Five days later, I’m still troubled by some paragraphs on the front page of The Australian on Monday. I haven’t noticed anyone drawing attention to them, even though they are deeply concerning.
The article is about historian Keith Windschuttle’s questioning of the authenticity of the film Rabbit-Proof Fence (‘Rabbit-Proof Fence grossly inaccurate; Windschuttle’, The Australian, Monday, December 14, p 1).
Windschuttle claims that sisters Molly Craig, 14, Daisy Kadibill, 8, and their cousin Gracie Fields, 10, were not removed from their families to “breed out the colour” but because of their “sexual activity with white men working in the area”. The girls had been accused of “running wild”. The article continues:
“’Running wild’ was said to be a contemporary euphemism for promiscuity, which meant the girls were having sex with the white males in the area”, Windschuttle writes in the preface of his new work.
…They didn’t say these girls were screwing boys, they said they were running wild…anyone from that era knows the meaning of the term.”
Now let’s just have another look at the ages of these girls – they are 14, 8 and 10.
Girls this age are not “having sex”. They are not at an age where they can consent to “have sex”. They are being sexually assaulted.
Did eight-year-old Daisy decide she wanted to “run wild” with “white men working in the area”? Why is all the emphasis on the supposed behaviour of very young girls – who were in need of protection – and not on what must have been predatory white males preying on vulnerable indigenous children?
This sort of wording is dangerous to all little girls. It suggests they desire sex with older men and lends permission to those men who see even very young girls as up for grabs and ‘asking for’ what they get.
Now in its second printing!
December 18th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Must have been short on news that day.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:48 am
This disturbs me greatly. As an 8 year old girl, I was sexually assaulted after myself and my little play mate were dragged into the back of a truck by two men. She was raped in front of me. At only 8 years old, I was introduced to a world of severe depravity. Neither I nor my 10 year old friend were desiring anything except to be little girls, to play, laugh and have fun. I remember the toy I was playing with when taken off the street. I cannot imagine any little girl desiring sex – I agree that many are groomed for early sexual encounters. This is sexual assault, not “screwing around”.
I agree with Melinda, these children are not of an age where they are able to give ‘consent’ to men. They desire protection, need protection and deserve our protection.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Dangerous word games…
December 19th, 2009 at 12:30 am
I was first sexually assaulted at age 12. What followed was 4 years of abuse – only one incident, the last of which occurred at age 16, of which I’ve been able to talk about until extremely recently. My abuser told me on repeat that this is what I wanted, and that I was asking for it.
A 12 year old can’t ask for abuse. A 13 year old can’t ask for abuse. A 14 year old can’t ask for abuse. A 15 year old can’t ask for abuse. A 16 year old can’t ask for abuse. No one can.
I read that article, although only skimmed it (I try not to read articles of this nature – still a bit raw). Clearly someone’s editor was on holidays.
December 19th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I gather that WIndschuttle’s quotation was reproduced without critical comment from the journalist concerned, without an editor picking this up, and without publication of any feedback from readers of ‘The Australian’ by the time this piece was posted. Yet child sexual abuse is widely agreed to be among the worst of crimes, one causing profound effects for survivors for many years (as responses to this piece highlight).
Every child living in Australia deserves better than this from the national newspaper. Many thanks to Melinda for highlighting it.
December 20th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Melinda
Our community is all the richer and safer for having you watch over and call this sort of abhorrent reporting
Thank you
December 20th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
The thought of under-age girls being held responsible for their own exploitation is reprehensible at best – at worst it’s the very terror that caused the original offense. The longer we allow a dominate culture to ‘normalize’ deviant sexual behaviour the longer our own children live at risk and our whole culture succumbs to fear.
Melinda, again, you have brought some light to a dark subject. May all of Australia have eyes to see the bright future of a generation of girls, who, if protected and nourished and encouraged could not only reverse the effects of sexual exploitation but advance the fight for justice and truth. God grant it.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:05 am
It astounds me that Australian men are able to continue to promote the idea that their historical ‘relationships’ with Aboriginal women were anything other than rape based, let alone their interactions with Aboriginal girls. For all the talk about ‘reconciliation’ in Australian society, there’s never any suggestion that aussie white men should be making special efforts to atone for their (ongoing) sexual crimes against Aboriginal women and girls. The fact that the stolen generation, rather than men’s sexual crime in the background to this ‘generation’, is at the heart of the reconciliation agenda suggests, I think, that aussie men have been successful in making reconciliation a movement that promotes their own interests in terms of covering up past crimes.
Thanks so much, Melinda, for writing about this. I really admire how you stand up for girls.
March 25th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Thank you SO much for your hard work and publishing your thoughts. It seems as if many people simply skim over these issues, but having someone stop for even a second and say ‘This is not right’ is a breath of fresh air. Thanks.