Reporting of Renfrewshire rape - reply from STV news, finally.

[mimithemindfull]

I hope some of you will remember my post about this a few weeks ago. I wrote to complain about the reporter saying the woman was not physically injured. Editors reply below . I am furious at the sheet arrogance of it, the patronising tone and the fact that he is shifting the blame on to the police. I will write back to him but in the mean time I would be interested in your thoughts.

"First of all apologies in the delay in responding to you. I have been off on annual leave. Secondly I would like to emphasise how seriously STV News takes reporting of such crimes.

The piece to which you refer was based on information received directly from the police. The reporter asked officers if the victim had been physically injured and they emphasised she hadn't been and hadn't required treatment in hospital. The police also offered other information regarding the incident which was off the record and I am not at liberty to detail this information further.
The reference to the woman wearing distinctive white earphones was included in the report in case somebody recognised the woman at that time of day which may help find the attacker.
STV News editorial policy means reporting on such cases with accuracy and sensitivity. It is regretful that you have been angered by our report, but I would say that the package was aired in good faith and based on information received by investigating officers. "

"pedantry"

ok

we are talking here about language that betrays how we as a society view rape. if people are talking about aggravating factors then we have the language that can be used accordingly

the subtleties of meaning have direct implications for how people who are raped are treated, and how rapists are treated

if you agree with this but are prepared to dismiss cnallenges as pedantry deserving of eyerolling - well...

No. That's not true.

How would you define the sustaining of physical injury?

Are you also saying that something is only a violent act if physical injuries are sustained?

Pointing a gun in someone's face is a violent act. Where's the physical injury?

Sorry. I think you're wrong.

Oh do FO. You can't dismiss every statement that seeks to clarify points on rape as basically excusing or supporting it. That's utter toss that leads to absurdism.

we're not talking about a gun being waved in someone's face. we're talking about rape, where a penis has been forced into a woman's body

i didn't say you were excusing or supporting it

it was more an expression of disbelief

Christ, you can't talk to you people. Any minor disagreement and you're leapt in as a rape apologist. It's bollocks.

You think it is perfectly reasonable to say that a woman who has been raped has not been physically harmed.

Again it's a view held by much of society - that it's only "proper" rape if additional physical violence is involved. Above and beyond the violence inherent in shoving your penis inside the body of someone who doesn't want it there.

You are more than entitled to hold that view I just wonder why you choose to espouse it on the feminism section of a website frequented mainly by women who are clearly going to think that you are very very wrong. Just pondering really, why that might be.

Yy Seven. Damsilil - the reporter did not ' clearly' mean or imply anything of the sort. As for pedantry I have to disagree with you and can only reiterate that the way women and women's behaviour is described has important implications for the way they are treated eg in l

i don't see how someone can both say that language is important, but also that challenging language that perpetuates harmful attitudes is pedantry

Sorry sent too soon - was going to say in a court of law for example

"We're not talking about a gun".

Oh. So for rape we have to use different language and there are different rules because it trumps every other sort of abuse or violence and comparisons are meaningless? Actually, for you it probably is. The political aspects of it weigh so heavily as to make sensible discussion impossible.

And now 'injury' becomes 'harmed'. Jesus. Twist it the way you want. And also take your 'this is our board - who are you' attitude and shove it up your arse.

As I said in the last thread, saying she wasn't physically harmed is like saying well he "only" raped her. It minimises the rape, whether it was intentional or not. That's why the kind of language we use is important.

Blimey damsilli you seem a bit tetchy. Are you OK?

i am totally confused. i don't own this board and i'm not trying to stop you posting here, but seem to warrant quite a lot of rudeness on your part. i'm trying to work out why you can say that language is important but that challenging it in this instance is pedantry.

Got to go to bed now but very grateful to you all( with the possible exception of Damsilli ) for helping me to clarify my thoughts around this. Its good to know that people feel as I do , albeit around an issue that theres nothing to be happy about.

I don't understand why you are comparing the act of pointing a gun at someone and saying yes it's a violent act no there is no physical injury

With rape where a man is physically penetrating someone with his penis.

A better analogy to the gun one would be threatening someone with rape surely.

But don't feel like you have to answer as you seem to be getting a bit worked up and it's only the net and that. Step away when things get too upsetting for you is sound advice I think

I have to confess this is one FWR issue I can't get behind. I think that when reporting rape, it is assumed that 'not injured' means that the victim wasn't injured in addition to the rape.

As opposed to when a victim has sustained injury requiring hospital treatment.

i think it could have been reported in that way, i.e. "no other physical injuries". it wouldn't have been difficult

DS, is there anything you've read so far on FWR that you agree with, out of interest?

I'm not going to report your personal attacks - I'll leave it to PG to do so if she wants - but as I think you are quite new to MN, your 2139 post would probably be deleted if it was reported.

It's not the same as a threat with a gun at all. If someone was stabbed in a knife attack it would never be reported as 'not physically injured' meaning, not injured apart from being stabbed, yet knife attacks can be accompanied by other injuries, if someone beats the crap out of you as well.

No one would say that being penetrated with a knife wasn't violent, even though it may only very shallow wound.

Why then because its a penis that is doing the penetrating is it not a violent act?

How many of us could write or narrate a report that described a rape victim as 'not physically injured but badly shaken'? None of us, I hope. Regardless of how you define physical injury that phrase should strike anyone as dismissive and completely inappropriate. That phrase just would not occur to anyone who did not have a minimising attitude towards rape. The reply confirms it I think, he makes no recognition of why it can be seen as offensive. The tone of that reply to me, is irritation that a woman dare complain about this and refusal to engage with the issue.

Re. the headphones, I could buy that part of it if the context was 'anyone who was in the area at that time should contact police if they recall seeing a woman wearing white headphones' or something like that.

Don't wear headphones though! You don't hear traffic.

First of all, apologies for being rude last night. Yes, tetchy. No need for it - I should have walked away and come back only when I was prepared to deal in a polite way and not take things so personally.

I would like to reiterate some points:

• I think that that the reporter used language that would generally be understood to mean that there were no injuries in addition to the rape. We don't need to go into specifics here, but we know what we're talking about. I think most people would understand this in a general sense.
• The OP is not interested in a general sense and wants to get specific. Yes, I do think this is rather pedantic as I genuinely doubt that anyone would actually read the report and take away a sense that the rape wasn't a violent act and the victim was somehow 'ok'. The OP does not give the readership this credit however. So, ok, let's get pedantic.
• Since we're being pedantic, the OP is suggesting that rape always results in physical injury. I would suggest that there would be legitimate interpretations of the words 'physical injury' where that would not be the case.
• saying that, under certain - and admittedly pedantic - definitions of 'physical injury', a rape victim may not have sustained physical injury is not the same as saying rape is not harmful. It is not the same as saying that rape is not a violent act.
• No, inserting a penis into a vagina is not the same as inserting a knife into the body.

No, not all violent acts result in physical injury - which was the point I was making about the gun.

My increasing problem on this site is that as soon as someone makes a point that appears to detract from the general piss and fury of an OP's ire, everyone assumes that there's a sexist agenda and piles in to see off the aggressor. In their haste to do so, they often ignore the actual argument that's being made and completely reword people's posts. Can someone explain how anything I've said actually suggests that rape isn't harmful? And yet that's where we got to. I make a relatively simple point and within 5 minutes I've a whirlwind of 'you've minimised the rape' etc etc. This is outright twattery and, yes, I get pissed off.

Yonic Yes, I find FWR an immensely useful tool for lurking and evolving my feminist thoughts. As a themed board, however, it does suffer the faults of most echo-chambers and whilst generally happy to lurk, I find it difficult not to say when I disagree - which is why there is probably a bias in my posts. Just my view, but there is an unseemly rush to condemn anything that doesn't seem sufficiently feminsist, but very little self-regulation with stuff that is overly negative or reads too much into things. Especially on such an unhappy and unpleasant issue as on this thread. As I have alluded to on another thread, I also find absolutism a problem personally. I find the world a more complicated and confusing place than many on here appear to.

I think that the attitude that led to the statement is relevant, not just how viewers interpret it. Some may 'correct' it, others may not. I don't think that calling those who control the presentation of the news to account about careful language (and the possible underlying attitudes) is overly pedantic.

I don't know about the FWR board in general because I'm new here.