Take Back the News

Archive for the ‘voices of survivors’ Category

Men? Responsible for their own actions?

Posted by Anna on November 24, 2007

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4284751a10.html

The woman, who has name suppression and who made a liar of Mr Rickards’ former Rotorua CIB boss, John Dewar, was going to tell the disciplinary tribunal that Mr Rickards and Shipton had sex with her in and on police cars in Rotorua in the 1980s.

John Dewar is an adult in full possession of  his mental faculties (although his ethical ones are obviously another matter). He made the decision to lie, no-one else.

This is the same sort of mentality that says that if a woman wears skimpy clothing and flirts then she’s clearly irresistable, and of course a man has simply no choice but to rape her.

Posted in Aotearoa New Zealand, Dominion Post, police, sexism, stuff.co.nz, voices of survivors | Leave a Comment »

Some thoughts on language

Posted by Anna on August 2, 2007

I’m going to take off my self-righteously-angry-feminist hat (don’t worry, it’s only temporary) and put on my on my personal meditation one. The thing is, although I think there are some very obvious problems with reporting that the media could (and should) rectify right now, writing about these issues isn’t easy.

There have been many times, particularly writing this blog, that I have hesitated before continuing, not sure which words to use, or even if there are any words. Many people with much better arguments than I have have written about language from a feminist perspective, pointing out that language was predominantly developed by men and therefore there are not adequate words to describe many experiences predominantly experienced by women.

Of course, that’s an oversimplification; there are groups other than women (though probably mostly including women) who experience the same phenomenon.  And disadvantaged groups often do develop their own sets of words. Nevertheless, particularly for groups such as rape survivors who are frequently made to keep their experiences secret, there are huge gaps in the language, and particularly the language used in, say, government or the media.

One place I always hesitate is when I need to refer to someone who has been raped. I fully understand the problems with labelling someone a victim, and I know many people have found it greatly empowering to describe themselves as a survivor.  And I would not hesitate to call someone a survivor if they self describe as such.

But what if they don’t? What is a survivor, anyway? It can be anyone from someone who doesn’t die to someone who gets on with their life successfully as if nothing had happened – in practice it’s usually somewhere between the two, but there certainly isn’t a set definition.

I shall continue to use the term survivor in leaflets and such like, but it worries me that by doing so I might still be implying that those who have been raped should act and feel about themselves in a particular way. It’s a significantly less harmful way than many others, but to an extent it’s still a judgement.

It’s certainly not a bad word, but it’s not one I’m entirely comfortable with either.

And then there’s the term ’sexual assault’, which I’ve used in this blog but with great reluctance. I’ve already written many times about how I object to the use of the word ’sex’ to describe rape, and though it is mitigated somewhat by the use of the word ‘assault’ which emphasises that this is violence, I’m still uncomfortable with it. But the only real alternative I’ve come across is ‘intimate violence’, and to me ‘intimate’ implies (though I appreciate doesn’t mean) a genuine, caring relationship.

And then, what is classified as rape? Different countries use different legal definitions, and these may be the same or different to the commonly used definitions. In any case, the boundary between rape and other forms of sexual violence is pretty arbitrary and tends to take little account of women’s (and men’s) actual experiences and the effects on them.

I would also like to say this: I am white, university educated, a first language English speaker and do not come from a particularly deprived or disadvantaged background. And still I find that for every thing I write about on this blog, there are maybe three that I feel unable to write about. That may be because of the lack of suitable language available to me, or because I don’t feel comfortable or safe doing so. If even women in a relatively advantaged position feel somewhat silenced, then we need to look not only at what we are reading in the media, but also what we are not reading.

Posted in language, personal opinions, voices of survivors | 2 Comments »

Untold stories

Posted by Anna on July 28, 2007

Accused teacher says life shattered

Now I know there will be issues with what the media can report, but even so there is a huge disparity in this article between the teacher’s viewpoint and that of the girl. We hear all about his “supporters” and how this has shattered his life and his (rather short sighted) assertion that this is “anyone’s worst nightmare”.

So what about her. How has this affected her life. Can she sleep at night? Does she have nightmares? Is she still at school or is she too afraid? Is she ostracised there? Is she able to concentrate? Are her parents supporting her? Is she being blamed for what happened to her? How does she feel being accused of lying?

Because these are the stories that so often go untold.

Posted in Aotearoa New Zealand, allegedly, child sexual abuse, courts, stuff.co.nz, voices of survivors | Leave a Comment »

The power of words

Posted by Anna on July 15, 2007

This post isn’t directly about the media, but the issues raised carry through into that domain.

From Slate:

Yet a Nebraska district judge, Jeffre Cheuvront, suddenly finds himself in a war of words with attorneys on both sides of a sexual assault trial. More worrisome, he appears to be at war with language itself, and his paradoxical answer is to ban it: Last fall, Cheuvront granted a motion by defense attorneys barring the use of the words rape, sexual assault, victim, assailant, and sexual assault kit from the trial of Pamir Safi—accused of raping Tory Bowen in October 2004.

Safi’s first trial resulted in a hung jury last November when jurors deadlocked 7-5. Responding to Cheuvront’s initial language ban—which will be in force again when Safi is retried in July—prosecutors upped the ante last month by seeking to have words like sex and intercourse barred from the courtroom as well. The judge denied that motion, evidently on the theory that there would be no words left to describe the sex act at all. The result is that the defense and the prosecution are both left to use the same word—sex—to describe either forcible sexual assault, or benign consensual intercourse. As for the jurors, they’ll just have to read the witnesses’ eyebrows to sort out the difference.

The article also highlights the different ways rape is thought about and handled compared to other crimes:

The real question for Judge Cheuvront, then, is whether embedded in the word sex is another “legal conclusion”—that the intercourse was consensual. And it’s hard to conclude otherwise. Go ahead, use the word sex in a sentence. Asking a complaining witness to scrub the word rape or assault from her testimony is one thing. Asking that she imply that she agreed to what her alleged assailant was doing to her is something else entirely. To put it another way: If the complaining witness in a rape trial has to describe herself as having had “intercourse” with the defendant, should the complaining witness in a mugging be forced to testify that he was merely giving his attacker a loan?

The fact that judges are not rushing to ban similarly conclusory legal language from trial testimony—presumably one can still say murder or embezzlement on the stand—reflects not just the fraught nature of language but also the fraught nature of rape prosecutions. We as a society still somehow think rape is different—either because we assume the victims are especially fragile or because we assume they are particularly deceitful. Is the word rape truly more inflammatory to a jury than the word robbery? Yes, the question of the victim’s consent surely makes a rape trial more complicated than some other kinds of criminal trials. But the fact that the evidence may be more equivocal hardly makes the underlying word more likely to incite blind juror outrage.

‘Our’ language is often lacking in appropriate terms for rape survivors to describe their experience in, as it is for most groups who lack power or general acceptance. Likewise, ‘our’ legal system is a model that they must frequently adapt their experience and reactions to suit, rather than the other way round.

This case (which makes me very, very angry) is an obvious example of that, but I think it’s important we don’t ignore the instances which are so ingrained we don’t think to question them.

Posted in courts, language, legal, sex, voices of survivors | 1 Comment »

Telling her story

Posted by Anna on July 4, 2007

I’ve got some mixed feelings about this story in The New Zealand Herald.

On the one hand, I think it’s great that they are giving a rape survivor the opportunity to tell her story (and I admire her for doing so).

On the other hand, this story does fit all the criteria a lot of society – and the media -  view as important for being sympathetic to a rape survivor:

  • She did not know her attacker
  • She was at home
  • She did not let him into her house
  • She told the police
  • She has positive things to say about the police
  • She left evidence for the police
  • The rapist was convicted

Her story is no less important for all that, and I’m glad it was published. But I would like to see the stories of other rape survivors who don’t fit as many – or any – of those expectations of what happened to them and how they reacted printed more often (without the implication that they may be lying or at fault).

Posted in NZ Herald, police, victim blaming, voices of survivors | Leave a Comment »