or societal upset; however, the banners were a clear motion toward the sexualization and dehumanization of women on college campuses. This makes clear the connection between being tolerable of the banners and more frequently portraying women as sexual objects. This type of attitude and behavior can be expected from men who strictly follow gen- der stereotypes and hegemonic masculinity. Further demonstrating the adherence to hegemonic masculinity, men seemed to utilize logical re- sponses to the banners, rather than emotionally-driven responses. Other categories that men dominated, such as “First Amendment”, “Fraternity”, “Off-Campus”, and “Reference to the Past,” established this. The response categories that men dominated follow nearly every aspect of hegemonic masculinity, i.e. stoicism, apathetic demeanor, ascendency, and aggres- sion. Clearly, gender stereotypes have become innate and so deeply en- grained that hegemonic masculinity is followed and observed at all costs.

Women adhered to gender stereotypes as well, which typically por- tray women as meek and amenable. The language women used to de- scribe the banners exhibited their susceptibility by claiming that the banners, a clear sexist behavior, were simply a joke. They described the banners as funny, hilarious, and laughable, and made clear that they did not feel this was related to rape at all. However, it is crucial to note that women were also the most likely to mention that the ban- ners were not funny and mention rape/sexual assault in their responses. Either way, though, women responded to the banners by using an emo- tionally-driven response, whether describing the banners as funny and explaining why, or portraying them as a tool in the perpetuation of col- lege rape. This opposes men's reactions, which used more lackadaisical and logical responses. This drives home the fact that gender stereotypes are repeatedly normalized and utilized on a constant basis. Additionally, the fact that women fell on both sides of the permissible-or-not spec- trum is telling about how society is currently split. Some women believe in their own equality and recognize sexism in all forms, whereas other women accept and tolerate the misogynistic actions taken against them due to the context in which they are presented and the extreme internalization of sexism in our culture.

9. Grounded theory

Glaser and Strauss (1967) explain that the purpose of grounded the- ory is to produce in-depth understandings about how recurrent rela- tionships between social agent's construct reality on a day to day basis. Through a grounded theory methodological framework, we are able to unveil a new interpretation of our own reality. In the case of the banners, our situated reality revealed that even in the modern world, women still have a treacherous amount of work ahead before reaching sexual equality and liberation. The four main themes within the data, i.e. humor, college, age, and sexuality, demonstrated this. Western culture has made women's inferior status, sexually and within the political and economic realms, a joke. Our oppression has become so innate that it is now laughable and seen as inevitable, thus, when a joke is made referencing our degradation, the only appropriate response from society is laughter. Humor is utilized to mask sexism, making it more palatable to a broader audience. In order to combat sexism and rape culture as a whole, we must begin recognizing women's oppres- sion in all of its forms, including jokes, and stop using humor as valida- tion for the further deterioration of women.

Participants popularly referenced college as a signal of acceptance toward the banners. These individuals explained that college is a time for fun and freedom, not a time to worry about being mature or thinking beyond the moment. This theme overall suggested that while students are at college, there should be no expectations of proper or upstanding behavior. Comments such as “It's college. Let it go,” suggest that society should have no regulation or expectations for the period that students are in college. While students are in college, they receive a pass for any rudimentary behavior, simply due to their location. College has be- come a place in which society has come to expect sexually aggressive behaviors as normal in the campus environment, particularly the party scene. The excusal of sexually aggressive tendencies or sugges- tions allows for college men to continue committing these actions, and additionally reinforces the notion that “boys will be boys” by sug- gesting that sexist behavior is expected and justified simply for being a male college student.

Most participants who utilized any of the age codes made explicit that the perpetrators were simply young boys, immature, and incapable of thinking beyond the moment. Age was used to justify how careless the perpetrators were due to their inability to process the consequences and repercussions of posting such crude banners, compared similarly to a young child who does not know the difference between right and wrong. Apparently being in college, living on their own and away from parents, does not make the perpetrators old or mature enough to deter them from bad decision-making. Their college age removes any potential blame from the perpetrators and justifies their actions, similar to the “boys will be boys” notion in which blame is removed from men due to their expected, gender stereotypical behavior. In fact, partici- pants clearly adhered to the “boys will be boys” ideology by excusing the perpetrators as “boys” rather than the men that they actually are. Few referred to the perpetrators as men or adults, responsible for their actions. Even fewer acknowledged that the perpetrators should be behaving in an adult-like manner, but clearly were behaving proper- ly due to their childish actions.

A common theme throughout the comments suggested a reference to sexuality and gender. Sexuality was not used so much as an excusal for the banners, as the other three themes were, but rather, utilized in a manner to discuss the various beliefs citizens hold about sexism and sexuality. The comments further objectified women by portraying them as sexual objects, meant for men's entertainment and pleasure. The comments also spoke to believing that rape culture is not rape, nor is it harmful or offensive, even to women. Few comments suggested that these banners were in fact harmful and implied that the banners were not funny due to their real linkage to rape and sexual assault. The fact that many comments did not refer to the banners as harmful or sexually aggressive speaks to the deep internalization of “boys will

123A. Giraldi, E. Monk-Turner / Women's Studies International Forum 62 (2017) 116–124

be boys” and the privileging of men's sexuality over women's. In this case, women were not able to recognize their own sexuality being exploited and thought it was humorous that men would refer to women as their sexual tease.

These four themes together clearly exemplify prevalent ideologies that perpetuate rape culture on college campuses, and sexism in the broader context. Humor, college, age, and sexuality all work together in the justification of men's misogynistic behaviors by reinforcing com- mon ideologies such as “boys will be boys” and hegemonic masculinity. Through humor and the college context, blatant sexual aggression was seen as the light-hearted fun of young, sexual kids. If banners that exem- plify rape culture can become seen as lighthearted humor and well- intended fun, what does this say of our culture's standards on what is humorous or “good old fun”? How does the continued oppression of and dominance over women suddenly become a joke deemed as “not that serious”? What kind of society do we live in when one must be able to laugh at the oppression and domination of another in order to have a proper sense of humor? These questions cannot be answered simply with this exploratory theoretical framework; however, part of the problem “…is rooted in a standard curriculum and pervasive over- arching culture that tells women how not to get raped but does not tell men not to rape” (Forni, 2014: 26–7). We must focus our efforts on telling men not to rape, which occurs by eradicating prevalent ideol- ogies that reinforce sexism and gender stereotypes, such as “boys will be boys” and hegemonic masculinity. Once these ideologies lose trac- tion and popularity, and are replaced with fresh narratives about gen- ders and sexuality, we may begin to see gains in women's equality and less instances of rape culture.

10. The real harm of rape culture

According to Buchwald, Fletcher, and Roth (2005: xi), rape culture is “a complex set of beliefs that encourage male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. […] A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women and presents it as the norm.” Any culture that condones the oppression of women and privileges men's sexual experience over women's is problematic in that women become inferior social beings, seemingly less-deserving of equality. The banners exemplified the dehumanization of women by exhibiting them as sexual toys meant for men's enjoyment. Rape culture makes this dehumanization normal and allows sexual violence to become mundane, seen as almost inevitable (Buchwald et al., 2005: xi). Many do not see rape culture as inherently problematic because ‘no one is being raped’ alleging that there are no direct, visual consequences be- cause no one gets physically hurt as a result of rape culture; however, accepting and normalizing the degradation of women meets equally se- vere consequences as sexual violence. Women must maintain a con- stant awareness of the potential of being sexually assaulted due to their blatant inferiority in society. We must behave with the constant worry that we may be victimized if we drink too much, or wear the wrong outfit, or leave a party too late at night. Rape culture provides the foundation for sexual violence by normalizing it, thus allowing sex- ual assault or rape to be excused under the notion that “boys will be boys” or “he's just a man”, operating under the hegemonic assumption that men cannot control their sexuality. Rape culture does not suggest that all men perpetuate sexual violence; however, it does encourage a fear of men in general as potential rapists (Forni, 2014).

This constant fear and uneasiness is harmful. The degradation and dehumanization of women is harmful. Women's constant objectification as sexual trinkets is harmful. Our self-esteem, ability to interact, and po- tential success in life as a whole is compromised by the perpetuation of rape culture. University and college campuses need to take a clear stand in the protection and prioritization of women's safety and equality. As Dodge (2015: 9) stated, “We cannot just hold these boys responsible, but must also pay attention to the pervasiveness of rape culture and the ubiquity of acts of sexism that allow the perpetration of sexual

violence to become banal.” Rape culture has allowed for the objectifica- tion of women for far too long. As one participant commented about the banners, “Excusing that kind of behavior from young men opens the door for rapists and murderers. It is dangerous to make light of the safe- ty of young women.” The banners were not acceptable. The fact that the banners were meant as a joke should not excuse the perpetrators, nor should their age, gender, or status as a college student. The banners were harmful to women at the university, the overall campus environ- ment, and women everywhere. It is time that we, as a society, acknowl- edged that reality.

11. Social media

The use of Facebook to analyze unmediated responses to an incident of rape culture provided further insight on prevalent attitudes regarding sexism. Facebook responses are unfiltered and immediate, giving a true sense of local citizens' feelings without researcher intervention. In addi- tion, Facebook, and social media in general, provide the world with a new platform in the dissemination of information. Without the use of Facebook and social media, it is possible that the banners could have gone relatively unnoticed and unacknowledged within the local media's eye. Instead, social media was used to further spread awareness of the banners and thus brought attention to women's inequality in the college campus arena, although majority of responses validated rape culture and sexist behaviors. Unfortunately, such responses “represent the ways that new media can be seen to exacerbate issues surrounding sex- ual violence by creating digital spaces wherein the perpetuation and le- gitimization of sexual violence takes on new qualities” (Dodge, 2015: 2).

Social media can and should be used as a platform to aid in the res- olution of women's inequality. The main function of social media, which is to disseminate information on various topics, should be utilized in a positive manner, aiding in spreading awareness about the struggles that women experience on college campuses due to the continuance of rape culture. In some cases, feminists have begun using social media as a platform to create new narratives about sexual violence and gender stereotypes. In addition, new songs and documentaries have attempted to begin increasing cognizance of the hardships women face on college campuses, such as Lady Gaga's recent song “Til It Happens to You” and the documentary “The Hunting Ground.”

The current work aims to provoke further discussion on the use of social media in uncovering unmediated attitudes regarding rape culture and sexism in the male-dominated college domain. This research invites further investigation and critique of the applicability of the “boys will be boys” ideology as well as hegemonic masculinity prevalent in rape cul- ture. In addition, this research offers an exploratory theoretical frame- work for further investigation on the way in which local citizens dismiss rape culture through the context of humor, age, college, and sexuality. These aspects combined have made it nearly effortless for ma- jority of society to legitimize sexism and the maintenance of rape cul- ture. In order to truly combat it, society must first acknowledge the use of these common ideologies as tools to perpetuate rape culture, and then attempt to revert them through education and activism. Social media must be used as an aid in this activism due to its extreme popu- larity and wide reach. The university must also acknowledge rape cul- ture as a real problem, worthy of addressing and eliminating in hopes of addressing the predatory environment that the allowance of rape cul- ture creates. We, as a society, must come to grips with the reality of sex- ual assault and rape and work to resolve the maintenance of rape culture through the elimination of sexist vernacular and ideologies. Cre- ating a climate of safety and comfort in the college setting is becoming increasingly imperative as statistics continue to demonstrate how fre- quently sexual assault occurs. If nothing changes on university cam- puses, rape culture, including normalized sexual aggression from fraternity members, athletes, and professors alike, will continue to threaten the overall safety of university settings.

124 A. Giraldi, E. Monk-Turner / Women's Studies International Forum 62 (2017) 116–124

References

Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for “hooking up”: How far have we come toward gender equality? Social Science Research, 42, 1191–1206. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006.

Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L., & Sweeney, B. (2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multi- level, integrative approach to party rape. Social Problems, 53(4), 483–499.

Boswell, A. A., & Spade, J. Z. (1996). Fraternities and collegiate rape culture: Why are some fraternities more dangerous places for women? Gender & Society, 10(2), 133–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124396010002003.

Boyle, K. M. (2015). Social psychological processes that facilitate sexual assault within the fraternity party subculture. Sociology Compass, 9(5), 386–399.

Buchwald, E., Fletcher, P., & Roth, M. (2005). In E. Buchwald, P. Fletcher, & M. Roth (Eds.), Transforming a rape culture (pp. XI). Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.

Burnett, A., Mattern, J. L., Herakova, L. L., Kahl, D. H., Tobola, C., & Bornsen, S. E. (2009). Communicating/muting date rape: A co-cultural theoretical analysis of communica- tion factors related to rape culture on a college campus. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37(4), 465–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00909880903233150.

Chagnon, N., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2015). “Someone's been in the house:” a tale of bur- glary and trial by media. Crime, Media, Culture, 11(1), 41–60. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/1741659014566825.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Eliason, M. (2006). From invisible to incorrigible: The demonization of marginalized women and girls. Crime, Media, Culture, 2(1), 29–47. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1741659006061709.

Crapo, R. H. (1991). Human-sexuality and gender – A course of study. Women's Studies International Forum, 14(4), 321–333.

Denes, A. (2011). Biology as consent: Problematizing the scientific approach to seducing women's bodies. Women's Studies International Forum, 34(5), 411–419. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.wsif.2011.05.002.

Dewey, J. (2015). Digital sociology. Research Starters: Sociology (Online Edition). Dodge, A. (2015). Digitizing rape culture: Online sexual violence and the power of the

digital photograph. Crime, Media, Culture, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1741659015601173.

Ellis, A., Sloan, J., & Wykes, M. (2013). ‘Moatifs’ of masculinity: The stories told about ‘men’ in British newspaper coverage of the Raoul moat case. Crime, Media, Culture, 9(1), 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741659012454124.

Ferguson, M., Piché, J., & Walby, K. (2015). Bridging or fostering social distance? An anal- ysis of penal spectator comments on Canadian penal history museums. Crime, Media, Culture, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741659015596111.

Forni, A. (2014). Breaking rape culture: Considering media representation in the battle against sexual assault on college campuses. Dekalb, IL: Master of Arts, Department of Communication Studies, Northern Illinois University.

Fraser, C. (2015). From ladies first to asking for it: Benevolent sexism in the maintenance of rape culture. California Law Review, 103(1), 141–204.

Garavaglia, A., & Petti, L. (2015). University student communities and media habits: From formal LMS to social networks. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 898–903.

Gasso, J., & Greenberg, S. (2010). 'DKE Apologies for Pledge Chants.' Yale Daily News. bhttp://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2010/oct/15/dke-apologizes for pledge- chants/N(accessed October 2014).

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for quali- tative research. Newbrunswick, NJ: AldineTransaction.

Humphrey, S. E., & Kahn, A. S. (2000). Fraternities, athletic teams, and rape: Importance of identification with a risky group. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(12), 1313–1322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626000015012005.

Johnson, J. S. (2015). Qualitative sales research: An exposition of grounded theory. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35(3), 262–273.

Klein, J. (2005). Teaching her a lesson: Media misses boys' rage relating to girls in school shootings. Crime, Media, Culture, 1(1), 90–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1741659005050245.

Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2007). The campus sexual assault study. National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Retrieved November 16, 2015 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/ 221153.pdf.

Lombardi, K., & Jones, K. (2009). Sexual assault on campus: A frustrating search for justice. Washington, DC: Center for Public Integrity.

Machado, H., & Santos, F. (2009). The disappearance of Madeleine McCann: Public drama and trial by media in the Portuguese press. Crime, Media, Culture, 5(2), 146–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741659009335691.

Martin, P. Y., & Hummer, R. (1989). Fraternities and rape on campus. Gender & Society, 3(4), 457–473.

McMahon, S. (2010). Rape myth beliefs and bystander attitudes among incoming college students. Journal of American College Health, 59(1), 3–11.

Miller, B., & Marshall, J. C. (1987). Coercive sex on the university campus. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 38–47.

National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) (2015). Statistics about sexual vio- lence. http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media- packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf.

Nurka, C. (2013). Shame and disgrace in Australian football culture: Rape claims and pub- lic affect. Women's Studies International Forum, 38, 43–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. wsif.2013.02.003.

Phillips, W. (2015). This is why we can't have nice things: Mapping the relationship between online trolling and mainstream culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pinto, K. J. (2015). WAVY news 10 remains Hampton roads' dominant morning, evening and late news leader! Retrieved January 4, 2016 https://lintvwavy.files.wordpress. com/2014/01/wavy-february-sweeps-2015-presser.pdf.

Quackenbush, R. L. (1989). A comparison of androgynous, masculine sex-typed, and un- differentiated males on dimensions of attitudes toward rape. Journal of Research in Personality, 23(3), 318–342.

Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new operating system. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), 00.

Strain, M., Saucier, D., & Martens, A. (2015). Sexist humor in Facebook profiles: Percep- tions of humor targeting women and men. Humor, 28(1), 119–141.

Tieger, T. (1981). Self-rated likelihood of raping and the social perception of rape. Journal of Research in Personality, 15(2), 147–158.

White, J. W., & Smith, P. H. (2004). A longitudinal perspective on physical and sexual inti- mate partner violence against women. 199708.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, NCJ.

Wilhelm, H. (2015). The 'Rape Culture' Lie: Zero Shades of grey. Commentary (New York, NY), 139(3), 24–29.

Yar, M. (2012). Crime, media and the will-to-representation: Reconsidering relationships in the new media age. Crime, Media, Culture, 8(3), 245–260. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/1741659012443227.