Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

Why does it have to be "rape victim"

39 replies

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/08/2015 09:01

I don't understand why they do this. It is also done indiscriminately. Some people say that it's because of legal stuff, but lots of times they will say someone was raped and then other times they are "raped". Some people sat it's factual but to most people it sounds sceptical doesn't it? One is a fact the other is " well that's what she's saying but who knows really ".

Anyone this one today pissed me right off.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33919483 here]]

She was 10 fgs. There is no question over what happened. No one in their right minds can say that was legal and consensual. This report is in the UK press. Yet they're too, what, squeamish to say outright she was raped because, what, maybe she got pregnant with no sex?

Angry.

OP posts:

Report

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/08/2015 09:07

I think this is a really good example of deep rooted problems in attitudes.

They suggest she may not have been raped. With their "". She is 11. She just had a baby. Yet the press like to imply there is some other way this can have happened that didn't involve rape. I am fairly sure it's illegal to impregnate 10 y o in Paraguay so why they have to put their "" sounds a bit iffy to me quite marks in is beyond me.

Has anyone ever looked at the use of "" in reporting of sex crimes to see if they are applied more or less liberally in different situations? My observations say they are.

OP posts:

scallopsrgreat · 14/08/2015 09:41

Here's the link

Yes I agree. The quotes do make the fact that she was raped seem dubious. Within in the article they say she was both allegedly raped and raped. So it is inconsistent. The allegedly raped comment was naming the stepfather as the perpetrator. So she was only allegedly raped when they actually point a finger at the man who did it . But they seem quite comfortable in the rest of the article to say she was raped, so why the scare quotes in the headline??

The BBC are pretty chronic with their reporting on sexual violence. Their priority is most definitely towards the perpetrator of the crime.

TheyreMadITellYouMaaaad · 14/08/2015 09:56

Because, although there is no doubt that she was raped, when they suggest who the perpetrator may have been they cannot imply that he was the rapist until he is legally found guilty. So in his context the child was 'raped'. Outside his context she was raped.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/08/2015 09:57

Surely rather than casting doubt on whether a rape has happened here

They simply say she was raped and had now had a baby and etc

And that the person who raped her is alleged to be her stepfather who is denying it

That sort of thing.

Yes this approach absolutely gives priority to the perpetrator. Implying there's could be some way this was not a crime. Maybe it was an immaculate conception and the BBC are worried about angering God. Yes there's always got to be an explanation other than the obvious one when it looks like a man might have committed a sex crime.

Ffs

OP posts:

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/08/2015 09:59

The headline describes her as a "rape victim" with no mention of who has been accused. Theyremad.

How anyone can defend this is beyond me.

OP posts:

MrNoseybonk · 14/08/2015 09:59

"who was allegedly raped by her stepfather"

Doesn't say she was allegedly raped, but that the rape was allegedly by her stepfather.

"Her stepfather, who is 42, is in jail awaiting trial."

That's why it's alleged, because it's not proven it's him yet. Media are supposed to not pass judgement on ongoing trials, even if it's obvious.

The headline is bizarre though, and out of kilter with the rest of the article.
Media can be pretty inconsistent, though, often using quotes after the case has been proved, probably to play it safe? Or just errors?

MrNoseybonk · 14/08/2015 10:01

"The girl, who has not been named for her own protection, was raped when she was 10 years old, officials say."

I think you have to work pretty hard to interpret the artice as saying she might not have been raped.

PacificDogwood · 14/08/2015 10:01

"… who was raped, allegedly by her stepfather" would acknowledge that she was of course and undoubtably rapes, but that her stepfather has not yet been found guilty.

YANBU. The language around rape and sexual assault is shockingly misogynistic

PacificDogwood · 14/08/2015 10:02

raped

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/08/2015 10:04

They also don't even say in the text that she was raped when she was 10.

They say that, officials say she was raped when she was 10. So if we're going to be picky, that's not a pure statement of fact either. Just because an official says something doesn't mean it's true, in general we accept this. Iyswim.

So in fact nowhere in the piece does it unambiguously state that this child was raped. Every mention is softened with "alleged" or "" or that it's just someone saying it.

OP posts:

oddfodd · 14/08/2015 10:04

Looking at the earlier article, it does look as if it's a quote from the trial. It reads really badly though, absolutely agree. I'm going to email them

tribpot · 14/08/2015 10:05

I think this is probably a legal convention because the step-father has not yet been found guilty of rape. I think the the Beeb is wrong to make this distinction - the girl clearly cannot have consented and therefore rape has occurred (it is possible the step-father is not the perpetrator, but the crime has clearly happened). The quotes mean they are quoting someone else's description of her rather than stating it as a fact.

The report says she was allegedly raped by her stepfather - the alleged part relates to him, not the crime itself but it reads clumsily and the ambiguity is not helpful. The next mention of her having been raped is again a quote, albeit an indirect one, i.e. not a literal quote but a summary of what 'officials' have said.

I would certainly complain to the BBC - overall the tone of this report is unhelpful and biased. The only quote is from the doctor in the case, who says "You must invest in education. There is nothing else to be done". Really? Nothing else? Like, for example, protecting children better from abuse? Or, for example, making abortion legal? Forcing that child to carry a child to term is a continuation of the abuse done to her by her step-father.

PacificDogwood · 14/08/2015 10:07

See, this is where you need a good grammar pedant : 'alleged rape' is quite different from 'stepfather allegedly raped her'.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/08/2015 10:07

Yy exactly pacific

They can say she was raped and say who was alleged to have done it

Why not cast doubt on who did it, rather than that it happened at all? They always do this.

I would have thought this was a pretty clear cut example of why this style of reporting sex crimes is so dodgy, apparently not.

OP posts:

tribpot · 14/08/2015 10:08

Btw I think the 'officials say' bit is around her age when the crime took place - I assume the Beeb cannot independently verify the girl's exact age, and thus can't be certain she wasn't 11 at the time of the crime. Like that would make the slightest difference.

TheyreMadITellYouMaaaad · 14/08/2015 10:08

I haven't read the article, just commenting on why 'raped'/raped. Agree, though, that the title is just plain misogynistically wrong.

PacificDogwood · 14/08/2015 10:09

I suspect that there is also an element in the writer of the piece tying themselves in knots trying to avoid any kind of legal comeback by not putting " " or 'allegedly' in front of everything, instead of being a Good Pedant.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/08/2015 10:15

They don't seem to have this problem when people are burgled, or mugged, do they. Or should that be "burgled" or "mugged"?

See it even looks weird because when those crimes happen they are quite comfortable in saying eg " x was burgled on Thursday and 2 men have been remanded in custody on suspicion" etc. Just sex crimes you need to show scepticism over whether the crime even happened in the first place. Even when the evidence is incontrovertible as it is in this case.

OP posts:

MrNoseybonk · 14/08/2015 10:17

tribpot agree with you.
This kind of non-committal reporting is routine in any ongoing case, rape or not.
New reports report the trial, what people said, what people allege, etc.
Our local paper does it all the time: "prosecuters say the man was hit in the face with a glass". He was clearly hit in the face with a glass, but the prosecutor says it in court and the paper reports it in a way which could be seen as ambiguous.
Agree the BBC should make it unambiguous here though.

PacificDogwood · 14/08/2015 10:17

Yep, so true

PacificDogwood · 14/08/2015 10:18

That was to Whirlpool - x-post.

MrNoseybonk · 14/08/2015 10:20

x-post too.
I don't think other crimes are reported differently.

scallopsrgreat · 14/08/2015 10:22

Absolutely agree with Pacific (who said what I was trying to say much better). There are ways of saying that the perpetrator hasn't yet been confirmed in completeness by a jury of his peers but the victim was still raped, without saying she was allegedly raped by the perpetrator. It took less than 30s thought to rearrange that sentence.

The language around sexual violence is very very telling and so very very important.

scallopsrgreat · 14/08/2015 10:41

I also agree with tribpot's first post. Especially the last paragraph. It's telling that that statement by the doctor wasn't challenged. Again rape is almost always viewed from the perspective of men.

tribpot · 14/08/2015 10:58

The sad thing is, Amnesty would have been very happy to have given the Beeb a quote for balance, as they have been campaigning on behalf of this poor child for months.

This was the Grauniad's report on the same story.

Flip

1 2

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.