[71] in peace2
Warning: could not send message for past 4 hours
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Mon Feb 14 01:52:41 2000
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:49:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@wellesley.edu>
Message-Id: <200002140649.BCA05556@cliff.wellesley.edu>
To: <peace-list@MIT.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary="BCA05556.950510944/cliff.wellesley.edu"
This is a MIME-encapsulated message
--BCA05556.950510944/cliff.wellesley.edu
**********************************************
** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY **
** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE **
**********************************************
The original message was received at Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:40:54 -0500 (EST)
from PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.28]
----- The following addresses had transient non-fatal errors -----
<nteutsch@WELLESLEY.EDU>
(expanded from: <nteutsch@WELLESLEY.EDU>)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
<nteutsch@WELLESLEY.EDU>... Deferred: Connection timed out with sallie.wellesley.edu.
Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours
Will keep trying until message is 5 days old
--BCA05556.950510944/cliff.wellesley.edu
Content-Type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; cliff.wellesley.edu
Arrival-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:40:54 -0500 (EST)
Final-Recipient: RFC822; <nteutsch@WELLESLEY.EDU>
X-Actual-Recipient: RFC822; nteutsch@sallie
Action: delayed
Status: 4.4.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; sallie.wellesley.edu
Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 01:49:04 -0500 (EST)
Will-Retry-Until: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:40:54 -0500 (EST)
--BCA05556.950510944/cliff.wellesley.edu
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Return-Path: <peace-list@MIT.EDU>
Received: from MIT.EDU (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.28])
by cliff.wellesley.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA22265
for <nteutsch@WELLESLEY.EDU>; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:40:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP
id AA12116; Sun, 13 Feb 00 21:40:15 EST
Received: from melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.45])
by grand-central-station.MIT.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id VAA15651;
Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:38:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m12-182-5.mit.edu (M12-182-5.MIT.EDU [18.19.0.36])
by melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id VAA13883;
Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:38:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from auyeung@localhost) by m12-182-5.mit.edu (8.9.3)
id VAA11713; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:38:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200002140238.VAA11713@m12-182-5.mit.edu>
To: peace-women@MIT.EDU, peace-list@MIT.EDU
Cc: alsmith@MIT.EDU, jting@MIT.EDU
Subject: Rape as an act of sex/evolution, not a crime of violence
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:38:50 -0500
From: "F. AuYeung" <auyeung@MIT.EDU>
My apologies for opening the new discussion list on such a heavy subject,
but it is one that deserves discussion and action. The following article
address recent network TV shows featuring two controversial "scientists"
who are denounced by their own science community. Their message: rape is
a product of evolution, an act of sexual motivation, not a crime of
violence. It has already been criticized as an advocacy article on the
"scientists" part, and a sensationalism piece on the network. There are
three immediate things we can do, after reading the alert:
1. Send responses to The Today Show and Dateline
2. Talk/protest the publisher: MIT Press (!)
3. Email opinions to FAIR, which sent out the alert
Also please "cc" your letters to Jennifer Pozner, Women's Desk Director,
FAIR, at: <jpozner@fair.org>
As for the list, the people who attended the session "Sexism @ MIT" are
currently on the <peace-women> list, a private list administered by those
who are already on the list. The list will conduct itself separately from
the Social Justice Cooperative, and is meant to provide a respectful forum
for the MIT community to actively discuss issues pertaining to women. You
can remove yourself at any time. Those who wish to join the list can
email Aimee Smith <alsmith@mit.edu> to be added. We hope this list will
be successful in providing a base of support and unity. Information about
this list and other peace issues are online at <mit.edu/justice>.
Thank you for your attention and participation,
Felix AuYeung
------- Forwarded Message
From: "Ozgur Basak Alkan" <boalkan@hotmail.com>
To: auyeung@MIT.EDU
Subject: Fwd: NBC & rape debate action
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:19:07 EET
>From: Jantrue Ting <jting@MIT.EDU>
>To: mitai@MIT.EDU
>Subject: NBC & rape debate action
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 14:49:02 -0500
>
>
> > FAIR-L
> > Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
> > Media analysis, critiques and news reports
> >
> >
> >
> >ACTION ALERT from FAIR's Women's Desk:
> >In rape debate, NBC prioritizes controversy over scientific credibility
> >
> >February 11, 2000
> >
> >During the last week in January, NBC news viewers had two chances to learn
> >that rape is not a crime of violence but a "natural, biological and evolved"
> >male behavior--and that the clothing a woman wears can put her at risk of
> >being attacked.
> >
> >On the Today show (1/24/00), evolutionary psychologist Randy Thornhill
> >insisted that "rape is a sexual act with a sexual motivation" that evolved
> >as a reproductive strategy for men to pass their genes on to as many
> >offspring as possible. Thornhill, co-author (with University of Colorado
> >professor Craig Palmer) of the then-unreleased book "A Natural History of
> >Rape" (MIT Press), warned that to reduce their chances of being raped, women
> >must understand "that there are costs associated with dressing provocatively
> >and going out alone at night and so forth."
> >
> >Watching the Today show, viewers would never know that Thornhill and
> >Palmer's theory has been criticized by fellow scientists as an
> >advocacy-motivated product of sloppy research, weak premises and
> >insufficient data. It wouldn't have been difficult for NBC to find
> >scientists who could offer a contradicting voice. Evolutionary biologist Dr.
> >Jerry Coyne told the New York Times (1/15/00) that their work, excerpted in
> >The Sciences magazine, was "irresponsible, it's tendentious, it's an
> >advocacy article and the science is sloppy."
> >
> >Or NBC could have interviewed science journalist Natalie Angier, author of
> >"Woman: An Intimate Geography," who told FAIR she identifies many problems
> >areas within Thornhill and Palmer's work. "There is so little data here on
> >which they base so much," Angier said. "Is there any research showing that
> >women in miniskirts get raped more often than women in long skirts? Of
> >course there isn't. He's saying it, but that data doesn't exist."
> >
> >In The Sciences and in numerous interviews, Thornhill complains that his and
> >Palmer's writings on rape have been turned down by science journals because
> >of political correctness censorious feminists within the scientific
> >community. Angier offered a different reason the pair's work might have been
> >rejected: "Their paper was probably turned down for the same nonideological
> >reasons why so many other papers are turned down--simply because their data
> >isn't convincing. The truth is that their book was not peer reviewed. The
> >beauty of this type of thing is that they can say anything they want when it
> >doesn't have to hold up to scrutiny... in a serious scientific journal,"
> >Angier said. "They're willing to go way out on a limb on very, very little
> >data, and then people like me get accused of being ideological when we call
> >attention to that while they get to fall back on their scientific
> >credentials."
> >
> >Indeed, much of the media coverage surrounding Thornhill and Palmer's
> >"Darwin made me do it!" theory framed the discussion as a battle between
> >angry activists and dispassionate scientists. Thornhill set the terms of the
> >debate, and news outlets followed his lead, describing his work as
> >controversial, provocative, and most of all disturbing to social scientists
> >and anti-rape advocates.
> >
> >While a number of outlets did seek comments from other scientists, few
> >offered serious scientific counterpoints illustrating research-based
> >objections.
> >
> >This limited and leading framing was typified on Today, where Thornhill was
> >never asked to substantiate his theory with data. Instead, the University of
> >New Mexico professor was allowed to blithely round off his claims about the
> >biological nature of rape with the assertion, "these are not debatable
> >issues" (a line he favored during most of his print and broadcast
> >interviews).
> >
> >Rather than including any response from biologists who could challenge the
> >rape theory from a scientific viewpoint, Today pitted Thornhill against New
> >York City sex crimes prosecutor Linda Fairstein, setting up a profoundly
> >unilluminating, science-verses-law debate.
> >
> >As the only scientist in the conversation, Thornhill appeared by default to
> >represent objective science and natural reality. When Fairstein criticized
> >Thornhill for never studying rape victims or rapists, and instead basing
> >much of his work on the apparently coercive sexual practices of scorpion
> >flies ("This is not, professor, 'A Bug's Life," Fairstein said), Thornhill's
> >response was to say that Fairstein "mischaracterized science." Thornhill
> >dismissed anyone who disagrees as anti-intellectual and manipulative: "It's
> >very, very tragic for critics of our approach to try to mislead the public
> >about the nature of science."
> >
> >The Today segment closed with news anchor Ann Curry's promise that "this is
> >not the last we're going to be hearing about [Thornhill's theory]. In fact,
> >it's just the beginning."
> >
> >As it turned out, viewers didn't have to wait very long to hear more of the
> >same from Thornhill--or from NBC. The next day's Dateline (1/25/00) featured
> >a segment, again pitting Thornhill against Fairstein, that opened with this
> >voice-over from reporter Lisa Rudolph: "For years the conventional wisdom
> >was that rape is a crime of violence, not sex. Now a shocking new theory
> >suggests the opposite, that it is about sex and a biological impulse that
> >all men have."
> >
> >In another voice-over, Rudolph repeated Thornhill's assertion that he isn't
> >blaming the victim when he tells women their clothing can trigger men's
> >biological tendencies to demand sex by force, he's merely "suggesting the
> >only way to prevent rape is to understand it scientifically." Rudolph's
> >comments were bolstered by visual images capitalizing on the sensationalism
> >of the story: close-up shots of women in tight shorts, and a clip from "The
> >Accused," a movie centered on a graphic, brutal gang rape of a woman in a
> >bar.
> >
> >NBC seemed more interested in stoking the controversy surrounding their book
> >than examining its scientific validity. Dateline's segment was prefaced by
> >the teaser, "And the big story that everyone is talking about: a shocking
> >theory about rape... Is this a new field of conflict in the battle of the
> >sexes?... Are all men born rapists?"
> >
> >Though this segment did include a brief quote from evolutionary biologist
> >Jerry Coyne denouncing Thornhill and Palmer's theory as "bunk," Dateline
> >never posed any questions that could illuminate whether or not their work
> >has scientific merit. Instead, Rudolph ends her report by telling viewers
> >that their book, when it is released, "will likely fuel the debate over
> >whether it's irresponsible runaway science or a frightening insight into
> >human behavior."
> >
> >Irresponsible science or frightening insight into behavior? That's an
> >interesting question. Too bad there was so little actual scientific debate
> >in the two NBC shows supposedly devoted to answering it. In the typical
> >"science in one corner, feminism in the other" paradigm so often favored by
> >the media, Today viewers received a whole lot of hype and very little
> >information on which to judge this contested theory.
> >
> >What Thornhill and Palmer received as a result of this type of coverage (by
> >NBC as well as in the national and international press) was much more
> >tangible: MIT Press capitalized on the book's PR hype by moving its
> >publication date from April 1 to February 1. An MIT Press representative
> >told FAIR that as of the first week in February, the initial print run of
> >10,000 copies has already sold out, and at least another 10,000 copies have
> >been ordered.
> >
> >ACTION: Want to know why NBC devoted so much air time--and so little
> >scientific scrutiny--to a dubious theory that women can reduce their risk of
> >rape by dressing conservatively? Ask them. Express your concerns to:
> >
> >Dateline NBC
> >corespondent Lisa Rudolph: dateline@nbc.com
> >Fax: 212-644-7073
> >30 Rockefeller Plaza
> >NYC, NY 10112.
> >
> >Today Show
> >news anchor Ann Curry
> >mailto:today@nbc.com
> >30 Rockefeller Plaza
> >NYC, NY 10112
> >
> >Please "cc" your letters to Jennifer Pozner, Women's Desk Director, FAIR,
> >at: mailto:jpozner@fair.org
> >Fax: 212-727-7668
> >
> > ----------
> >
> >
> >Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
> >everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
> >documented example of media bias or censorship. All messages to the
> >'FAIR-L' list will be forwarded to the editor of the list.
> >
> >Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any
> >responses, to us at: fair@fair.org .
> >
> >Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences
> >where it is appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message
> >out, so please let others know about FAIR and this mailing list.
> >
> >Don't miss a single e-mail from FAIR-L.
> >
> >You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site:
> >http://www.fair.org/emaillist.html
> >Or, you can send a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name"
> >command to LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU.
> >
> >The subscriber list is kept confidential, so no need to worry about
> >spammers.
> >
> >
> >You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF FAIR-L"
> >command to LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU.
> >
> >Please support FAIR by becoming a member.
> >You will receive FAIR's magazine, EXTRA! and its newsletter, EXTRA!
> >Update. You can become a member by calling 1-800-847-3993 from 9 to
> >5 Eastern Time (be sure to tell them you got the information
> >on-line) or by sending $19 with your name and address to:
> >
> > FAIR/EXTRA! Subscription Service
> > P.O. Box 170
> > Congers, NY 10920-9930
> >
> >
> > FAIR
> > (212) 633-6700
> > http://www.fair.org/
> > E-mail: fair@fair.org
> >
> >list administrators: FAIR-L-request@american.edu
> >
------- End of Forwarded Message
--BCA05556.950510944/cliff.wellesley.edu--
