By: Danielle Binks

Last week there was a ‘sex pest’ in Melbourne’s northwest which, as my colleague Bernadette pointed out, made him sound no more annoying than a fly hanging around your Christmas dinner. In one early article the man was described as a ‘sex fiend’, ‘serial sex attacker’ and a ‘predator’ - but not yet a ‘rapist’. 

One woman spoke of fighting off the ‘sex pest’ with a swift swat to his genitals, but Det Sgt Brett Meadows said police were worried the next victim might not be so lucky: "It’s quite likely the (attacks) could get worse or we can have a victim that isn’t able to fight him off," he said. I assume that ‘worse’ means ‘rape’, and the next victim “might not be so lucky” because she won’t just have been the victim of an annoying ‘sex pest’ but a rapist, which if you ask any woman is infinitely worse.

Whenever I read articles that talk of ‘sexual assault’, I always read it as ‘not rape.’ And I don’t consciously read it that way to diminish what happened to victims, but because I think any adult woman would agree that on the trauma spectrum, you’d do just about anything to avoid being raped including enduring ‘sexual assault’ so long as it didn’t end in rape.

But the term ‘sexual assault’ is a murky one in the news media, as I discovered when I contacted the Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault. I was prompted to do so after talking with colleagues about another sexual assault that occurred in Box Hill. I shared my guilt-ridden thoughts of ‘at least it wasn’t rape’, when one of my colleagues piped up with a terrible thought – what if it’s only legal constraints that stop a newspaper printing the words ‘rape’ or ‘alleged rape’?

I know that this has always been part of the journalism code of ethics, but after the death of Jill Meagher last year news outlets were particularly concerned with educating the public on why discussing the Jill Meagher case in social media was doing harm to the upcoming trial, and why social media discussions should adhere to similar journalism ethics protocols when discussing the case. In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment", means that a particular case or matter is under trial or being considered by a judge or court. So printing the word ‘rape’ in a newspaper article implies guilt and could harm the basis for a fair and unbiased trial.

I wondered if this was why we’re more likely to hear about sexual assaults than alleged rapes in the news. When I asked the ACSSA if ‘sexual assault’ and ‘rape’ were one in the same for media reportage, I was given this explanation: “the media may be using these terms differently, or indeed interchangeably.  I would recommend that you speak to news media outlets and find out what they mean when they use the words 'sexual assault' and 'rape'.”

So there’s not even a uniform terminology that all media outlets are to adhere to when reporting on rape and sexual assault? What exactly is there to stop a newspaper from only ever printing the words ‘sexual assault’ when another outlet would say ‘attempted rape’? What is lost when these words are interchangeable?

Reading up on sexual assault laws in Australia reveals that media definitions are likely confounded by the fact that the very definitions of sexual assault and rape vary slightly across jurisdictions. There is no universally accepted definition of "sexual assault" and, as such, there are variations in the type of behaviour that constitutes sexual assault or rape depending upon the state or territory one is in.

According to an ACSSA Media Backgrounder, which is a resource for media and journalists in writing articles, sexual assault definitions vary, based on the range of behaviours viewed as constituting sexual assault or sexual violence.

These might include:

• sexual harassment;




• sexualised bullying;




• unwanted kissing and sexual touching;




• sexual pressure and coercion; and




• forced sexual activity.

And that last dot point, ‘forced sexual activity’ could well cover a myriad of horrors that leads into discussions of what constitutes sex – penetration? Oral stimulation? What about the broadness of 'sexual harassment' - because I know I've been subjected to some particularly foul-mouthed, sexually-charged taunts on public transport that have made my skin crawl - but does that warrant a phone call to the police? Is this perhaps why women don't report sexual assaults - because how are we suppoed to know what constitutes sexual assault if the Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault aren't even 100% clear!?

Rape wordage was discussed by Susan Hawthorne back in 2009, for a blog on gender mainstreaming. In this piece, Hawthorne discusses what is lost when we try to be politically correct in talking about rape:

GBSV stands for gender-based sexual violence. Rape is a perfectly useful word and should be used whenever GBSV is encountered. Every rape, even when the protagonists are not male or the violated ones are not female is based on the idea that men rape women: subject verb object. It is an instance of power over by the powerful and no amount of obscuring will change that. All it results in is a deadening of language.

That ‘sex-pest’ in Melbourne’s northwest has now been captured and his name is Phillip Taupin - he's also now being called the 'alleged bike-path attacker' now. He faced a Magistrates Court with 18 charges over attacks on seven females between December 30 and January 4. It should come as no surprise to anyone that Det Sgt Brett Meadows was quite right in saying that the man’s attacks could escalate with each victim, because Mr. Taupin has also been charged with three counts of raping a woman at Lalor train station back in August, 2011.

Newspaper articles about Mr. Taupin’s sex-pesting ways now say he attempted “assault with intent to rape” – versus the original claims of simply ‘sexual assault’. But that clarification of “intent to rape” has only come with hindsight and realizing that he has prior charges of rape against him. For what it’s worth, I see the term ‘sexual assault’ more than I ever do ‘alleged’ or ‘attempted rape’ when reading newspaper articles. So what’s to say any sexual assault isn’t just a lead-up to an attempted rape (as with ‘sex-pest’ Phillip Taupin. Or does ‘rape-pest’ not have quite the same ring to it?)

From the blog: 

“Women of color around the globe are writing some amazing books. Their voices can give us insight into the lives of those outside our usual boundaries. Feminists especially need to listen to them if they want to understand their concerns.”

We encourage everyone to participate in this fantastic Reading Challenge throughout 2013.

And, of course, Spinifex has plenty of books that meet the challenge criteria.

• ‘If Passion Were A Flower’ by Lariane Fonseca

• ‘A Daughter of Isis’ and ‘Walking Through Fire’ by Nawal El Saadawi

• ‘Ao Toa: Earth Warriors’ by Cathie Dunsford

• ‘Trauma Trails, Recreating Song Lines’ by Judy Atkinson

• ‘Moebius Trip: Digressions From India's Highways’ by Giti Thadani

• ‘The Seven Sisters of the Pleiades: Stories from around the World’ by Munya Andrews

• ‘Kick the Tin’ by Doris Kartinyeri

• ‘Holding Yawulyu: White Culture and Black Women's Law’ by Zohl de Ishtar

• ‘The Fabulous Feminist’ by Suniti Namjoshi

• ‘A Bit of Difference’ by Sefi Atta

• ‘Far and Beyon'’ by Unity Dow

• ‘Another Year in Africa’ by Rose Zwi

And that’s just to name a very few!

We wish you all 'Happy Reading' in this very special challenge throughout 2013  

By: Betty McLellan 

--------------------

In recent weeks, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s amazing speech naming misogyny for all the world to hear and think about, we witnessed a rare moment in history when feminist issues were front and centre of the political agenda. And while Australia’s mainstream media were lukewarm about it, online media were not. The issue inhabited YouTube, On Line Opinion sites, blogs, Facebook, Twitter – and, because of that, we were enabled to talk about misogyny with our friends and acquaintances in a way that hasn’t been possible for quite some time. It felt like a rare moment in the sun, when the spotlight was on our issues.

What happened in the wake of the speech, however, was entirely predictable, because patriarchy has a way of absorbing even the fiercest of challenges to its existence. It simply expands and allows the criticism in – but makes sure the system itself, the status quo, is still intact. How was that done in this instance?

Well, with the help of liberal feminists (and I’m not criticising them here. They’ve made the most of the moment and done a good job). What I’m saying is that patriarchy has allowed liberal feminist issues to become the focus in the wake of the accusation of misogyny, but once again ignored radical feminist issues. We’ve seen a focus on: the treatment of women in politics; the dearth of women in leadership positions as CEOs and on Boards; the equal pay debate; sexual harassment in the workplace, and so on. What we haven’t heard is any mention of the misogyny that characterises pornography and prostitution, nor the continuing high level of men’s violence against women, nor the escalation of rape, the escalation of the murder of women and their children by men.

And you and I know that, until society is prepared to look at the incredible imbalance of power demonstrated in those kinds of practices: the misogyny, the hatred, the subordination of women by men – until patriarchy is challenged at its root, nothing will change in real terms.

In this paper, “Radical Feminism in Focus”, I want to present radical feminism as a radical ethical enterprise.

First, I’ll remind us of some definitions of radical feminism – to make sure we’re all on the same page but, also, because I’m always inspired by feminism as it’s defined by radical feminists!

Second, I’m going to take a moment to remind us all of the stark differences between liberal and radical feminists. US feminist Lierre Keith makes an important point when she says: If we understand the difference, we’ll know that we’re never going to meet in the middle. We’ll never find a compromise that will allow us to meet. And, in my view, that’s OK. They’ll continue doing their thing and we’ll do ours. But we do need to understand the difference.

RADICAL FEMINISM DEFINED

First, to a few definitions: How do we define radical feminism? Well, I’ve never been able to find a better definition than that proposed by Catharine MacKinnon in 1987. She called it “feminism unmodified” (1987, p. 16). We are not prepared to modify our analysis of patriarchy’s oppression of women, nor to modify and water down our demands for change. Robin Morgan spoke of our “stubborn commitment to the people of women, the courage to dare question anything and dare redefine everything” (1996, p. 7). In Radically Speaking, Diane Bell and Renate Klein declared that the strength of radical feminism “lies… in its dynamism, in the fluid energy that links unapologetic intellect with unashamed passion; it is a means, not an end; a process, not a dogma” (1996, p. 6). I just love that – radical feminism “links unapologetic intellect with unashamed passion”. Denise Thompson, in Radical Feminism Today, simply calls radical feminism, “feminism per se” (2001, p. 2).

Radical feminism IS feminism, and all other groups claiming the name are modifications of the real thing – including liberal feminism. That doesn’t mean we can’t respect parts of their agenda and commend them for the “wins” they’ve had on behalf of women, but we do need to understand where we differ from them and why.

RADICAL FEMINISM AND LIBERAL FEMINISM COMPARED

So let’s do a quick comparison between radical and liberal feminism.

 

1. Liberal feminists take a gender-neutral approach, insisting that there is no difference between men and women and that, because we are the same, we should all be treated the same. They espouse equality, equal opportunity, equal respect. They call on women to claim their rightful place alongside men as their equals.

Radical feminists take an “unequal power relations” approach. We maintain that the dominance of men and the deliberate subordination of women points to the fact that the issue of power relations must be addressed before anything resembling equality can ever be achieved.

2.  Liberal feminists focus on the individual woman. She can do anything if only given access to equal educational and employment opportunities.

Radical feminists, on the other hand, focus on the collective “women” and maintain that no amount of education for individual women will change the subordinate status of women while misogyny goes unchallenged and unchanged.

3. Liberal feminists are committed to free speech. Prostitution, pornography, sexualisation and the like are all supported by liberal feminists in the name of individual choice and free speech.

Radical feminists, on the other hand, are committed to fair speech and call for all speech and actions causing harm to others to be disallowed. Like philosopher and free speech advocate John Stuart Mill (writing in the 19^th Century), we believe that all words and actions need to pass the fairness test before qualifying as free speech.

4.  Liberal feminists believe in working to effect change for women from within mainstream, negotiating with men and compromising where necessary, because they insist that change can best be effected from within.

Radical feminists, on the other hand, prefer to agitate from the margins. We are careful not to be co-opted by the patriarchal system and will not compromise our values in order to be deemed acceptable by the mainstream. Because of our uncompromising stand, we are pushed to the margins of society and, in fact, as Mary Daly advocates (1973), we opt for the margins as the most effective vantage point from which to protest and bring about change. [Of course, many of us do work in mainstream professions, universities and other workplaces for the practical purpose of earning a living. But our activism is done from the margins.]

My comparison between Liberal and Radical feminism is similar, of course, to that of other radical feminists. Robin Morgan put it like this:

Radical feminists refuse to settle for:

. the individual solution

. pornography and prostitution as faux sexual liberation

. “wonderfully supportive” male lovers or spouses who “permit” a woman to be a feminist

. playing by the boy’s rules, e.g., thinking that imitating establishment men could possibly be good for women  (1996, pp. 5-6).

  Lierre Keith’s list looks like this:

.  (liberals focus on) Individualism                  . (radicals on) Group identity

.  Change happens through education       . Change through dismantling unjust systems                                                                                                                                    

. Voluntarism (choice): we choose to be oppressed         . Oppression is real    

.  Focus on abstract moral principles         . Focus on Justice. Name the harm and act on it

So, let me bring that all together. Radical feminism focuses on the collective “women”; on unequal power relations between the sexes; on dismantling unjust systems; and on achieving justice for women, for all people and for the planet. And radical feminists courageously NAME injustices and ACT to change them.

 --------------------

References

Bell, Diane and Renate Klein, eds. 1996. Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed.North Melbourne: Spinifex.       

Daly, Mary. 1973. Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation. Boston: Beacon.

MacKinnon, Catharine. 1987. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.     

McLellan, Betty. 2010. Unspeakable: a feminist ethic of speech. Townsville:OtherWise Publications.

Mill, John Stuart. 1999. On Liberty. New York: Bartleby.com (online books). First published 1869. London: Longman, Roberts & Green.  

Morgan, Robin. 1996. “Light Bulbs, Radishes, and the Politics of the 21^st Century”. In      Bell, Diane and Renate Klein, eds. 1996. Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed. North Melbourne: Spinifex. pp. 5-8 

Thompson, Denise. 2001. Radical Feminism Today. London: Sage.