Rape Myths, Law, and Feminist Research: 'Myths About Myths?'

Joanne Conaghan, Yvette Russell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In an article recently published in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, the legal scholar Helen Reece argues that the prevalence and effects of rape myths have been overstated and the designation of certain beliefs and attitudes as myths is simply wrong. Feminist researchers, she argues, are engaged 'in a process of creating myths about myths' in a way that serves to close down and limit productive debate in this 'vexed' area. In this article we argue that Reece's analysis is methodologically flawed, crudely reductionist and rhetorically unyielding. We locate Reece's analysis within the wider theoretical field to show how her failure to engage with feminist literature on rape other than in the narrowest, most exclusionary terms, yields an approach which impedes rather than advances public understanding and panders to a kind of simplistic thinking which cannot begin to grapple with the complexity of the phenomenon that is rape. We conclude by emphasizing the continuing commitment of feminist researchers carefully to theorizing and (re)mapping the fraught field of progressive legal strategizing in order to identify and counter the kinds of risks and shortcomings of political activism with which Reece is rightly concerned.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)25-48
Number of pages24
JournalFeminist Legal Studies
Volume22
Issue number1
Early online date08 Mar 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2014

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gender Studies

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Rape Myths, Law, and Feminist Research: 'Myths About Myths?''. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this