As a feminist, I believe the subject matter of this book is incredibly important. However as a professional and as an academic, I have no choice but to admit this book is badly researched, full of misleading "quotes" which aren't quotes at all and sloppily cited. the jumbled mix of thesis and blog is low-quality, and this book does a disservice to the incredibly important and under-researched topic of victim blaming. I'm not at all surprised the book is self-published.
In this review I have highlighted some of Dr Taylor's many oversights as well as some of the deliberately misleading information in the book.
On p. 160 there is quote: ‘shock tactics’ which Dr Taylor claims comes from the Women and Equalities Committee Parliamentary report on sexual violence in schools. The quote does not appear anywhere in the report. On the same page, Taylor states that ‘Teachers excused the sexual assault ...’ The report on p. 10 refers to teenagers, not teachers. Still on p. 160, Taylor discusses sexting and quotes from an NSPCC report: ‘girls are sluts but boys are congratulated’. This quote does not appear anywhere in the NSPCC report. Presumably, this is Taylor’s interpretation of comments on p. 7 of the report. Why it appears in quotation marks is unclear. On p. 161 there is another quote that does not appear in the NSPCC report: ‘it wasn’t like they were raping them, it was only touching them up’. Again, this is presumably Taylor’s interpretation of comments made on p. 32 of the report, but it is still a made up quote.
Drawing from the NSPCC report (pp. 27-29, 31, 44, 50), Taylor tells the story of Kylie who was in a relationship with a boy who ‘would try and dictate what she wore’ (NSPCC p. 29). Taylor claims that Kylie ‘told an interviewer that she was asked to write ‘JASON OWNS ME’ across her breasts by her boyfriend’. While reference is made to this phrase in the report (p. 28), It is only in the context of giving an example of typical behaviour by boys and nothing to do with Kylie.
Taylor also claims Kylie’s boyfriend said to her that if she wore shorts under her skirt ‘no one could say she was asking for it’. Kylie never said any such thing and the phrase ‘asking for it’ does not even appear in the NSPCC report.
In response to other claims made by Taylor on p. 161 — Kylie did not say her boyfriend advised her to wear shorts under her skirt, nor does Kylie say he checked under her skirt everyday to see if she wore shorts, nor that he expected her to wear shorts in hot weather. In fact, Kylie says she wore shorts precisely because the weather was hot. Kylie challenged her boyfriend when he complained about her wearing shorts and wanted to know why she wasn’t wearing tights: ‘it’s hot, why do I have to wear tights, I’m wearing shorts’, ‘I don’t care, I’m wearing shorts, so in summer you are telling me I can’t go out in shorts’ (p. 29).
Taylor claims that Kylie’s boyfriend’s name is Jason (p. 161). His name is never mentioned by Kylie.
This is shocking because the author is an advocate of encouraging women and girls to speak out. The story of Kylie could have been recounted by respecting her words and experience rather than creating a fake narrative. Kylie’s words concerning her boyfriend’s behaviour are powerful. Beyond that, I struggle to understand why an author would construct a false narrative.
One of the unusual reactions to negative reviews of this book has been the author’s declaration that her legal team checked all her ‘references and citations’ and found ‘no issues’. The legal team can’t have checked very carefully. The book contains multiple citation errors. The problem is that some authors/co-authors cited in the main body of the book are not listed in the bibliography and when they are, they are not necessarily in alphabetical order so it is worth carefully checking before concluding a source is not listed.
To get to specifics, when reading the book there was a citation to a source I wanted to read. I discovered the source wasn’t listed in the bibliography. So when I spent ten minutes checking nearby pages this is what I found. From p. 154 to p. 173 there are a total of 19 citation errors involving 13 different authors/co-authors. In these instances, anyone wanting to know where Taylor gets her information from will be disappointed because no source is listed.
On p. 115 Taylor claims victims: ‘are often asked victim-blaming questions about what they were wearing, their prior sexual history, their prior relationship with the perpetrator, how they behaved during and after the assault, their reasons for not reporting sooner and the nature of their previous sexual encounters or relationships with men’. For such an extraordinary claim, one would expect to see the citation of rigorously conducted domestic research. That’s not what we get.
Taylor doesn’t tell us in which specific police forces these things are happening, but claims the questioning ‘often’ occurs during ‘achieving best evidence’ interviews. ABE interviews are used by domestic police forces to interview children, vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. ABE guidance and training does not endorse the questioning regime she describes. To put it simply, her sources provide zero evidence that such questioning ‘often’ occurs in ABE interviews in the U.K.
The evidence she does reference is from North America. This is where she gets her reference to clothing, late reporting etc. The studies cited are 11, 14 and 15 years old. This tells us nothing about contemporary practice and because her sources are North American they are simply irrelevant to the ABE claim she makes.
Taylor could have cited relevant domestic sources on police questioning of sexual offence victims, but none would support her sweeping generalisation. She also cites something she calls ABE (2013), which is not listed in the bibliography.
Taylor makes poor use of the important research of Peggy Reeves Sanday who has examined the existence or absence of rape in different cultures. Taylor claims that ‘Sanday (2003) could not identify any rape-free cultures in the world’ (p. 134). Before summarily dismissing her findings, Taylor also states that a key issue in the context of Sanday’s work is whether rape free cultures ‘were in fact feminist cultures that challenged patriarchy’ (p.134).
Contrary to Taylor’s claim, Sanday found that in 47% of the 95 societies she surveyed rape was ‘absent or rare’ (Sanday, p. 340). ‘Rape free’, according to Sanday’s definition, means there is ‘no evidence rape [is] commonplace’ (p. 359). Sanday identifies key differences between ‘rape free’ and ‘rape prone’ cultures throughout her chapter. Some of the ‘rape free’ societies might be described as having a feminist cultural ethos of mutual care, nurture, and respect between males and females. Taylor appears to have missed all of this.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, we find yet another citation error - Sanday (2003) appears in a collection edited by Cheryl Brown Travis, called Evolution, Gender and Rape (2003). I give the title so any interested reader can find the source. It is not listed in Taylor’s bibliography.
Taylor also claims (p.134) that in her 2003 chapter, Sanday references the work of Otterbein (1979). First, no she doesn’t. Second, Otterbein (1979) is not listed in Taylor’s bibliography - as a reviewer, I am getting very bored saying this.
The quality gap between the content of the book taken from Taylor’s PhD and her blogs/other added text is huge. Ranting on social media is one thing, but to charge money for a book with so many errors, fake quotes and a fake narrative is inexcusable. Since I have a day job, I do not plan on spending more time reviewing this book. It is a disappointing read. The subject matter deserves better.