A Response to A Response: Gender Neutrality, Rape and Trial Talk
- Annabelle Mooney
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
It was with great interest and some trepidation that I read Rumney’s response to my paper previously published in this journal (2006, pp. 39–68). In many ways it is pleasure to have the chance for a formal dialogue in what is often the all too solitary task of publishing research. Rumney’s response also leads me to think about the implications, and difficulties, of working in an interdisciplinary field; this is not something I will pursue here in the detail it deserves though I suspect many of our differences are exactly because of this. There are, in my reading of Rumney’s argument, some misrepresentations of my argument which I deal with first. I then turn to our clashing semantic systems in relation to ‘gender’, ‘law’ and ‘patriarchy’.
Rumney suggests in his opening lines that my argument was to suggest that gender neutral laws “prevent gendered analysis of rape as a social and legal problem”. In fact, my argument was that “the removal of gender specific terms would not solve the pro ...
- Bavelas, Janet, and Linda, Coates. 2001. Is it sex or assault? Erotic versus violent language in sexual assault trial judgements. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless 10(1): 29–40. CrossRef
- De Carvalho Figueiredo, Débora. 2002. Discipline and punishment in the discourse of legal decisions on rape trials. In Language in the legal process, ed. Janet Cotterill, 260–274. Hampshire: Palgrave.
- Coates, Linda, and Allan, Wade. 2004. Telling it like it isn’t: Obscuring perpetrator responsibility for violent crime. Discourse and Society 15(5): 499–526. CrossRef
- Ehrlich, Susan. 1999. Communities of practice, gender and the representation of sexual assault. Language in Society 28: 239–256. CrossRef
- Ehrlich, Susan. 2001. Representing rape: Language and sexual consent. London: Routledge.
- Ehrlich, Susan. 2002. Legal institutions, nonspeaking recipiency and participants’ orientations. Discourse and Society 13(6): 731–747. CrossRef
- Frith, Hannah, and Kitzinger, Celia. 2001. Reformulating sexual script theory: Developing a discursive psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory & Psychology 11(2): 209–232.
- Kitzinger, Celia, and Hannah, Frith. 1999. Just say no? The use of conversation analysis in developing a feminist perspective on sexual refusal. Discourse and Society 10(3): 293–316. CrossRef
- Matoesian, Gregory M. 1993. Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom. London: Polity.
- Home Office (UK). 2000. Setting the boundaries: Reforming the law on sex offences. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/vol1main.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2007.
- A Response to A Response: Gender Neutrality, Rape and Trial Talk
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique
Volume 21, Issue 2 , pp 157-160
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Annabelle Mooney (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. School of Arts – Fincham, Roehampton University, London, UK