Just when I start thinking that Larry King couldn’t possibly get any denser…well, just check it:

KING: OK. A strange story.

We begin here in Los Angeles with Davida Kelley, a former member of the Children of God. It’s now called Family International. She was raised in the household of that sect’s now dead leader, David Berg, whom she says sexually abused her.

Also here is Amy Bril, a former member of the Children of God. She was summoned to the household of David Berg as a young child and married to him at age 13. […]

KING: At what age were you first tampered with?

Yes, “tampered with”. Because the human body is like a Tylenol bottle, and sexual assault is similar to fiddling with the safety packaging on an unopened package of aspirin.

King returns to this clumsy euphemism for “rape” several times throughout the interview:

KING: And Ricky, Davida, he killed, what, the person who was his nanny?

KELLEY: Yes. She was one of many nannies who…

KING: Tampered with him.

KELLEY: Yes, when he was a child.

Remember, we’re talking about child rape and sexual exploitation. “Tampering” doesn’t even begin to describe the horror of what these children (now adults) endured. You “tamper” with a toilet and a roll of Saran Wrap on April Fool’s Day in order to pull a prank on your younger sibling. To refer to ritualized, lifelong sexual abuse and exploitation as “tampering” is to minimize, deny and obscure the realities of what actually took place.

FYI, though King does use the terms “sexual assault” and “sexual abuse” several times throughout the interview, the word “rape” does not appear once - not once! - in the entire, hour-long transcript. Go figure.

———————–

Tagged: larry king cnn rape sex sexual abuse sexual assault msm

Rape does not equal sex.

Correspondingly, a “rape scene” does not equal a “sex scene.”

Thus, your profile of actress Summer Bishil in the August/September Bust is disappointingly misogynistic. And anti-feminist. Yes, I understand that you’re about as feminist as Planet Green is, well, green, but still. Even for a superfluffyfunfeminism magazine, this is beyond the pale.

You’re better than this:

The first question I want to ask Summer Bishil, star of Alan Ball’s new film, Towelhead, is what it was like to do a sex scene with Aaron Eckhart. “I thought he was attractive prior to meeting him,” she replies, laughing, “so I was pretty nervous.” The response catches me off-guard, because the scene in question is a harrowing one in which Bishil’s character, 13-year-old Jasira, is raped.

Wow, Jasira is raped and raped while underage. Where does the “sex scene” come in, exactly?

Seriously, I’ve come to expect this sort of woman-hating, rape-denying/-minimizing bullshit from the mainstream media; the mental gymnastics they sometimes perform in order to avoid using the word “rape” in a news story about rape truly are Olympian in nature:

‘World’s greatest dad’ charged in online child-sex sting (USA Today)

Child rape sting! ‘World’s greatest dad’ charged in online child-rape sting!

Mental Health Expert, 78, Charged In Internet Child Sex Sting (Tampa Bay Online)

Child rape sting! Mental Health Expert, 78, Charged In Internet Child Rape Sting!

Police: Men had sex with teen runaways (The News & Observer)

Raped! Police: Men raped teen runaways!

Guilty Verdict In Videotaped Sex Slay Case (CBS News)

ZOMFG! Rape slay case! Guilty Verdict In Videotaped Rape Slay Case!

Richard D. Davis and Dena Riley raped, tortured and killed a woman! While videotaping it! Where the mofo was this “sex” of which you speak!?!

Former Coroner Employee Had Sex With Body (WKRC TV Cincinnati)

Raped! Former Coroner Employee Raped Body!

Seriously, I am this close to losing my shit now. How on earth does a corpse consent to anything? That’s not a rhetorical question, I really would like an answer. I’m talking to you, anonymous WKRC TV Cincinnati headline writer!

Rape is not sex:

“The word ‘sex’ implies consent,” she said. “I never once would describe (what happened) as sex. He’s making me commit perjury.”

“Sex” implies mutual consent, while terms such as “had sex with,” “engaged in sex,” etc., say as much; after all, you can’t mutually engage in an act or perform an act with someone unless your partner is doing it, too. Rape victims aren’t “having sex” with their assailants, they are being raped.

So, Ms. Priya Jain & Bust mag editors, I am extremely disappointed, disgusted and appalled to find you, of all peoples, regurgitating the language of the patriarchy. The language which implies that a rape did not, in fact, take place (no matter what that self-hating whore says the morning after); the language which denies and minimizes rape (what are you talking about, I didn’t rape her; we had sex); the language which allows all of society to turn a blind eye to the realities of rape. After all, if the word “rape” never graces the headlines, where’s the problem?

Call me naive, but I expected more from an indie/feminist media outlet.

Signed,

- A soon-to-be-ex-subscriber. (But not because of your unfortunate choice of words to describe rape. I’d already made the decision not to renew when I leafed through your latest issue. I just totally like Bitch better.)

Oh, and P.S.: Decorating your Twin Peaks fashion spread with a decapitated deer head? Totally uncool. Really, would it have killed you and your grand artistic vision to just substitute in some wrought iron doohickey instead? Random acts of violence are so 1942, dontchaknow.

———————

Tagged: bust msm rape sex misogyny feminism language speciesism fashion

In Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflections by Women Writers, Deborah Tannen* brings us entry #105 in Hillary Sexism Watch**:

All human relations pivot on two dimensions: on one hand, closeness/distance, and on the other, hierarchy. We ask of every encounter: Does this bring us closer or push us apart? And also: Does this put me in a one-up or a one-down position? Researchers in my field [linguistics] refer to these dimensions as solidarity and power. You can see them at work in forms of address. If you call others by their first names, you’re exercising solidarity, bringing them closer; using their titles and their last names creates distance. But forms of address also operate on the hierarchy dimension, especially if they’re asymmetrical. Calling people by their first names can indicate their lack of power, as with children and workers in service roles. Addressing someone as Mr., Ms., or Dr. can indicate either formality or the fact that they are above you on the social ladder and, hence, more powerful. This constitutes another double bind, and it brings us back to Hillary.

Why, we might ask, do we refer to Hillary as Hillary? Women are far more often referred to by their first names than are men in similar roles. This is partly because people tend to feel more comfortable with women and find them less intimidating. For a political candidate, that’s a good thing. But being referred to by a first name is also the result, and simultaneously the cause, of women commanding less respect. During the Democratic primary campaign debates, Hillary shared the stage with Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, and Obama - not Dennis, John, Joe, Bill, Christopher, and Barack. Of course, one obvious reason that Hillary is Hillary to us is that she shares her last name with the other famous Clinton (a choice, recall, that was pressed upon her). Another is that her name is unusual and therefore more recognizable than, say, Susan or Mary. But the name Barack is even more unusual.

If you look back through the archives, it’s plainly obvious that I alternate between referring to Ms. Clinton as “Hillary” and “Clinton”, but very rarely use first names in reference to the male candidates. Barack Obama is usually just “Obama” - even though, as Tannen points out, “Barack” is at least recognizable as “Hillary”.

Given the misogyny directed Clinton (see, for example: “she-devil”, “robot”, “cold”, “calculated”, “Sister Frigidaire”, etc.), I don’t think most people call Hillary “Hillary” because they’re overcome with warm fuzzy wuzzies and want to be one with her. (Her supporters, perhaps, but her detractors? Not so much.) Rather, in many cases I think it’s more likely that “power” (vs. “solidarity”) is the operating principle: it’s a way of infantilizing her, taking the ball-buster down a peg, cutting off another uppity bitch’s feet. Hillary doesn’t seem as powerful, as intimating, when she’s just “Hillary” - as opposed to “Mrs. Clinton” or even (gawd forbid!) “Hillary Rodham Clinton”. And what with all the jokes about castration, I think it’s more than safe to say that a good number of men feel threatened by her, some subconsciously, others more obviously so.

So what does it say of me, that I address Clinton by her first name while addressing most others by their surnames? Probably that I’ve internalized so much misogyny over my thirty years that I’m still trying to shake it off. I want to be a radfem blamer, dammit, but I’ve received the same socialization as the dudez over at the Daily Kos!

* See: “The Double Bind: The damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t paradox facing women leaders”, p. 132-133

** I know, I know, the primaries are so! over!…but the misogyny, my friends…the misogyny will last a lifetime.***

*** Along with the racism, homophobia, transgenderphobia, religious bigotry, speciesism, etc. In singling out the misogyny, I’m not discounting all the other isms, just so we’re clear, mkay?

———————-

Tagged: 2008 elections feminism misogyny hillary clinton language linguistics books book review thirty ways of looking at hillary Deborah Tannen sexism