So, Ben Goldacre at the Guardian UK exposed some really horrendous science reporting on behalf of the UK paper the Telegraph. It's kind of baffling that the original reporter thought he could get away with it, although it does seem that if Mr. Goldacre hadn't called him out on it, he might have.
The offending article has been removed from the Telegraph's website, and I'm not linking to them becase I don't want to give them any more traffic than they've already gotten out of this. The Telegraph ran the article, entitled "Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists." The lead line went further to say that women "who drink alcohol, wear short skirts and are outgoing are more likely to be raped."
Here's where it gets fun. Not only did the study not claim any of that, but the title of the press release from which the Telegraph reporter derived this article was "Promiscuous men more likely to rape." How the hell do you get from "Promiscuous men more likely to rape," to blaming those short skirt wearing, alcohol drinking floozies for their own rapes?
Now, Mr. Goldacre, being a reasonable and responsible journalist decided to delve into the matter and actually called the Masters student whose research generated the whole kerfuffle. Ms. Sophia Shaw told him that she had seen the article and was sick about it, and had spoken to the journalist in question. She informed him that A. her findings were very preliminary, and B. that nothing in her research backed up the Telegraph reporter's assertions. They did not find that a woman's dress had much to do with a man's decision to coerce her, and that in the case of alcohol consumption, men were less likely to press the issue with a drunk woman, actually.
The real story here is not Ms. Shaw's research which, while interesting, is still very, very preliminary, but how the reporter from the Telegraph chose to report it. When handed a press release titled, "Promiscuous men more likely to rape," he turned it into yet another article on how women were raping themselves by wearing provocative clothing and drinking alcohol, out in public. Those jezebels.
This piece aside, one of the major problems in rape reporting of any sort is this bizarre insistence on "disappearing" the rapist. News reports of rape frequently contain phrase constructions like "the victim was raped," "women were raped." I first encounted the phrase "disappearing rapists" from Marcella Chester of Abyss to Hope, an excellent blog about rape awareness, activism and healing. Women are raped, but where are the rapists in the reporting? In essence, the reporter responsible for the original article did the same thing. By blaming the behavior of women for their rapes, instead of reporting on what the research actually showed, he disappeared the promiscuous men who are more likely to rape, and placed the onus on boozy, short skirted hussies.
Women's magazines and our email inboxes flood with articles about what we, as women, must do to stop rape. Nevermind that generations of women doing all of these things since time immemorial hasn't stopped rape. Provocatively dressed women cause rape? Tell that to all the raped women and girls who spend their lives encased in the burka in Afghanistan and other fundamentalist Islamic areas of the world. Or the women who are raped in the US while wearing sweatpants, ankle length dresses, turtlenecks, jeans, work uniforms, scrubs...
However, never have I seen an article in a men's magazine with the headline: "How not to rape."
I guess the main point of this little rant is that when media thinks it's ok to publish a piece called "Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists," from a press release entitled, "Promiscuous men more likely to rape," how surprised can we be that they keep telling us it's all our fault?
Mickey Schulz is a guest author for the California NOW blog; her opinions are not necessarily those of California NOW. Copyright Mickey Schulz, with permission granted to California NOW for use on this site.
Comments