Men's TV is on the Defensive

Jezebel had a really interesting article yesterday discussing some of the backlash our culture is seeing to women's advancement. Specifically, this season on television, we're seeing a host of new shows trying to put men and women back into their gender essentialist places, where men build civilizations, kill things, and don't act gentlemanly and women are servants and/or sex objects.

In all of the aforementioned shows, men and/or masculinity is threatened by women and/or femininity. You can thank the mancession for that; the media has so hammered into men's brains that they're the real victims while women in the workforce aren't in such bad shape. Now we see television capitalizing on that. Be it consciously or otherwise, these male-targeted shows are creating blatant ties between the rise of women and the fall of the economy.

The problem with gender-essentialism is that it is limiting, and not just to women. Rigid conservative gender roles say that women don't belong in the workplace, but they also say that men don't belong in the home as caregivers to children. They may say that women must dress modestly or else they deserve to be assaulted, but they also say that men can't be trusted to see a woman in a mini-skirt and not rape her. They say that women are overly emotional and thus irrational and that men should bottle up all of their feelings and only deal with problems through violence. None of this sounds very healthy or fulfilling.

There isn't a finite pool of human rights. If I gain/claim more of my rights, that doesn't mean that there are fewer rights for you. Everyone deserves freedom to be who they are, to express their personality, to pursue their chosen career, to have involvement with their families, and to express their emotions constructively. We only forfeit those rights when we do something wrong (such as commit a crime), and even then some rights are inalienable. Everyone has the right to be safe from violence. There aren't male rights and female rights, there are human rights, and by opening all options to all people by dismantling rigid gender roles, we are expanding those rights for everyone.

Your [Female] Body Belongs to Us

In 2004, a young Missouri woman went into a bar. Also at that bar was a film crew for the popular pornographic series Girls Gone Wild. During their time at the bar, the film crew encouraged the women present to remove clothing. Women who chose to could do so and be filmed. The young woman in question, we'll call her Jane, chose not to remove her clothing. She said, "No." Audibly. Despite that fact, the woman next to her pulled down Jane's top and exposed her breasts to the cameras.

Four years go by, during which time Jane marries and has children. Then, a friend of her husband recognizes her from a Girls Gone Wild video and tells her husband. She is, understandably, mortified. Jane never signed a release giving Girls Gone Wild permission to use her image and, in fact, was the victim of a sexual assault because she never gave the other women permission to expose her breasts. She sued.

She lost.

A jury on Thursday rejected a young woman's claim that the producers of a "Girls Gone Wild" video damaged her reputation by showing her tank top being pulled down by another person in a Laclede's Landing bar.

A St. Louis Circuit Court jury deliberated 90 minutes before ruling against the woman, 26, on the third day of the trial. Lawyers on both sides argued the key issue was consent, with her side saying she absolutely refused to give it and the defense claiming she silently approved by taking part in the party.

The woman, identified in court files as Jane Doe, was 20 when she went to the former Rum Jungle bar in May 2004 and was filmed by a "Girls Gone Wild" video photographer. Now married, the mother of two girls and living in the St. Charles area, Doe sued in 2008 after a friend of her husband's reported that she was in one of the videos.

"I am stunned that this company can get away with this," Doe said after the verdict. "Justice has not been served. I just don't understand. I gave no consent."

But Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, told a reporter later that an 11-member majority decided that Doe had in effect consented by being in the bar and dancing for the photographer. In a trial such as this one, agreement by nine of 12 jurors is enough for a verdict.

"Through her actions, she gave implied consent," O'Brien said. "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

Stephen Evans of St. Louis, her lawyer, argued Thursday that Doe never gave consent — and even could be heard in original footage saying "no" when asked to show her breasts shortly before another woman suddenly pulled Doe's top down. Evans said the company usually gets women to sign consent forms or give verbal consent with cameras rolling.

"Other girls said it was OK. Not one other one said, 'No, no,'" Evans said. "She is entitled to go out with friends and have a good time and not have her top pulled down and get that in a video."

Told of that reasoning, the tearful woman said, "I was having fun until my top was pulled off. And now this thing is out there for the world to see forever."

This is the same victim-blaming rhetoric that we hear for all sorts of violence against women. If she wears a revealing top, she's implying consent to sex, even when she says "no". If she remains with an abusive partner, she's implying consent to be hit. If she leaves her home in a skirt, she's implying consent for people to look up her skirt, even if she is just a 16-year-old in Target. If our bodies continue to be interpreted by the law as public property, it will never be safe for us to walk outside. And, if our husbands or partners view us as their property, it isn't safe for women at home, either.

We Hate The Way You Lie

On Friday morning, a WRC staff member was on CNN’s American Morning to discuss “the glamorization of domestic violence”, specifically in the context of Eminem’s new video featuring Rihanna. Because we couldn’t fit everything there is to say about the video in a time-limited interview, you get it here. If you haven’t seen the video, search “Love The Way You Lie” on Youtube. Done? Let’s get started.

Best-Case Scenario

The best-case scenario for this video is the one Eminem and Rihanna are promoting. Eminem just got out of rehab and has stated that he’s trying to make amends for the things he’s done wrong in his life. This album is called “Recovery” and the songs on it reflect that theme. Because he has a lengthy history of violence against women, he decides to write this song to give his fans a glimpse into the mind of a batterer. After all, he begins the song rapping, “I can't tell you what it really is. I can only tell you what it feels like.” He’s letting us know that this is how a batterer views an abusive relationship.

Viewed through that lens, the scenario is pretty realistic. A batterer doesn’t see himself using power and control. He thinks her temper is as bad as his. He sees her fighting back in self defense and thinks that she’s violent, too. He says he just snapped, but, when he tells her it won’t happen again, he knows he’s lying. He enjoys the heightened emotions, the “drama”, and the make-up sex (which she might enjoy or to which she might be too scared to say no). He assumes she likes it too, or else she wouldn’t be around. Still, he acknowledges that she has tried to leave him before, and, if she tries again, he’ll kill her.

We all know Eminem purposefully recruited Rihanna to sing his hook. She says that the experience was cathartic and that she was drawn to the lyrics. She plays the victim as the abuser sees her – a woman who likes it when he lies and likes it when he hurts her. We’re supposed to see Rihanna’s face and remember all of the victim blaming that we did even though we have graphic photos of her beaten almost beyond recognition. We’re supposed to be sickened by the thought that anyone could like that level of violence.

Rihanna also sings about the true #1 reason that women tell us they stay in abusive relationships - love.

Worst-Case Scenario

The worst-case scenario is that Eminem just made another song to add to his violent repertoire. How is this substantially different from the lyrics to Kim:

“Sit down b---h
If you move again I'll beat the s--t out of you
Don't make me wake this baby
She don't need to see what I'm about to do
Quit crying b---h, why do you always make me shout at you?”

“Come on we're going for a ride b---h
(No!)
Sit up front
(Well I can't just leave Hailie alone, what if she wakes up?)
We'll be right back
Well I will you'll be in the trunk”

Or ’97 Bonnie and Clyde:

“Oh where's mama? She's takin a little nap in the trunk
Oh that smell (whew!) da-da musta runned over a skunk
Now I know what you're thinkin - it's kind of late to go swimmin
But you know your mama, she's one of those type of women
that do crazy things, and if she don't get her way, she'll throw a fit
Don't play with da-da's toy knife, honey, let go of it (no!)
And don't look so upset, why you actin bashful?
Don't you wanna help da-da build a sand castle? (yeah!)
And mama said she wants to show how far she can float
And don't worry about that little boo-boo on her throat”

“There goes mama, spwashin in the wa-ta
No more fightin wit dad, no more restraining order
No more step-da-da, no more new brother”

Love the Way You Lie paints a picture of what relationships look like to guys like Eminem. Not just violent relationships, all relationships. They are always jealous, violent, dysfunctional, and destructive to those involved. Both parties are equally to blame. Sometimes she starts it, sometimes he starts it, but each has a horrible temper and the rage controls you both. Sometimes you hate it, but mostly you love it. The emotions are so heightened that being together feels like a high and the passion burns like the flames of a house fire. It’s the new version of a Harlequin romance, complete with sexy young stars. This may be domestic violence, but both parties are equally to blame. The video ends with them curled up peacefully beside one another in bed.

Most Probable Scenario

When it comes right down to it, the intent of this video doesn’t matter. You can say something that hurts someone, but saying that you didn’t mean to doesn’t erase their pain. The intent of this video may or may not have anything to do with how it is interpreted.

Most people, especially young people, will take this video at face value. Most people will draw on their own life experiences and what they have seen in the media as they interpret the song and the video. If this is the only type of romantic relationship you have seen, you won’t know that relationships can look different. If every man you loved has hit you, you won’t know that there are other ways to love. We’re told by popular culture that this is what relationships looks like. Equitable partnerships and mutual respect are boring. Watching this video is titillating. It’s exciting. This is what young people will strive for.

Men’s rights groups will tell us that this video is an accurate depiction of most domestic violence. They say that women are equally violent and that the violence in most relationships is mutual. For the moment, let’s assume that is true. Let’s assume that women aren’t fighting back in self defense, or that they aren’t starting fights because they are tired of waiting for him to snap and just want to get it over with. Let’s pretend for a moment that they are equally responsible for the violence. Some women might enjoy the heightened emotions. Some women might find appeal in the “love is suffering” meme. But never in this song does Rihanna threaten to kill anyone. Even if the slapping and pushing is mutual, Eminem takes it to a whole new level when he says that, if she tries to leave again, he’ll tie her to the bed and set the house on fire. Maybe she enjoyed things until that point, maybe she was equally violent until that point, but men were the killers in 97% of domestic violence fatalities in this state in the past five years. Women are much more likely to kill a partner in self defense

Speaking of women, did anyone notice how this post differs from most of the media surrounding this song? Yeah, we’ve barely mentioned Rihanna. That’s because Rihanna is an adult woman and, no matter her life experiences, she is allowed to make her own choices. She is allowed to participate in this song if she wants. So, instead, our comments focus on the project – the song and video as a whole. By critiquing the project, of course we are critiquing the involvement of everyone who participated. But Rihanna didn’t ask to be the posterchild for domestic violence, and we don’t believe that a survivor’s life should forever be filtered through the lens of domestic violence. We think everyone involved with this song is sending a bad message to those who listen to the song and/or watch the video. But we aren’t going to hold Rihanna to a different standard than anyone else. No one should have signed up for this one.

Violence at the Emmys

Ten minutes into this Sunday's Emmy Awards, many past victims of sexual violence turned off their TVs. Why? Because memories of the violence they experienced were retriggered by a tasteless bit by the show's hosts.

During the opener, hosts Tom Bergeron, Heidi Klum, Howie Mandel, Jeff Probst, and Ryan Seacrest are all dressed in tuxedos. As the only female host, however, Heidi Klum cannot be allowed to remain fully clothed for long, and, in a display that can only be described as horrifying, Bergeron and his guest on stage William Shatner proceed to rip her clothes off, revealing a skimpier and sexier outfit underneath.



Attention Emmys: Violence against women is not a joke. It is not shtick. It is not funny. Heidi Klum is more than a body to be displayed, and by reducing her to such through an act of violence, you have communicated to the entire country that ripping a woman's clothes off against her will for your own sexual gratification is not only acceptable, but amusing.

This is why violence against women is still a common occurrence.


h/t to Shakesville.