February 23, 1995
Recent editorials in the Gater about rape have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issue and typify the problems with the editorial quality of this newspaper, which includes a poor grasp of the issues, a "blame" attitude towards rape victims, and a lack of skills in expository writing.
The definition of rape is one person being forced, coerced, drugged or otherwise made to have sex against their will or informed consent. There is no ambiguity, morally or legally, as the ÒDefining date rapeÓ (Gater, Feb. 16) editorial suggests. To imply that differing opinions matter demonstrates that someone does not understand "rape is rape."
Jennifer March's column indicates a confusion between drinking alcohol and consenting to sex. These are not the same.
An accused rapist would not be held accountable for convincing a woman to drink, as stated by March. The accused would be held accountable for rape. Pushing drinks is often an indication of prior intent, and is considered "evidence," a subtle but important distinction.
The unspoken premise is when a woman has a drink she is giving implicit prior consent to sex. The article implies that being alone with a man is equivalent to walking on the ledge of a skyscraper: if sheÕs been drinking, sheÕs asked for whatever happens, and a manÕs impulse to rape is as inevitable and unalterable as gravity. This gross misconception is the same blame game that has exonerated rapists for centuries. Repeatedly, the word "responsibility" arises in these articles, and it always is focused on the woman. The rapistÕs responsibility is never addressed.
This tendency to miss the point indicates the twisted attitude held towards rape victims and women. Why is there never any mention of the statistics of how many men surveyed said they would commit rape if they knew they would get away with it? Or of how few people know what constitutes rape? Why, in all these articles, are men never admonished to be careful when they drink, because they might lose control of themselves and rape someone?
What is the point of these editorials? A stern warning to supposedly naive young girls? Or is it that when a woman is raped that she is partially to blame? The tone and content of these editorials suggest the latter, trivializing the severity of the crime, not to mention the trauma and humiliation that rape victims are forced to endure. The lack of understanding and misplaced sympathies are compounded by writing that is fundamentally flawed. The issues discussed are really not issues at all. There is no structure, no thesis, certainly no supporting evidence, and the arguments made are specious. How does a woman become a "walking victim?" Do "many women" not "know how to say 'no' to intercourse?" Are the small number of false accusations of rape more important than real ones that go unprosecuted? Does a woman have to be "stupid" to be raped? When a man steps up at a rape rally to blame the women for their own rapes, and is subsequently booed off the stage, is this really a problem with "political correctness?"
The journalism department should consider instituting high standards in expository writing skills for leadership positions on the school newspaper.