How do people even come up with these ideas?

Fucking animals.

As a feminist, it's important to not come off as a man-hating bitch, but stories like this sure do make it hard.

"Obviously, they were trying to send a message to her, and they were obviously trying to humiliate her," Trapani said.

Nothing gets past this guy!

I think it was on Feministing that I saw a discussion about this before, but one thing I noticed right away was the passive voice used throughout the article. It starts that she "had" the word branded on her face, which is unnecessarily passive since 1) it wasn't a choice of hers and 2) they name all the people who did it later on. Then the cop says "they" did it, but the author doesn't identify the people who did it until the second half of the article. The tone makes it seem like something she had coming or deserved (just like so many articles about violence against women). Really, really unfortunate.

In ancient Rome, slaveowners would brand "FUG" (the Latin root for "fugitive") across the foreheads of slave who ran away. So these guys are not the first to come up with this form of violence, it has a very very long history in Western society.

honkifyoulike: They need to cover their arses. The case hasn't gone to trial yet, and the point of the trial is to decide whether these people committed the crime. You and I might think it's pretty obvious who was involved, but the newspapers can't themselves claim in a news article that these people were the perpetrators. (Quoting what the cop said about it is a different matter, of course.)

That acquaintance, Preston L. Valdez, 21, told police the woman was smoking methamphetamine with him shortly before the attack.

I don't understand why the author thought it necessary to include that in her news report. Is it her intent to imply that this horrific assault was not so bad because the victim was a meth-head, or not a 'nice middle-class girl'?

Journalists use the passive voice in articles about crime because the suspect is innocent until proven guilty, even if a rudimentary level of common sense dictates that said suspect is obviously guilty, such as in the case of O.J. Simpson.

This is truly horrific. I have so much trouble wrapping my minds around what kind of moral structure these people must have. What she did was bad, what they did was justified?? How???

Jeremy: they do so more often when the victim is a woman or the crime is rape or sexual assault. Passive is a big no-no for journalists.

"Armed fugitive kills family"

versus

"Local woman sexually assaulted"

Using the active voice also doesn't mean you have to falsely incriminate someone. Saying that "a group of men branded the woman" does not claim that SPECIFIC suspects committed the act, only that a violent group of men committed it. Otherwise, the only subject in the sentence is the woman, and that implies agency/blame on her behalf. She didn't do this to herself; someone did it to her. All we ask when we talk about active vs. passive voices is that the perpetrator bears the blame, even if the perp's name cannot be reasonably ascertained.

[quote]they do so more often when the victim is a woman or the crime is rape or sexual assault.[/quote]

I don't think that's true, even if only because the media want to protect themselves legally. Let me give you an example. If a newspaper publishes a headline that reads "Armed fugitive kills family", that newspaper can be sued for libel. To avoid libel the headline would read something like "Man allegedly kills family." Anytime guilt is mentioned, a source is usually noted. So in your example, if guilt is implied, the headline would read "Armed fugitive kills family, police say."

To clarify my first post, my comment should have said "Journalists generally do not mention guilt..." Active voice/passive voice has nothing to do with it. These comments really need an edit button!

Cara: Well put. Thanks for the explanation.

Can I just point out that it's incredibly disturbing to know that either there's a company out there that sells branding irons that say "snitch," or these guys sat down and spent some time crafting one with their own hands before planning the attack.

There are those fucking DivaVillage.com ads again.

I'm so disgusted that I can't even formulate words

cycles: Does "branded" imply it was done in one go with an iron of the same shape? If they'd written it using a soldering iron, say, would that be "branding" it?

I don't even like thinking about this. Fuckers.

"As a feminist, it's important to not come off as a man-hating bitch, but stories like this sure do make it hard." - Ikken

You do realize that at least one, if not two (not sure what gender "Kibbol" would normally be given to) of these attackers are women, right?

I should have said "alleged attackers". Sorry.

noname: Avila appears to present as male in this photo, fwiw.

Is it her intent to imply that this horrific assault was not so bad because the victim was a meth-head, or not a 'nice middle-class girl'?

Stephen: That was my first thought, as well. And even if that wasn't the reporter's intention, I am sure it will come up as part of the defense of the woman's "alleged" assailants.

I wonder if this was somehow inspired by the similar incident in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix? Marietta Edgecombe was jinxed with the word "sneak" across her face in pimples.

I don't think that this kind of behavior is really anything new, unfortunately, sappho.

Is it her intent to imply that this horrific assault was not so bad because the victim was a meth-head, or not a 'nice middle-class girl'?

in regards to that coming up in trial, it seriously hurts her testimony. Witnesses and victims of crimes are not considered reliable sources if they were "under the influence" of any drug.

That's a problem that can come up in any case. A (male) friend of mine was attacked on the streets. but the attacker, who was followed and identified by a witness, went free because the witness had been drinking that night.

Sappho,

I had the same thought.

==

This reminds me of the Linda Riss case. Her ex-boyfriend hired someone to throw acid on her face and blind her because she refused to marry him.

Why is it that men like to disfigure women??

well, you know, she tried to help someone so she probably deserved it.

Just like that 10 year old in Britain deserved to be raped by 2 men (who both served 8 months) because she "dressed provocatively" and "looked 16."

re: men disfiguring women

we live in a society that pushes women to value their appearance above their internal qualities. and, to a lesser degree, when you mark something, you own it. a man disfiguring a woman is knocking out two birds with one stone.

Meg, I think you pretty much nailed it.

we live in a society that pushes women to value their appearance above their internal qualities.

And teaches men that a woman's value is in her physical appearance above all else. Thus, if he's angry at a woman, what's the best way to strike back against her?

It's why men will attack a woman they're angry at by insulting her appearance first, by calling her ugly, etc. These guys are taking it to the next level, but it's the same attitude.

Sick.

"we live in a society that pushes women to value their appearance above their internal qualities. and, to a lesser degree, when you mark something, you own it. a man disfiguring a woman is knocking out two birds with one stone."

Knocking out *three* birds. These new scars also probably mean her income will be lower in the future than it would be if she wasn't disfigured...even if her job has nothing to do with making public appearances on behalf of her employer.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/141894/analysis_good_looks_may_mean_better_pay/index.html

http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2005/b/pages/appearances.html

"And teaches men that a woman's value is in her physical appearance above all else. Thus, if he's angry at a woman, what's the best way to strike back against her? "

I think that is a good point - disfiguring the woman is meant to reduce her worth.

More generally, however, I think the permanent visible mark is intended to make others in society shun and shame her so that she is constantly reminded of her perceived transgression. For exampl, think about the punishments where adulturers are forced wear "A" on their chest or where the teenager was forced to wear the sign that said "I stole from Walmart" after shoplifting.

"And teaches men that a woman's value is in her physical appearance above all else. Thus, if he's angry at a woman, what's the best way to strike back against her? "

I think that is a good point - disfiguring the woman is meant to reduce her worth.

More generally, I think the permanent visible mark is intended to make others in society shun and shame her so that she is constantly reminded of her perceived transgression. For example, think about the punishments where adulturers are forced wear "A" on their chest or where the teenager was forced to wear the sign that said "I stole from Walmart" after shoplifting.

"And teaches men that a woman's value is in her physical appearance above all else. Thus, if he's angry at a woman, what's the best way to strike back against her? "

I think that is a good point - disfiguring the woman is meant to reduce her worth.

More generally, I think the permanent visible mark is intended to make others in society shun and shame her so that she is constantly reminded of her perceived transgression. For example, think about the punishments where adulturers are forced wear "A" on their chest or where the teenager was forced to wear the sign that said "I stole from Walmart" after shoplifting.

About disfiguring: I saw an episode of Dateline (or something like that) once about this guy who was stalking Bjork. He built an acid bomb & sent it to her house because she wouldn't respond to his obsessive letters, and then killed himself. When the cops were investigating his death they found videos he made all about Bjork & the bomb (which they intercepted in time). In the videos he said that the acid would scar her for life so she would never be able to forget him, every time she looked in the mirror; knowing about his suicide was supposed to be 'punishment.'

So there's not only the message to the public that this person has done something 'wrong,' but also control over that person's life so that they're constantly forced to remember their 'crime.'

For example, think about the punishments where adulturers are forced wear "A" on their chest or where the teenager was forced to wear the sign that said "I stole from Walmart" after shoplifting.

As much as some people may disagree with those punishments, they are at least sentences handed down after a trial in a democratic republic.

Scarring someone for life isn't like forcing someone to wear a sign at Wal-Mart; it's like locking up someone in your basement, which has no correlation to imprisonment for armed robbery.

A violation of bodily integrity is not really about health (although Linda Riss went blind); it's a pathway to attack the soul. The message seems to be that, unless you play the game, they will destroy your soul.

"As much as some people may disagree with those punishments, they are at least sentences handed down after a trial in a democratic republic."

Well yes, but the severity and the source wasn't what I was focusing on. Rather, the point that this actions fits in with a larger pattern of behavior where people attempt to mark individuals who they think deserve shaming and shunning.

"So there's not only the message to the public that this person has done something 'wrong,' but also control over that person's life so that they're constantly forced to remember their 'crime.'"

Hmmm.. I don't know if I agree with that. I certainly agree with the point that one purpose is to make sure the person is constantly reminded of their perceived "crime."

But I think there is definitely a social aspect here - tatooing on the forward ensures that the person's quality as a "snitch" will be broadcasted to all social observers. This will presumably lead to negative impressions of the person, and force the person to constantly be aware of their status as a shamed individual.

The first thing I thought of when I read the post is a hip-hop artist calling either his tour or his album "Stop Snitchin". I don't know the name of the artist.

There is no reason for type of behavior.

As a feminist, it's important to not come off as a man-hating bitch

Shoot, I knew I was forgetting something!

I blogged about this, and had a guy post the terrifying "what did she expect, she was a meth-head" response. -shudder-

Also... the Benoit wrestler case where he murdered his kid and soon to be ex wife got lots of "I can't beleive it!" comments.

So. If you're a woman and you are assaulted, somehow you must have asked for it, and ifyou are a man and an assaulter or murderer, you must be given the benefit of even invented doubt.

I think I'll start carrying a hammer in my purse, and apologise later.