She was 13 years old. She was a little girl, not a woman.
This is common; refering to girls as women in any situation that deals with sexual violence. It lessens the impact on the reader. It's especially true of reports about girls in foreign countries.
'Woman' can refer to any age, which is the sense I was using here. In this particular case, the victim was a child, which makes it all the more horrific - but I would like to live in a world where nobody gets stoned, adult or child (nor willing adulterers, for that matter).
I cannot accept woman as synonymous with girl. It's right up there with calling an adult black male "boy", or an adult female a "girl".
That girl's murderers believed that she was capable of consenting to being raped, or put another way, that she instigated it. In short, they treated her as a woman under their laws. She was a child, and therefore incapable of consenting to sex, and under our laws and morals she was raped, and then blamed for her victimization, and murdered.
Yes, it is more horrific because she was a child; please reconsider your use of the word woman in this case, don't lessen the impact of the crimes committed against her calling her a woman.
I cannot accept woman as synonymous with girl. It's right up there with calling an adult black male "boy", or an adult female a "girl".
I don't agree that it is. Both of those examples involve addressing an adult by a term reserved for children - belittling them - which isn't the case here.
There are plenty of examples out there of usage where 'woman' is used to include girls, without any intent to trivialise them. For instance, the Association for Women's Rights in Development has a lot to say about female children, and its coverage of this particular case refers to the victim as a "young woman".
In this particular post I deliberately used the word 'woman' rather than 'girl', because the point I wanted to make was not restricted to children; I don't believe women of any age should be stoned. Adult or child, as far as I'm concerned, it's all so far beyond the pale that the question of which is worse is beside the point.
"In this particular post I deliberately used the word 'woman' rather than 'girl', because the point I wanted to make was not restricted to children;..."
You've made a point I hadn't considered. I'm so used to reading news stories of girls being assaulted and then called "women", and I was seeing the same thing in your entry.
It's part of that myth that sex makes a girl a woman, even rape, and yet women are still being called "girl". It's a dichotomy that infuriates me. I can't agree with calling this victim a "young woman", either. That may be a cultural thing on my part; a young woman to me means having voting rights, and being able to purchase alcohol. In short, it means having the emotional and mental ability to live independently. It may well be that puberty is the signal for this girl's culture to be considered a young woman. Considering her culture's attitude toward females, it may very well be that she was old enough to be married, but, being female, would be treated as a child all her life.
"Old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher" was a hateful term my ex-husband used. For me, calling a girl a woman is negating to adult women; It says in essence that all women are girls, really.
Thanks for the civil discourse, Art. Now I understand that you were being inclusive, and not perpetrating that particular bit of female negation.
Considering her culture's attitude toward females, it may very well be that she was old enough to be married, but, being female, would be treated as a child all her life.
Yeah, I think that's one of the complications here - discrimination and abuse don't draw much distinction between girls and adult women, so it makes sense for "women's rights" to encompass both of them. I guess "female humans" would remove the ambiguity, but to my ear that sounds a bit... impersonal, maybe?
And thanks for being so understanding - looking back, I can see that it wasn't at all clear from my original post that the scope of what I was saying wasn't the same as the scope of the article that provoked it. If that makes any sense.
It was also the article you linked to that added to my angst; the first three words of the subheading are "a young woman..."
In this specific case, the victim was a girl, not a woman. This is so common.
Remember the crime in Iraq where some soldiers raped a girl and then killed her family in front of her before killing her? She was a child too, but our press insisted on calling her a young woman.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 01:44 pm (UTC)This is common; refering to girls as women in any situation that deals with sexual violence. It lessens the impact on the reader. It's especially true of reports about girls in foreign countries.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 11:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 12:31 am (UTC)That girl's murderers believed that she was capable of consenting to being raped, or put another way, that she instigated it. In short, they treated her as a woman under their laws. She was a child, and therefore incapable of consenting to sex, and under our laws and morals she was raped, and then blamed for her victimization, and murdered.
Yes, it is more horrific because she was a child; please reconsider your use of the word woman in this case, don't lessen the impact of the crimes committed against her calling her a woman.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 05:45 am (UTC)I don't agree that it is. Both of those examples involve addressing an adult by a term reserved for children - belittling them - which isn't the case here.
There are plenty of examples out there of usage where 'woman' is used to include girls, without any intent to trivialise them. For instance, the Association for Women's Rights in Development has a lot to say about female children, and its coverage of this particular case refers to the victim as a "young woman".
In this particular post I deliberately used the word 'woman' rather than 'girl', because the point I wanted to make was not restricted to children; I don't believe women of any age should be stoned. Adult or child, as far as I'm concerned, it's all so far beyond the pale that the question of which is worse is beside the point.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 03:25 pm (UTC)You've made a point I hadn't considered. I'm so used to reading news stories of girls being assaulted and then called "women", and I was seeing the same thing in your entry.
It's part of that myth that sex makes a girl a woman, even rape, and yet women are still being called "girl". It's a dichotomy that infuriates me. I can't agree with calling this victim a "young woman", either. That may be a cultural thing on my part; a young woman to me means having voting rights, and being able to purchase alcohol. In short, it means having the emotional and mental ability to live independently. It may well be that puberty is the signal for this girl's culture to be considered a young woman. Considering her culture's attitude toward females, it may very well be that she was old enough to be married, but, being female, would be treated as a child all her life.
"Old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher" was a hateful term my ex-husband used. For me, calling a girl a woman is negating to adult women; It says in essence that all women are girls, really.
Thanks for the civil discourse, Art. Now I understand that you were being inclusive, and not perpetrating that particular bit of female negation.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 12:27 am (UTC)Yeah, I think that's one of the complications here - discrimination and abuse don't draw much distinction between girls and adult women, so it makes sense for "women's rights" to encompass both of them. I guess "female humans" would remove the ambiguity, but to my ear that sounds a bit... impersonal, maybe?
And thanks for being so understanding - looking back, I can see that it wasn't at all clear from my original post that the scope of what I was saying wasn't the same as the scope of the article that provoked it. If that makes any sense.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 12:38 pm (UTC)In this specific case, the victim was a girl, not a woman. This is so common.
Remember the crime in Iraq where some soldiers raped a girl and then killed her family in front of her before killing her? She was a child too, but our press insisted on calling her a young woman.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 02:57 pm (UTC)Wrath. I have visions of flamethrowers in my eyes, and that is not good for anything, but I cannot help it.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 11:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 11:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-06 11:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-07 12:33 am (UTC)