There have been a few things on my mind lately that really get my blood boiling. One of them is the recent news story in Georgia. Some state lawmakers wanted to change the word "victim" to "accuser" in cases of stalking and sexual assualt.
I know that doesn't sound like much. It's only one word, so what's the big deal?
The words we choose explain how we really feel about things. By referring to someone as the victim in a case, you are validating their pain and their experience. By referring to them as an "accuser", you are saying that you don't know whether or not you believe them yet. Maybe nothing happened to them at all. I don't understand the logic of wanting to make this change. Why are victims of other crimes still allowed to be victims? Why is this small group being singled out?
Also, sexual assault is grossly underreported. This sort of language is not going to encourage women (or men) to come forward. It's scary enough without worrying about the law not being on your side!!
Here is the link to the story. Which leads me to my next point.
In a move that makes me ashamed of the Republican party, the House GOP was trying to use the term "forcible rape" to change funding for abortions. Now, I'm not going to talk about my feelings on abortion. That's not the point here. But the phrase "forcible rape" REALLY pisses me off. It implies that some rape wasn't forcible. Are you kidding me? Just because someone was drugged or did not have the mental capacity to say no, does not make it any less forcible. Are you kidding me with this? Thankfully, they went ahead and removed that language, but, really? Who thought that one up?!
 |
| Parental Authoritarianism!! |
The last thing I want to share is something I heard on "Little House on the Prairie" today. Laura Ingalls was taking to her grandfather about a problem (I'm not sure what the problem was because I wasn't really watching). She talked to her grandfather about disagreeing with a choice her father made. Her grandfather told her she has to do whatever he says, right or wrong. WHAT?! Who wrote that rule?! I was so irritated to hear this, especially in a format designed for children to understand!
And I hate to say it, but I have had it up to here (hand at eye level) with older generations talking about how much better things were when they were younger. EVERY generation feels that way! Are you noticing a trend here? I feel very strongly that things are as bad as they always were. If you pay attention, just as many horrible things were happening 60 years ago as today. Maybe some of them were hidden more. Maybe the media wasn't operating on the same level to tell us all the awful things out there. Maybe we have more/different tools today to use. Regardless, people are born sinful.
Whew! I'll get off my soapbox.
Rachel
I could talk about the "respecting your elders" topic for days. Demanding any kind of respect from a child for nothing in return except your ability to breed is tantamount to stealing their voice, and not just in situations of abuse. Children should know they are important enough to be treated with the respect that is demanded of them. They should know that adults are not infallible. And they should know that they not only have a RIGHT to speak their mind, but a responsibility to THEMSELVES to speak their mind.
ReplyDeleteyou know my feelings about the first portion of what you wrote it pisses me off as well, the later really interests me and i am in complete agreement as well. I was watching Dr. Phil yesterday and he said something that really stuck with me. He was talking about older generations and how they bitch about all of te young kids and our decisions etc... He point blank said that it is the older generations that paved the way to how things are now. Children learn by watching their parents or parental figure in their life. So... the decicions of this generation have to be rooted from something learned. Im not trying to justify bad decisions. All Im saying, in agreement with you, is that the older generation needs to own up to the fact that the are part of new generations and a cause of how they act to some extent.
ReplyDeleteAimee, I knew you'd like this one. ;-) And I agree that that is an invaluable lesson for our children. I think if they can understand that adults are sometimes wrong, they aren't going to take advantage of it, but maybe, just maybe, they would understand that it's ok to say no.
ReplyDeleteAllie, I have totally said that before that the younger generation isn't learning this stuff out of nowhere! Let's consider who is teaching them and leading the way!!
ReplyDeleteI hope I don't become one of "those" old people!!
I have to say, this is one entry I disagree with (at least partially). I think that no matter what the crime, sexual or not, it is important for a jury to be unbiased. Changing the word from 'victim' may be a good idea. (Though I would not have chosen 'accuser'.) Although we don't want to admit it, false accusations are out there and happen on a regular basis. Plus, there is the whole "guilty until proven innocent" bit. Don't you think the word 'victim' kind of puts a bias toward that person?
ReplyDelete-Abby
I think I see your point. I agree that juries sould be unbiased, which is why they're selective about who can even be ont he jury in each case. However, it is estimated that only 8% of rape accusations turn out to be false. So regardless of whether or not they have the right perpetrator, they still have a victim. It's not up to the jury to decide whether or not something happened at all, but rather if the accused person did it. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I understand it. If the prosecutor thought it didn't happen, they wouldn't touch the case. Also, in this particular situation, it wasn't changing the language across the board - they were singling out sexual assualt crimes and stalking, so I think they wre definetly sending a message. Thoughs?
ReplyDeleteWell the thing is, sexual assault crimes is a pretty broad term. I mean, what if a 15 year old girl and her 18 year old boyfriend are caught in a consensual sexual act? I wouldn't call her a victim there. And I think more times than not, a lot of cases ARE about whether or not the person is a victim. How often does a woman come forward saying that she is raped, and the man claims it was consensual? Probably a lot. In those cases, the question isn't who, but how. Calling her a victim would automatically put the bias in her favor, while calling her the accuser would shift it toward him.
ReplyDeleteAbby