From: andrewb@suite.sw.oz.au (Andrew Bettison)
Subject: Re: Male violence and the 'Power Myth'
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:54:15 GMT

In <axolotl.717488865@syzygy> axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair) writes:


> s342046@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au writes:
>  >Last night we were horrified as we watched on ABC-TV (Australia) part 2 of
>  >"Without Consent": David Goldie's documentary on rape and sexual violence in
>  >Australia.

> I saw the first part of this documentary.  It seemed to be disturbingly
> one-sided, in that all the interviewed men were rapists, and all the
> interviewed women were victims.

Iain, I suggest you re-read what you've written.  From the way
you've worded it, one could reasonably deduce that you'd also find
a book on quantum physics "disturbingly one-sided" by its lack of
inclusion of classical mechanics, or a film about South African
apartheid "disturbingly one-sided" in that all the black people
are presented as poor and opressed, and the white people affluent
and privileged.

The title of the documentary is "Without Consent", and it's about
rape.  Why do you find it "disturbing" that the maker should confine
himself to the subject at hand by showing only footage of rape
victims and perpetrators?  The alternative, you seem to be implying,
would be a documentary showing interviews with "normal" men and
women, edited to be representative of society in general, and would
have nothing to say specifically about rape.  If you're going to
object to Goldie's documentary, say you think he shouldn't have
made it, but don't condemn it for sticking to the subject.

> There were no "normal" men or women
> on the program, so the documentary was implying, "all men and women
> are like this".

Anyone who takes a documentary out of context by generalising its
specific implications as though they were statements about the
world in general, needs to examine his or her own head, not the
producer's.  I mean, really!  Only a weak minded fool would interpret,
for example, a documentary about road smashes as implying that
_everyone_ is either a dangerous driver or a traffic accident
victim.  That's preposterous.  So why do you assert that Goldie's
documentary was trying to paint all men as rapists and women as
rape victims?  As far as I can see, he simply sets out to document
the experiences of specific people, rapists and their victims, and
does so using spoken interviews.  Any conclusions you care to draw
beyond the scope of the programme are your own; by mis-attributing
them to Goldie you betray a hidden agenda.  What exactly _do_ you
object to, Iain?

> Unsupported, dubious statistics were presented as scientific fact.
> For example:

>  >A forensic psychologist interviewed on
>  >the program (who's name I forget), claimed that offenders caught at age 18 had
>  >attacked an average of six victims, however offenders caught at the age of 25
>  >had an average of 360 victims.

> In other words, 25-year-old rapists have had one completely new victim
> every week, without fail, since they were 18?  I'd like to know how that
> statistic was arrived at.

I agree that this statistic seems rather extreme.  Not having seen
the programme in full, I can only assume that either it has not
been quoted accurately here, or the forensic psychologist was using
those figures out of context in a bid to shock the viewer, which
is a pretty contemptible tactic.

> These questionable figures were thrown at
> the audience in an attempt to say, "these horrible things are a function
> of Australian macho society".  (ie. not the filmmaker's arty jerkoff
> Australian society.)

You seem to be putting your own words into Goldie's mouth again,
Iain, and your jab at the filmmaker's private life simply weakens
your credibility.  Descending to personal insults is not the style
of someone with a substantive point to make; rather, it makes me
suspect even more that your superficially reasonable argument is
merely a fascade for some personal objection of yours.

> But where was the other side?  Last week, it was
> reported that Australian women are the second highest paid in the world
> (after Iceland), with 88c out of the (male) $1.  Still appalling, but
> excellent by world standards.

I fail to see the relevance of this (unattributed) statistic to
the issue of sexual violence.  Quoting an unsupported statistic is
pretty lame, Iain, considering your immediately preceding attack
on Goldie for doing the same.

> Detailed interviews with rapists and victims induces the sort of
> "compulsive revulsion" that boosts ratings.  This documentary offered
> no perspective and no analysis, just painful monologues which bordered
> on the exploitative.  Instead of providing insight into why men rape,
> we just had the kind of cheap sensationalism which gets people baying
> for blood.

The ABC is almost the last television network I'd accuse of fishing
for good ratings (SBS probably comes last).  Ratings are a game
played primarily by _commercial_ stations because they need good
ratings to justify high rates for commercials aired in prime time.
The ABC is partly affected by ratings because of political imperatives
issued from on-high to be "culturally relevant", combined with a
simplistic view on the part of the bean-counters who hold the purse
strings that good ratings are equivalent to higher cultural value.
But that's beside the point.

I agree with you that a documentary on rape has a mobid fascination,
just like the scene of a traffic accident.  That can't be helped,
though; the majority of our population, leading tedious and quietly
desperate lives, will always find occupation in the misfortunes of
others.

I disagree that sticking to a talking heads format is "cheap
sensationalism".  If anything, it smacks of an excruciating desire
to avoid sensationalistic moralizing, probably to escape from the
very phenomenon you've accused it of: getting people "baying for
blood".  Consider also that just about anything you watch during
prime-time is bound to exhibit sensationalism to a large degree;
it's practically mandatory for popular television format.

As for not providing insight into why men rape; first, I'd say
that's a pretty tall order for a two-hour documentary, and second,
I think it's up to the viewer what he or she is able to discern in
the testimonials of the interviewees.  If you were unable to learn
anything from the program then that's as much a comment on your
own viewing as the skill of the filmmaker.

> If I were less charitable, I'd say that this was exactly the intent of
> the bloke who made the film.  After all, he doesn't have to confront
> himself in any meaningful way, and he gets the kind of fame, success
> and achievement that many women demand.

If you were any more honest, Iain, you'd say what you really felt,
not try to camouflage your hostility in a badly constructed shroud
of irrational criticism.  How do you _know_ that Goldie didn't have
to "confront himself in any meaningful way", just because it isn't
shown in the documentary?  And since when is that the sole criterion
for quality?  And finally, the success or otherwise of a proponent
does not automatically invalidate his or her work; as an extreme
example, Albert Einstein is famous but his theories are no less
valid because of that.  All you've managed to do is cast vindictive
aspersions of exploitation on David Goldie and convince your readers
that you hold some sort of grudge against his programme.

So why don't you tell us what you _really_ think, Iain?  I'm sure
we're all dying to know.


--
Andrew Bettison

Phone	+61-2-698-2322	  Internet	andrewb@softway.sw.oz.au 
Fax	+61-2-699-9174	  UUCP		uunet!softway.sw.oz.au!andrewb