Seriously, editors, how have you not gotten this yet? “Rape” is not “sex”
|
Posted by Jennifer L Pozner July 5th, 2007 |
I am seriously tired of writing articles, op-eds and blog posts — and arguing with reporters, editors, and cable news hosts — about the journalistic responsibility to not describe non-consensual, criminal sexual assault as “rape” or “sexual assualt,” not simply “having sex.”
You’d think this wouldn’t be a tough distinction, especially in cases where the allegations involve gang rape, or unconscious victims. Yet time and time again, we see headlines like this week’s Journal & Courier’s “2 accused of sex with unconscious woman.”
How many times do I have to write the same critique in response to what seems like a never ending stream of stories that make the same eggregious linguistic mistake?
As the E.D. of Women In Media & News, I understand why these problems persist, and I’m dedicated to continuing to call outlets on their bias . But wouldn’t it be nice if newsrooms could muster up some semantic common sense, not to mention knowledge of accurate terminology for crime reporting, or even simply human decency to make such critiques unnecessary?
July 6th, 2007 03:29
What an atrocious headline, gah! This definitely shouldn’t be just your fight-the more people that speak up the better-so I’ll add myself to watching outfor that
July 6th, 2007 13:16
this reminds me of amanda at pandagon’s recent post about framing and sex - she noted how most of the time, feminists and fundies are even really conceptualizing of sex in the same way. for feminists it’s a mutual activity; for fundies it’s more like conquest.
in that light, things like this start to make sense - a culture that believes that women don’t want sex so much as acquiesce to it, “sex with an unconscious woman” isn’t so much rape as it is “sex with the least possible amount of cajoling.”
sick.
July 6th, 2007 21:19
Kate, that’s such an interesting (and disturbing) thought - the idea that rape becomes, in some people’s minds, simply “sex with minimal cajoling.” Oooph.
July 9th, 2007 00:43
[…] On Thursday, in response to a crime story headlined, “2 accused of sex with unconscious woman,” I blogged that: I am seriously tired of writing articles, op-eds and blog posts — and arguing with reporters, editors, and cable news hosts — about the journalistic responsibility to not describe non-consensual, criminal sexual assault as “rape” or “sexual assualt,” not simply “having sex.” […]
July 16th, 2007 23:47
“Rape” or “Sexual Assault” are hate terms which doesn’t give the person to defend themselves. “Non-Consensual Sex” is the correct term, until found guilty, then you can use the term “rape”.
July 16th, 2007 23:57
[…] Blog over @ WIMN online has a short blog article about the terms “Rape” and “Sexual Assault” over the term “Having Sex”. […]
July 17th, 2007 10:33
IW, you are confused. “Rape” and “Sexual Assault” are not hate TERMS, they are hate CRIMES. And “non-consensual sex” is a criminal act, whether or not you choose to call it rape, so if you think the issue is that an accused person is not guilty until proven so, then the key terminology you should be looking for is not “non-consensual sex,” which is also indicative of a crime, but “ALLEGED rape.”
No one is accused of “non-consensual wallet transfer” when on trial for mugging someone. They are accused of “alleged theft” — the same standards should apply to rape.
If someone is not guilty of rape (or even if they are guilty), they have the same right to a fair trial as any other defendent in the U.S. legal system. They can then prove their innocence of the crime they are accused of committing. The issue you and others like you are trying to muddy is that the crime they are accused of committing is *rape* - not a sexual act that implies willing participation from the person who is alleging the crime.
October 6th, 2008 12:56
[…] Quick hit: several of us here at WIMN’s Voices have written about how misrepresentative media treatment of violence against women too often is — that is, when this kind of abuse isn’t missing entirely, or portrayed as alternately glamorous or hilarious. […]