Girl vs. Woman

[ambitious_wench]

Here's another example of a use of the word "woman" instead of "girl" in the media.

The details of the case are ugly enough as it is, and point to a level of misogyny that is staggering in its implication. My point is to draw attention to a rather disturbing trend by the MSM to call sexual victims "women" regardless of their age.

In this case, the UK's "The Independent" begins the article with the following sentence:

"A man who held a young woman captive for more than eight and a half years may have been involved in a child pornography ring, police said today."

Further on in the article, it says that he kidnaped her off the street when she was 10 years old.

Granted, by the time she escaped, technically she was a young woman. But the crime was perpetrated on a young GIRL, initially. I think, too, that her mental development was probably stunted by her captivity, and question the use of "young woman" even though she was presumably 18 by the time she escaped.

Some things I've noticed in this trend; It's not only UK papers that do this. I've seen US articles do the same thing. I've also noticed that it happens most in reports on cases outside the UK and US. In other words, foreign girls are referred to as women. Can anyone recall Jon Benet Ramsey being called a "young woman" in the US media? There's a really nasty mentalities that foreign females are sexually available early, that hard living induces sexual maturity early in other countries. I suspect that the pedofile-sex tourism trade capitalizes on this mentality--these aren't really children, they're used to this, I'm not hurting her because she's more mature than chronological age.

It's time to challenge the myth of childhood sexual availability. It's important to remember that these victims are children, not adults.

Comments

[scascot.livejournal.com]

I have to question the chain of logic that you've used to start this. In the absence of other evidence (you say you've noticed a trend, which is insufficient), referring to the victim in this case as a young woman is entirely appropriate.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

How can you call a 10 year old a "young woman"? The age of majority is 18. She was kidnapped at the age of 10. The crime was initially committed when she was a girl, and continued until she was 18.

[scascot.livejournal.com]

The news story takes place in the present. In the present, the victim is (in fact) a young woman. Referring to her as such is appropriate. The story doesn't refer to her past as a young woman, it refers to her in the present as a young woman and then describes events in her past.

I understand the point you're making, and I'm not trying to minimize it. However, I think that the story, as presented, is stylistically correct and doesn't merit the chain of inference you've created.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

The story does not take place in the present. It states that he *was* involved in a child porn ring. He's dead now. If we take the stylistic approach, it's a good probability that the "child porn" ring he was involved with has victims who are now adults. Should it be called simply a "porn ring"?

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Correction: It says "may have been involved...".

Let's take a look at the structure of this sentence:

"A man who held a young woman captive for more than eight and a half years may have been involved in a child pornography ring, police said today."

Both "held" and "may have been involved" are past tense. It makes reference to a time frame of eight and a half years. The passage of time doesn't negate the ages of his victims at the time of the crime. Especially when you consider the disparity between "young woman" and "child porn" in the ages of the victims. The children who were victimized eight and a half years ago are most likely adults now, too. Why aren't they referred to as "young adults" too? Logically, it should be called "young adult porn" if you're going to apply a "stylistic" standard.

[scascot.livejournal.com]

I know this is upsetting you, and I fear that we are heading down that the same path again. Please, take a deep breath and read what I am saying.

The story is dated December 5, 2008. The police statement is indicated as having taken place today (i.e., December 5, 2008). It doesn't get much more into the present than that.

Listen to what you're saying: You're saying that that because person is being referred to as a "young woman" in the present, even though the story references an event that took place in her past when she was 10, that this somehow sexualizes a 10-year-old and is an example of misogyny. Turn this around: Should this person, who is now presumably 20 (she escaped in 2006, 8 years after being kidnapped), be referred to as a "girl" because the story refers to an event in her past? Isn't referring to an adult female as a "girl" a degrading and misogynistic turn of term that feminists fought against in the 1970's and 80's? You simply cannot have it both ways, unless you're trying to create a no-win situation.

She is a young woman now, and was a girl then. This interpretation is supported by the story, as written. You could make an argument that this could be clarified by rewriting the sentence, "Wolfgang Priklopil kidnapped Miss Kampusch when she was walking to school at the age of 10, and held her in a windowless cell," as "Wolfgang Priklopil kidnapped Miss Kampusch as a girl when she was walking to school at the age of 10, and held her in a windowless cell." Apparently, the editor felt that this was a logical deduction that the reader could make on their own, by indicating her age at the time of the kidnapping, and didn't need it spelled out for them.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

"I know this is upsetting you, and I fear that we are heading down that the same path again. Please, take a deep breath and read what I am saying."

You're *assuming* this is upsetting me. You don't *know* what I am feeling. For the record, I'm keeping my emotions in check--but I'll warn you that stating knowledge of my emotions is a really fast track to pissing me off. You're coming off as patronizing, Rich. Keep this on topic, and not refer to personalities.

"The story is dated December 5, 2008. The police statement is indicated as having taken place today (i.e., December 5, 2008). It doesn't get much more into the present than that."

No, the *story* is being *reported* today. The *story* happened in the past. Again, consider the term "child porn". The victims themselves are now adults. Why isn't the crime called "young adult" porn?

"You're saying that that because person is being referred to as a "young woman" in the present, even though the story references an event that took place in her past when she was 10, that this somehow sexualizes a 10-year-old and is an example of misogyny."

That's rather simplistic, Rich. I am saying that this is an example of a trend of sexualizing girls who are not of the same nationality as the writer, and that is one aspect of misogyny.

"Turn this around: Should this person, who is now presumably 20 (she escaped in 2006, 8 years after being kidnapped), be referred to as a "girl" because the story refers to an event in her past? Isn't referring to an adult female as a "girl" a degrading and misogynistic turn of term that feminists fought against in the 1970's and 80's? You simply cannot have it both ways, unless you're trying to create a no-win situation."

No, it's not. The opening sentence is ambiguous in terminology, and just skimming the initial paragraph would lead to the assumption that she was a young woman when she was kidnapped. I remember being taught that news articles begin with a summary of the rest of the article. That first sentence should read: "The man who kidnapped a ten year old girl and held her captive for eight and a half years may have been involved in child porn police said today."

The story is about the crime. The crime was committed against a child. The passage of time doesn't negate the original crime, regardless of the maturity of the victim presently. This is verified by the legal term "child pornography".

One of the hurdles child abuse victims have to overcome is a statute of limitations; "You're an adult now, you should be over it" is utter BS, because the harm done to children last their entire lives. Yes, the victim is *now* a young woman, but she will carry scars for the rest of her life from damage done to her as a child.

By referring to this crime as against a young woman (which is an easy assumption based on the first sentence), it lessens the horror of the crime. We don't react as negatively to a young woman being assaulted as to a young girl being assaulted.

[scascot.livejournal.com]

The victims were children at the time of the events. They are adults now. Assuming they are still alive, referring to them in the present tense in an adult manner (young man/woman) is appropriate.

To say that child porn no longer qualifies as child porn because the child in the picture/video is now an adult is absurd. To refer to a grown man or woman as a boy or girl in the present tense, in reference to the child porn, is equally absurd.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

I'd agree.

Since the subject of the first sentence is "the man" who committed the crime, it is appropriate to refer to his victims in the terminology appropriate at the time the crime was committed. There is a disparity between "young woman" and "child porn". The victims of child porn are *now* adults, or would be if they are alive, but the crime was committed against them when they were children, hence "child porn".

Miss Kampusch is NOT the grammatical subject of the first sentence; Nor is she the subject of the entire article; Her perpetrator is. If you're going to refer to her at all, do so in terminology appropriate to the time of the event.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Further, what constitutes evidence? I'm talking about newspaper articles; I've seen several articles in the last year that do refer to females under the age of 18 as women. Since you're challenging my observation, you're welcome to research the following cases and see just how many articles do this:

The rape and murder of a 12 year old girl, and the murder of her family in Iraq by US Marines
The 14 year old girl who was recently stoned to death for admitting she'd been raped--she was accused of adultery.

I don't have the means to conduct imperial research, but I know what I see. I'd suggest paying attention to the media instead of questioning my logic without any evidence yourself. I suspect you'll see the same trend I do.

If not, at least you can collect evidence to the contrary.