![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pktechgirlbackupThe author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks keeps saying "having his way with her" when she means "he raped her" and it's driving me nuts. The first time she does it, it's in regards to an adult man and a 12 year old girl. Later, it's that same girl (slightly older now), fighting off her male cousins tooth and nail from "having their way with her." Now, there is a point between enthusiastic consent and full rape, but neither of these are it. Had these men succeeded (and they frequently did, although maybe not with this girl, although I kind of suspect they did and she's just not saying so), that would be rape.
I'm not a fan of euphemisms in general, but it strikes me as particularly bad in this case, because it reinforces the idea that rape is when a stranger jumps out of the bushes with a knife and violently penetrates a woman's vagina with his penis, and anything short of that doesn't count. My mom used the exact same phrase to describe Levi Johnston's alleged rape of Bristol Palin. As numerous people have pointed out: Bristol's social environment doesn't consider that story rape, and it's rooted in a thought process that goes: "Sex is bad, men will always want sex, women either don't or have more self control, therefore it's women's job to limit sex. And that makes it a personal failing on her part if unwanted sex occurs."
Doing some extremely fine line reading, I suspect the author is deliberately softening her words at the request of the family. There's evidence to suggest that Lacks didn't want to marry her husband (and first cousin, who grew up like her brother as both were raised by their grandfather), and that it was some combination of uwanted sex and/or pregnancy that led to the marriage. I respect the author's desire to respect the family: they were extremely mistreated by doctors and reporters for decades, they have no benefit of a doubt to give anyone new. It's entirely possible Lacks wouldn't want it to come out that her family was inbred and rape-prone, and if the author had just left it out, I think I'd be okay with it.* But it does a disservice to everyone else on the planet to call rape something other than rape. If it's in there, you have to call it what it is.
*Although if I were the ghost of Henrietta Lacks trying to keep some skeletons in a closet, I think I'd start with the fact that my widower did nothing while the husband of the woman he was banging molested our daughter in the backseat of the car while he (my widower) was driving. The book also makes numerous mentions of him cheating and bringing home STDs, which makes me think maybe he wasn't given a vote in what to censor.
I'm not a fan of euphemisms in general, but it strikes me as particularly bad in this case, because it reinforces the idea that rape is when a stranger jumps out of the bushes with a knife and violently penetrates a woman's vagina with his penis, and anything short of that doesn't count. My mom used the exact same phrase to describe Levi Johnston's alleged rape of Bristol Palin. As numerous people have pointed out: Bristol's social environment doesn't consider that story rape, and it's rooted in a thought process that goes: "Sex is bad, men will always want sex, women either don't or have more self control, therefore it's women's job to limit sex. And that makes it a personal failing on her part if unwanted sex occurs."
Doing some extremely fine line reading, I suspect the author is deliberately softening her words at the request of the family. There's evidence to suggest that Lacks didn't want to marry her husband (and first cousin, who grew up like her brother as both were raised by their grandfather), and that it was some combination of uwanted sex and/or pregnancy that led to the marriage. I respect the author's desire to respect the family: they were extremely mistreated by doctors and reporters for decades, they have no benefit of a doubt to give anyone new. It's entirely possible Lacks wouldn't want it to come out that her family was inbred and rape-prone, and if the author had just left it out, I think I'd be okay with it.* But it does a disservice to everyone else on the planet to call rape something other than rape. If it's in there, you have to call it what it is.
*Although if I were the ghost of Henrietta Lacks trying to keep some skeletons in a closet, I think I'd start with the fact that my widower did nothing while the husband of the woman he was banging molested our daughter in the backseat of the car while he (my widower) was driving. The book also makes numerous mentions of him cheating and bringing home STDs, which makes me think maybe he wasn't given a vote in what to censor.
