On a right-wing website, Joe Kovacs writes:
Kovacs goes on to list about 60 cases drawn from the U.S., Britain and Australia. Skimming through the list, he includes at least one case in which the teacher was acquitted, and other cases that seem like a stretch, but let’s put that aside.
I’m struck by his use of the word “epidemic.”
When Mary Koss’ study of rape prevalence was first published, some feminists said the study (which found that about 12% of women in college had been raped at some point in their lives) showed that there was an “epidemic” of rape in the US. Influential critics of feminism, such as Christina Hoff Sommers, Katie Roiphe, and Neil Gilbert, argued that to use the word “epidemic” was a vast exaggeration.
Let’s suppose that Koss was wrong by a hundred times (although she wasn’t), and that only 0.12% of women are raped in their lifetimes. Even so, that would still be thousands and thousands and thousands more girls and women raped, than the number of boys who have been raped or molested by female teachers. I’m not in any way excusing what was done to those boys, of course. But I think it’s curious how flexible the standard for “epidemic” status is.
Pingback: feminist blogs
Yeah, this is a pile of horseshit. It’s just like all the other media-created epidemics, from carjacking to home invasion to abduction. As the rate of violent crime drops, the news maxim, “if it bleeds, it leads” remains true, but there isn’t enough bleeding. The facts just aren’t sexy enough on their own, so they need to play up an epidemic.
Obviously, I don’t think it’s actually because some amorphous ‘they’ wants us to be scared, I think it’s just the normal hunt for money. People buy more newspapers and watch more news when they feel frightened and titillated. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by greed.
Thanks a bunch, capitalism!
—Myca
It’s really simple.
If it affects men, it’s a trend.
If it’s something that can be blamed on women or is committed by women, and used as a counterpoint to the disturbing genuine epidemic of violence and rape against women, then it’s an epidemic.
It only matters if it happens to men. Actually, if one woman does something to one man, somewhere, then anything that men do to women no longer counts because then “women do it, too!”
“Epidemic” is too strong a word, I think.
Having said that, I have to wonder; what’s going on here? Are we seeing an increased incidence of this kind of thing, or an increase in reporting something that already existed, or both? How much is one or the other factor affecting this? And finally, if there is an actual increase of incidence of this, why?
One thing I have noted as I’ve watched these news stories. All of the women involved in this that I’ve seen are a) young and b) quite attractive. That might be biased by the fact that TV likes to put images of young attractive women on screen (which I certainly appreciate). But if that holds as a trend, I wonder why that should be so? Such women would have no problem attracting men their own age. Perhaps an inability to deal with what comes from that is a factor for them to instead engage in a relationship which they would completely control. Or maybe that’s no factor at all and there’s something else entirely going on. What do you all think?
If there is any epidemic – it’s sexual exploitation due to an imbalance in power equations – And that’s pretty much ancient.
But the fact that more girls than boys get raped or sexually abused does not make things easier for individuals who are victims. The notion of noticing a phenomenon only if it reaches huge proportions – or to have to exagerrate to be noticed is unfortunate.
Words like epidemic do not negate the enormity of what is happening to young women and girls. If anything, it highlights due to the sheer numbers.
>> That might be biased by the fact that TV likes to put images of young attractive women on screen (which I certainly appreciate). But if that holds as a trend, I wonder why that should be so? Such women would have no problem attracting men their own age. Perhaps an inability to deal with what comes from that is a factor for them to instead engage in a relationship which they would completely control. Or maybe that’s no factor at all and there’s something else entirely going on. >>
When I was a teenager, back in the 70’s, both my next door neighbor, and the minister who lived across the street from me…successful, attractive men in their late twenties, had affairs with teenage girls in the neighborhood. As did several of the attractive, successful male teachers at the local high school.
Again, these were not the typical “dirty old men”…these were successful attractive men 10-15 years older than the girls they were involved with. Maybe what we are seeing is merely the same thing happening with the genders reversed.
That is not to support what’s going on, but I don’t think it’s all that …what’s the word I am looking for…unordinary? for two people ten years apart in age to be involved. If the girls had been 23 and the guys 33, it wouldnt have been worthy of comment. (Since they were minors, it was most definitely *wrong*…but that isn’t my point). The difference is that in the 70’s, it would have been worthy of comment if a woman of 33 was involved with a man of 23. Today, it’s less unusual to see an older woman/younger man than it was once. Maybe this is a progression, if an unhealthy one, of that?
ginmar, you are right on.
It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
I think it’s an increase in sensationlistic reporting; the shock of women/girls being raped by men has passed. It’s yesterday’s news. IOW, it’s status quo.
It’s just the flip side of the “White damsel is distress” (virgin) story , also known as the Missing White Woman story. It’s the “White Jezebel Preying on Our Boys” (whore) story. And yes, I have noticed that the women are all very dishy looking by conventional media standards. Is that because conventionally unattractive women do not “prey” on the young, or at least do not succeed in “seducing” teenaged boys, or because the media is not interested unless she is attractive, white, and preferably blond?
Not to disagree in general terms, but I think your point would have more bite if it were Sommers, Roiphe, Gilbert et al. who were talking about an “epidemic” of statutory rape by women — viz, the same people who criticized the use of the word in respect of the rape of women.
(FWIW, I think the word is ill-chosen in either case as it connotes infectious disease to me. But as to why and how it does get used, see ginmar upthread.)
This could be more common than it was in the past. However, I’m sure it pails in comparison to the number of male teachers have sexual relationships with underage girls. Given the relatively low number of male teachers in most high schools; it would seem that the rate of doing this is much higher for males.
I think this is just an example of the media latching on to this subject because it is more sensational. Not to mention the fact that they pick young, relatively attractive, attractive, white women as if these are the only women doing this.
Pardon me for asking, but for those of you who are suggesting that they only want to show the attractive women who do these things, doesn’t that also leave wide open the assumption that only a portion of women committing these offences are being reported on?
So… are you also saying that this situation is therefore more widespread than reported?
“Reported” to the police is different from “reported” in the news. So, no, I don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation at all.
Piny,
You are right, reported to the police is different than reported in the news.
Let me clarify my question then: Do you think that if in general, the news only wants to report about the attractive woman doing this, there are also unattractive women doing this who the news doesn’t report about. Therefore is it safe to say that the news only partially reports the extent to which this occurs?
Perhaps it is only reported in the media proportionately to however large of a percentage of women are considered attractive?
Is that a fair question?
All I mean is, it can’t be both ways. It can’t be that the media takes the few cases that there are and blows them way out of proportion while at the same time sifting through the multitude of cases and only selecting the most attractive women to report on.
>>All I mean is, it can’t be both ways. It can’t be that the media takes the few cases that there are and blows them way out of proportion while at the same time sifting through the multitude of cases and only selecting the most attractive women to report on. >>
Sure it can. The media can report overblown _statistics_–and overreport on a “trend”–while cherrypicking the relatively tiny number of cases they want to represent the crime.
I am not sure why this seems to be happening with more frequency. Though in most of these cases the young, white, attractive teachers are also married, iirc. Either way, this is an abuse of power for personal gain. And the fact that I’ve heard my Aunt defend the teacher and say that the child most likely instigated the relationship sickens me as well.
Epidemic is an inflammatory word used to sensationalize these horrible acts of child abuse. Personally, I feel these women should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, just as any other child abuser would be.
Though it is true that a ten year age difference means less when the girl or boy is 23 and the adult is 33, it is a major difference (in terms of power and control) when the ages are 12 and 22, or 14 and 24. And the fact that these are teachers, those that we trust to educate and guide our children is horrifying to me.
This is the reason why I’ve taught my children (son and daughters) about inappropriate touching, talking in regards to older kids and adults. I’ve also told them to listen to “their inner voices” or intuition, and to run if they feel the least bit frightened or uncomfortable in a situation.
The listed cases are certainly not close to a full list, and not even a representative partial list. I am personally familiar with three female-teacher cases that are not on the list, and I am hardly a sexual-predator specialist. In most similar cases (for both male and female predators) there is a complaint made, and a quick settlement is agreed to that requires no jail time on the part of the predator, and a reciprocal agreement to not take any future job that requires the defendant to be around children.
Sometimes there is a hangup over whether or not the defendant will have to report as a sex offender, and the DA either presses too hard or the defendant refuses to vehemently. Other times the family of the child is really pressing for jail time. And sometimes, it is a repeat offense. Those are the only ones that get real media time.
I doubt there is an “epidemic” under any meaning of the word. More likely, it just tracks the increase of women as a percentage of all criminals. If the rate of female perpetrators quadrupled over time (say, from 0.25% to 1% of all teacher statutory rapes) that hardly qualifies as an epidemic, but it may mean that “something is happening” that deserves investigation.
Piny,
Can they not also report watered down statistics and under-report on a trend while only cherry-picking the most sensational of cases out of the many? This is a rather wobbly argument.
If the media is only reporting about the most attractive women, then there are cases out there that we are not even aware of, therefore this is more widespread than we know about – OR – the media singles out the very few cases of this occurring and blows it out of proportion.
Hey, I’m not saying it is either way, I’m just saying that one can’t reasonably use both points to get to the same destination for they are contradictory. The sky can’t be so blue its yellow.
>>Can they not also report watered down statistics and under-report on a trend while only cherry-picking the most sensational of cases out of the many? This is a rather wobbly argument.>>
Of course. But were the commenters here arguing that the fact of cherry-picking was good evidence that the media was definitely overreporting, or that they couldn’t be trusted to report honestly, or that reporting that’s sensationalist in one sense is likely to be sensationalist in another? I read the latter two, not the former.
>>If the media is only reporting about the most attractive women, then there are cases out there that we are not even aware of, therefore this is more widespread than we know about – OR – the media singles out the very few cases of this occurring and blows it out of proportion. >>
This isn’t how it works.
Here’s another example: according to people who track media trends on violent crime, violent crime has been falling for several years. Media _reporting_ on violent crime has been rising precipitously during this same period. In fact, most people are under the impression that society is more dangerous than it’s ever been, particularly to children. However, _within_ that tendency to overreport, there’s a tendency to give greater specific attention to certain victims and certain perpetrators. In other words, victims like Natalee Holloway, Polly Klaas, and Elizabeth Smart will be the subject of much more media attention than victims like Latoya Byrd–and will probably cause people to associate “child abduction” with white faces. Latoya Byrd will be overemphasized as part of a group, but ignored as an individual.
Now, _if_ this kind of child molestation yet exists in the public consciousness as an aberrant crime committed by a few freakish individuals, then yes: individualized reporting is a form of underreporting. If, however, these women are seen as representing a trend, then they can be given disproportionate individual attention without under-emphasizing the trend itself.
Piny,
I see your point.
The only problem with this is it is such a wide open idea that it can be used to qualify almost anything that anyone wants, and anything to the contrary can be conveniently brushed away – on either side of any argument.
But I see where you are coming from.
Good lawd..pales in comparison. I’m grading way to many final papers to be coherent.
A few thoughts:
(1) It’s not an “epidemic,” it’s a “sexpidemic.” (Obviously, WorldNetDaily takes this issue very seriously).
(2) I’ll have to do some research, but I am pretty sure that I saw a picture of another teacher accused of this who was not attractive. I think that she got a much harsher penalty. If I am correct in this, then perhaps the “double standard” is as much about beauty and attractiveness as about the genders of the people involved. (Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if this went the other way, too; that is, attractive men accused of sexual offenses getting off more often or with more lenient penalites).
(3) I think that the “man bites dog” aspect of these stories is why they get so much attention. If there is ever a case where a reasonably attractive woman is charged with regular rape (i.e., not rape on technical grounds such as statutory), I would expect it to generate a great deal of coverage just on the man-bites-dog factor that attractive female sex offenders are a fascinating subject.
(4) I don’t really like using the word “rape” in statutory rape cases unless I explicitly put the word “statutory” before it, and in fact, don’t really like using “rape” as a verb at all in such cases. I think it tends to muddle the way we think about the case (i.e. because it makes us think of force being used). (Of course, if the victim is prepubescent so that it becomes an issue of pedophilia, then I have no problem with using the term “rape” at all).
(5) To the extent that there is a double standard in how such cases are treated, I expect that the gender of the perpetrator is more important than the gender of the victim. I suspect that a man accused of having sex with an underage male student would be just as abhorrent to society (if not more so) as one having sex with an underage female student. Likewise, I don’t think that Deb Lafave would be facing harsher penalties were the victim a girl.
Actually studies have shown that conventionally unattractive defendants on average fare worse than attractive ones with juries, regardless of the crime. I wouldn’t be surprised if gender could magnify this effect in some cases.
Like “skyrocketing”, “epidemic” in any other context than public health is a sure sign that the person using the term is making shit up.
What makes you sure public health is worthy of exemption?
mythago:
But what does the term “sexpidemic” signify?
(I’m sorry, I just got a kick out of the title of that piece).
You know, with all the publicity about female teachers hooking up with 15-year old boys and the sexual assualt scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, I wonder why we don’t hear more about male teachers abusing female students?
One thing that distinguished the first two was the surprise of it. Women aren’t expected to be as agressive sexually, and if they want sex they can usually get it from men their own age. Why would a 30-year old female teacher have sex with a 15-year old? This is quite unexpected, and hits the headlines. In the RCC, you have men in a unique sexual status that are also committed to a very high moral standard and a position of high trust, so the offenses noted also brought a lot of attention. Plus, you had the added fact that there was collusion at high levels in the RCC heirarchy to not only cover it up, but to enable the offenders to offend again.
Whereas, a 30-year old man engaging with sex with a 16 or 18-year old girl seems more commonplace, more “normal”. It’s still a gross violation of trust and authority. But people frankly expect it more. This would to me seem to have two effects:
1) The girls and their parents are watching for this behavior, so they tend to adopt risk-avoidance behavior.
2) The men know that people recognize the danger, so they are more worried about getting caught if they try it.
3) It’s not “news”; people expect such things to happen now and then.
1 and 2 tend to depress the incidence of such behavior, and 3 depresses the likelihood of it being reported nationally when it does.
Just a guess on my part. I suppose it’s really a hypothesis, since I would think that it’s testable, but I’m not going to do the research.
a couple of things. one, i do not think it is fair to compare the rape of boys by female teachers to the general rape of females. obviously there is going to be a higher rate because you are comparing a specific instance of a crime to a general crime.
two, i think using any loaded term like “epidemic” or “rape culture” implies a systemtic problem that probably does not exist. the fact is rape is a rare crime. it happens with enough frequency to be a very real concern, but using terms like that makes people think it happens ALL the time, and that just is not the case.
third, i think we are probably seeing a greater instance of reporting such crimes to the police and a greater enforcement of the laws equally rather than just for one group. i doubt that women are doing it more than they were before. the higher frequency is probably just a result of more victims coming forth.
as for the treatment of the issue by the media, it has honestly been a while since i read any article that referred to the sexual assault of an underage female victim as an “affair.”
What makes you sure public health is worthy of exemption?
It’s like using ‘negligence’ in a legal context. The term ‘epidemic’ has a very specific and technical meaning in the public-health context.
mythago, I think that David Miller was suggesting that even in the context of public health, the term “epidemic” is over-used.
Witness the near hysteria over the bird flu and SARS. Often, this is nearly as, or even more deadly than, the disease (I believe that more people have died of side effects from Tamiflu than from the bird flu).
Glaivester,
I agree that the word “epidemic” has become a tool for media to generate ratings by amping up the response to the stories. Unfortunately, it also serves to generate public panic and to divert attention from illnesses and situations that are true epidemics. The media has given the word a connotation that weakens its actual meaning.
HIV is an epidemic, and I would say crime in the US is an epidemic.
Words have power, and those in the media either use that power to their own ends or forget it and cause needless hysteria among the general population.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm
Daran,
Thanks for pointing those out to me. I’ll have to see if I can actually get my hands on the survey questions, etc.
However, I still say violence is very pervasive in our culture. Its perpetration may be on the decline, but in media and everywhere else the graphic portrayal of violence has increased. (This is only my opinion, because I don’t have any hard data to back it up.)
This has given me much food for thought.
mythago, I think that David Miller was suggesting that even in the context of public health, the term “epidemic” is over-used.
Sure. I just meant that there is a legitimate and specific use of the term ‘epidemic’ in the public-health context.
Pingback: Rachel’s Tavern » 2005 » December