Thank you, Jezebel, for covering this. I'm sick of anti-feminists being all like "well what about men???" Well, yes, what about men? What about everyone?
Thanks especially for connecting how "we sweep violence against women under the rug, and play violence against men for laughs, but are still too afraid to risk confronting any of these issues directly"
I understand why the skit is supposed to be funny, but it's really not at all. When skit-Tiger said, "I've been really clumsy lately," I felt sad. When the audience laughed, I felt sick. My boyfriend and I didn't even finish watching the video.
@two minutes: It's Seth Meyers. Gay jokes, fart jokes, and now domestic violence jokes seem to dominate. Yet there are situations that could be mined for laughs, but apparently they don't make it out of that writers' room.
I was at Walgreens a while back and this other girl and I were wandering around the depleted card isle and we started talking. I needed "Thank you"s, she needed wedding cards, and she was showing me that the only card she could find had this picture of a groom running away and a bride grabbing onto him and like beating him with her flowers and I said "Wow. Great message for their wedding. Spousal abuse! Congrats!" And this girl looked really confused. Then we stopped talking.
SNL can be pretty tasteless at times ("Dick in a Box.") and I usually find all of that stuff hilarious. The only thing I found funny in that skit was the Wolf Blitzer impersonation. The only thing I found funny about that greeting card was that this girl was going to spend $5.99 on a stupid card because she couldn't find the second card isle with cheaper, less offensive fare.
@Snowbunny: Come on, Dick in a Box is funny. And even if you think it's not, it's not offensive. A guy has a right to put his dick in a box, as long as the box consents.
@pesematology: Oh, I agree, that's why I said I found it hilarious, but you have to agree it is rather tasteless. It isn't the kind of music you want to expose children too.
To open up the dialogue about domestic violence? Them? FIRST?
And how exactly do you envision this going? Hilarious AND empowering? Awesome! I can't wait to see it!
I get where you are coming from, and you raise some important issues about domestic violence, gender, etc. but your context is all kinds of wrong.
Opening up the dialogue about domestic violence is OUR job. Here, in our schools, in our homes, etc. It's not the job of a SKETCH COMEDY SHOW. Why? because comedy is about not taking things too seriously. So to get upset that a comedic sketch doesn't appropriately take up your cause is like...getting upset that your cat doesn't want to walk on a leash.
Taking "sensitive" subject matter off the table of comedic social commentary is lame, alarmist and misses the point entirely.
Would you rather they ignored the incident all together?
If it weren't for those SNL writers, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place! Right?
Anyways. you make good points. I'm just annoyed by the huffy assumption that something as base as a half-assed SNL sketch is somehow supposed to bear a martyrs' cross of every feminist cause we deem worthy. That's your job. Theirs is to lighten the fucking mood. Watch out though! If you stop thinking about domestic violence for longer than 3 minutes, you might actually enjoy yourself!
@LilSpitfire: Or Dave Chappelle. If he'd had SNL writers on his show I imagine every skit would have ended with 'Ha ha honkies!' or 'Ha ha niggers!' The closest he came was with the Nigar Family – and even that played more with people's aversion to the word and modern usage by Caucasians.
@Pizza!Pizza!Pizza!: I think Lewis Black and Chris Rock are also up there with knowing how to say REALLY uncomfortable things we never talk about in a very intelligent funny way.
@Pizza!Pizza!Pizza!: Very good to point out Dave Chappelle because the big difference is that victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse, rape, etc (not lumping them together but saying this is true of all) are something he never touched because Dave Chappelle was interested in making fun of things we can ALL relate to. Everyone no matter who they are (unless you grew up in an extremely sheltered community) has had some experience or encounter with the subjects he discusses in his comedy and in the end it is controversial but not offensive. He discusses race, relationships, socio-economic differences, depictions of people from different backgrounds he makes sure not to leave anyone out. Dave Chappelle never made a cheap joke. And SNL knew they would get laughs if they did. (Desperate)
I was in a relationship with a woman who was physically and emotionally abusive.
The first year was normal, in fact we barely fought at all. One night she thought I was lying to her and flew into a rage. I'm not an arguer, I was raised to take a break, get some distance, try to work things out without raised voices. She was screaming and then she slapped me, hard, right across the mouth. So hard, that she split my lip. She apologized profusely, there was crying, begging and we stayed together.
A month later she was angry because I left her alone at a party for about a half-hour (I was helping move cars and had told her it would take a while) and she grabbed my ear while I was driving and pulled hard enough to draw blood.
A few weeks later she got really drunk at her office party and needed me to give her a ride. She ended up getting mad at me for "making her wait" (it was friday afternoon rush hour and I was an hour away even without traffic) When we got into her apartment she started screaming at me about how I was a pussy. I told her I was done and started to leave. She hit me with a knifeblock across my back and started throwing things off her kitchen counter at me. I ended up in the ER needing about 20 stitches where the edge of something hit me.
At this point friends of mine became aware of what was going on. Luckily for me, one of my closest friend's works in domestic violence counseling.
I was a living stereotype. I'm 6'2", big build, raised in a respectful environment, never hit a person in anger, always the "steady" boyfriend, the one mom and dad loved. Tended to date women who had some hurt in their histories, tried to "help" (I was 23, like I was a healer-shaman or something?) when I could.
I felt ashamed. Embarrassed. I felt like less of a man, like I should have been able to stop this, or fight back or something. Counseling helped, meeting with a mixed gender domestic violence group for a few months really helped too. I learned, or re-learned, that if I'd fought back, if I'd sunk to a physical level, I'd have just ended up making everything so much worse. I got out. I got help. I got away. That's the best of all possible solutions.
I don't find stupid shit like that skit funny, just...well...stupid. I'm used to people thinking that it's funny when a man gets beaten by a woman. That's it's ok to joke about, to smirk about, to laugh off.
Because any "real" man would hit back right? Any "real" man would clock her right? Which says a lot more about their "manhood than it does about mine.
@moifauxmail: What a horrible situation, and one that sounds like it rests just as easily on gender stereotypes as when the situation is reversed. You were a white knight trying to save angry, hurt women. Abused women are often nurturing figures to 'broken' men who blame their abuse on bad childhoods. Seeking help or fighting back would have made you less of a man. Abused women convince themselves they deserve to be abused and don't deserve or need help.
Sort of a tangent, but it's guys like you (and my boyfriend) that make me hate it even more when people, including women, mock any sign of sensitivity in a man. It's just so pathetic that the bar has to be so low and the box so small for what a man can do, say and show. And that goes for the abusers and the abused. We can all do better.
@soniarita: True. Another facet of this whole thing is the number of people saying men are 'hardwired' to cheat on their wives (and children), especially if the women 'let themselves go' or don't satisfy their men sexually. Whole lot of crazy.
I'm so sick of the double standard with domestic violence of any kind (including rape). I think such lax attitudes, when the sides are flipped, continue because of the inconsistency.
Not to be flip at all, but have the Men's Rights groups picked up on any of this, made any statements? When I first heard of the Men's Rights groups, I have to admit, I bristled, but the more I hear about all kinds of issues, the more it seems there's a place for their voices. Between the stuff with Tiger Woods and the SNL skit, it seems this would be an opportune time for someone a man to speak up on men's behalf. Has anyone seen any links to stories about the Men's Rights groups this week?
@rixatrix: while MRAs on the outside have a seemingly good message, what they really want is to lash out and punish women. It's an extremely misogynistic group, which is unfortunate because the patriarchy hurts men too. MRAs would prefer domestic violence shelters that only allow women be shut down, because they discriminate against men, rather than work to raise money to open new shelters that can accommodate men. Ugh, I wrote a paper on them in school, and I was seriously upset by the shit they say.
I actually spent a large portion of my law school career and beginning portion of my legal career dealing with male victims of domestic violence and there are a myriad of social, theoretical and legal issues that are simply too interesting for me not to comment on after reading this article.
First, Feminism and the Feminist school of thought single handedly brought recognition to this pervasive destructive social problem, to their credit. Unfortunately, this has led to an inflexible and rigid DV model, premised on male domination of women (both from a legal and treatment standpoint).
Although the feminist model successfully addresses roughly 60% of DV cases, it falters on 40% of them. In other words, 40% of DV cases are being improperly treated or completely dismissed altogether. These cases typically include male victims and drug/alcohol fueled DV cases.
Drug/Alcohol cases aside, this feminist inflexibility has unfortunately led the legal system as a whole to "laugh" men out of the courthouse when they have a DV problem at home.
Now, the problem here isn't that men are being severely battered (although in some cases they are). The problem is that after being abused by their spouse/significant other, which in turn leads some men to retaliate, which usually results in hospitalization of the female.
Of course, the feminist model fails to really address the problem of female perpetrators of DV, despite its pervasiveness (but in fairness to feminism there are a host of social stereotypes that also reinforce this inability to accept males as legitimate victims of DV). However, with feminists at the reigns of DV laws, DV treatment centers, and DV academia, they have turned a cold shoulder to this very real and actually fairly well studied/documented problem. So while it is easy to point the finger at SNL, perhaps the feminist policy makers should turn the finger elsewhere.
@lxd42: what "feminist model" are you talking about? I have NEVER heard of anyone "laughing" at a domestic violence victim, no matter the gender or orientation. I took several law school courses on DV, as well as work in a DV legal organization, and this is a complete falsehood. No feminist organization would support this viewpoint. People in the DV field are very sensitive to the issues that male victims of DV face, precisely because of the many biases society may impose. You need to provide some support before you make such completely baseless claims.
@vgnvxn: I'm curious, too. The one where abuse is a 'private issue' because, really, marriage has implied ownership over a woman... or at least until the 1990s, when most states made marital rape illegal (prosecuting it is another story)? The one where a third of female murder victims are killed by their partner?
It's hardly a perfect system for either gender. Doesn't mean we have to work on one situation at the expense of the other, or that we have to treat every case the same.
@yvanehtnioj: Well, up until last year, for example, the NYDV coalition website had a wonderful link called "'her'story" as opposed to a "history" link mapping the history of NY DV laws. Although I believe they have changed it over the course of the past year, it is demonstrative of the policies in place at state DV coalitions. I believe there were about ten other states that followed this model, which effectively ignored the idea of male victims.
As I am sure you know, DV coalitions are typically run by women, who dictate coalition policy. Although all coalition heads were good intentioned, they typically turn cold shoulders to the idea of male victims and services for male victims.
@Perhaps Not: Ha, I actually paused to put in the basis for that info, but opted not to, as i figured no person would possibly be dorky enough to question numbers. I'm glad you share my dorkiness. Without whipping out my footnotes, those numbers were actually derived from various DAs offices and scholarly articles (legal/psy/soc). Unfortunately, numbers in DV are always misleading simply because a significant amount of people never report. So relying on them has always made me a bit nervous, but its what we got.
As for my own personal work experience, that number is about right for DV cases. You'd be surprised how many cases involve alcohol fueled DV rage (well I was at least). But the victim break down was usually 60% women, 30% men, 10% other (aka parent-sibling, sibling-sibling, etc.), with between 10-20% of all cases being drug/alcohol related.
@lxd42: "the NYDV coalition website had a wonderful link called "'her'story" as opposed to a "history" link mapping the history of NY DV laws."
If calling it "her'story" is sexist against men, does that mean that every time someone uses the word "history" is misogynist? Because I could get behind that feminist rhetorical device.
On the other hand, I question why making something explicitly inclusive to women excludes men; women have had to deal with the fact that, for example, throughout most of history "man" was used instead of "person." If using the feminine pronoun is so exclusive to men, maybe we need to get a sharpie and go through the Constitution and le Bible and stuff and black out every "man" and write "PERSON" next to each reference to "man" that we find.
Including women: Not sexist against men.
Recognizing that we live in a patriarchy: not sexist against men.
@lxd42: Always glad to share dorkiness. I wonder if, in regard to LaToya's question at the end of her post, we still consider intrafamily violence "none of our business" and don't question it. I was spanked pretty regularly as a child (and deserved it!) by my extremely kind and loving father, who never hit me in anger and never injured or scarred me. Just an open-hand whack on the backside whenever I misbehaved. Nowadays, I think he'd probably be reported to Social Services if, say, a teacher found out about that, though it was practically de rigeur at the time.
@lxd42: How is the underreporting/not taking seriously of male DV victims the fault of feminism, of all things? First, DV and the concept of physically punishing one's wife is a very, very old thing. Like, Biblically old. The domestic violence narrative for most of history has been one of "man beats wife", which is one that society is comfortable with because it places the man in the power position. Seems to me like people not taking male DV victims seriously is really the fault of the patriarchy, because for a man to be a victim of violence from a woman is to be less of a man, and therefore he is shamed and dismissed by society.
I find it disturbing when people claim women can't hurt or abuse men because they are physically weaker or smaller. First off, it's obviously untrue and completely ignores the issues of same sex domestic violence for both genders. But more disturbingly for me and relevant to this discussion, it implies that "real" domestic violence and abuse requires a minimum amount of physical suffering be visible or felt. Implying that a domestic violence sufferer must have a face bruised beyond recognition and no ability to protect themselves is as dangerous as saying a rape victim must be a delicate virgin who desperately screams for help and claws at her rapists when attacked.
If a man terrorizes his wife and children, using only light slaps, financial threats or physical intimidation like screaming in their faces, degrading them publicly and privately or throwing and damaging objects, is it not an abusive relationship? I would say it most definitely is, and the elements of terror, power imbalance and control are the defining aspects of an abusive relationship.
It's wrong to say that women can't abuses men because they can't beat them to a bloody pulp, and it sets up a dangerous social and legal precedent that is damaging for all victims of abuse.
@Katxyz: Thank-you for putting this so clearly. A woman can be very abusive. A relationship can be filled with abuse hurled at each party.
Yes, the majority of serious injuries and murders that results from domestic violence are suffered by women, by men. That is true. There is no denial of this fact.
There is, however, great denial of other forms of abuse - non-serious injuries, financial, emotional, social when it is inflicted by a woman on a man. But it happens, and it's not getting the attention it needs because so many people are in denial that it serious. We need to support all victims of abuse, no matter their sex or gender.
I think this is a really important conversation to have. As a feminist, I worry equally about the expectation of women to be submissive and that of men to be "in charge," because they are 2 sides of the same sexist coin. People shrug off male violence against women because we don't respect women, but we also shrug off female violence against men because we think men should always be powerful and in control. I can't believe the police officers just laughed at the woman hitting her man--as if a woman can't do real damage, and a man ought to be able to fight off a woman if he has to. Can't we women see how that view hurts everyone, including us?
@Pandorasvoicebox: Exactly. This fits quite well with other issues men's rights groups care (or claim to care) about. As long as people believe women are naturally submissive nurturers and men are all violent brutes who can't control their dicks, we'll never move out of one set storyline for custody hearings, domestic abuse and rape investigations.
I am amazed at all "the what about teh menz" pre-emptive strikes in the thread.
I understand the reasoning behind a lot of people who believe I am equalizing the situation. I am not. I am, however, looking at the reactions of a partiarchial/kyriarchial system.
As I wrote above:
I know many people will shrug this off as well - but it's worth asking why we sweep violence against women under the rug, and play violence against men for laughs, but are still too afraid to risk confronting any of these issues directly.
During the Chris Brown and Rihanna discussions, I was frustrated by how many people did not want to even raise the conversation. And, even after Rihanna's photos are released and Brown copped to it, it isn't as if people were clamoring to have a national dialogue on domestic violence. Many people did not have their views challenged at all. And many people and sites participated in a lot of victim blaming.
This situation is different. There is no telling if something happened. However, looking at the way in which we frame convos about domestic violence is always worth examining.
There are a lot of people who do not come forward about things they are going through, possibly because society disregards their narratives. Downthread, greeneyedfem points out how the non-hetero narrative is often erased by this narrative:
It can be difficult for LGBT folks to admit that violence and/or controlling behavior is an issue in their relationships (it's a "straight" issue), and hard to find resources and support when they try to get help. Many shelters do not have training, resources, or space for LGBT clients.
In addition, it leaves some men more vulnerable and more willing to perpetuate/allow/accept abuse. I write on sexual assault, rape, and sexual abuse often. Normally, my articles are focused on women. But I often get reminders from readers about harmful dynamics that impact hetero men, gay men, and lesbians that are not discussed as often.
Because of the dynamics my readers pointed out, I looked at Andreana Clay's essay in Home Girls Make Some Noise about queer sexuality in a hip hop space with different eyes. Especially here, when she writes:
I am in now way suggesting that the objectification of women is thrown out completely. Bending your girl over to the front and telling her to touch her toes and having her do so in high heels and a thong may not be the path to liberation. I also make no claims that queer women don’t engage in harmful acts upon one another. I was once at a party and heard a woman telling someone else that she and her friends pulled a train on "this bitch" that she picked up at a club one night. And, to my horror, one of her friends standing next to her asked her "why she didn’t invite her to that party." The same objectification and violence towards women can happen regardless of the gender of the protagonist. And queer communities are similar to the hip-hop community in that they reflect popular culture and discourse. This is not to exclude these actions, but to point out what this ideology, which some of us have internalized, suggests about the value of Black female bodies in this culture.
In addition, it was my readers pointing out how they didn't know how to discuss certain things that happened to them which led me to look at Lil Wayne's loss of virginity narrative (widely known in hip-hop circles) as one that started with sexual abuse:
Lil’ Wayne seems to me to be uncomfortable with the line of questioning, and yet Jimmy Kimmel and the other man on the show continue to laugh and joke around about it, even after Lil’ Wayne says very clearly that the experience was harmful to him.
It seems like a reasonable question, to ask what the hell is wrong with Jimmy Kimmel. But the problem is, while not excusing his actions for a single second, that he has a whole culture (and audience) backing him up.
In the majority of sexual assault cases, where a woman is the victim of a man’s violence, rape apology is rooted primarily not in the denial that male violence exists, but in the denial that male violence means something and needs to be stopped. Conversely, in cases where a man is the victim of a woman’s violence, rape apologism is strongly rooted in the denial that women’s actions can count as violence at all — and especially that their actions can count as sexual violence against men, who are routinely construed as incapable of being victims.
In cases of both of these two types of sexual violence (though hardly the only two that exist), the victim is accused of "wanting it." But while the female victim is also, when that reasoning fails, accused of deserving it, this seems to not be the case with men. No, they just always wanted it. (Again, talking only about male victims of women — gay male victims of other men are routinely portrayed as "deserving" it as well as "wanting" it.) There are no sneers about what he should and shouldn’t have been doing. Just jokes about how awesome the assault must have been for him. Like we see Jimmy Kimmel engaging in above.
Lil’ Wayne, being a Black male–and a hip-hop artist at that, in an industry that says Black male voices are profitable and, therefore, listenable only in R&B and hip-hop–simply isn’t allowed that same space to talk about such issues.
I know space is at a premium in feminism.
I know that it is so easy to have those who are not in solidarity with us continuously dominate our voices and narratives as well.
But I do think we shouldn't be scared up speaking up against harmful systems, however they manifest - especially if its two sides of the same oppressive coin.
@LatoyaPeterson: I understand the reasoning behind a lot of people who believe I am equalizing the situation. I am not. I am, however, looking at the reactions of a partiarchial/kyriarchial system.
I think that's the point being missed. Your article evinces this point clearly. About the-- "what about teh menz." I am a bit confused by what this means; if it's the comments pointing out that women are subject to physical abuse or whether it's people pointing out that men do indeed get abused.
I was taken aback and frustrated by the "meh. Women can't really hurt a men so it's not abuse." Or the comments claiming it's a weak comparison to the abuse women suffer or just a red flag.
@LatoyaPeterson: I don't think anyone is arguing that you were equalizing the situation. I caught that line of yours you quote quite clearly. But I think it's your second to last line that gets at why people jump at this: because it seems to me that discussions of female-on-male domestic violence are often attempts to reframe the question in terms of another experience. Not in your case! But I see it going on elsewhere.
I don't see anyone in this thread saying that female-on-male violence is trivial or insubstantial. In fact, if anything, I think people here take female-on-male violence quite seriously. (You won't find a whole bunch of SNL-style joking around here.)
On another note, personally it's the accusation that feminists don't care about male suffering that will start to get my hackles up. Which I do hear a lot from the male commenters around here. It seems to me that the culture at large might not take it seriously, but when people start arguing that it's "feminism" that has caused this I kind of want to laugh.
@Trulymadlyme: "What about teh menz" is a term commonly used in the feminist blogosphere to capture what happens when women are, say, sitting around talking about a woman's issue (like violence against women) and someone (not necessarily male!) will step in and say, "But men suffer from that too."
I also think you are overstating the case and don't see the same things as you in the comments. "a weak comparison to the abuse women suffer" is not the point being made either.
@LatoyaPeterson: Thank You. I hate it when people derail posts on domestic violence against women with "It happens to men too" just as much as I hate it when we are talking about domestic violence against men and people jump in with "It happens to women more."
Yeah I get that, but lets focus on the topic at hand.
@LatoyaPeterson: To the extent there are "what about the menz" preemptive strikes in the comments, perhaps that reaction comes from a place of fear and weariness. I know I initially had a tremor of that go through me while reading this, not because I thought that you were equalizing the situations (in fact it was quite clear you weren't). Rather, my reaction stemmed from the fact that some in the mainstream patriarchal culture have, in the past, seized on examples like this and used them as proof that the men have it just as bad - if not worse! - than women do. They're used to deny misogyny. I've guess I've just seen too many DV discussions that, at the first acknowledgement by the women that men are indeed abused too, devolve into a lament by the men about the how the evil feminists are oppressing the poor, put-upon men. Those experiences unfortunately make me hyper vigilant, even when I completely agree with the opinions being expressed. Not an excuse for knee-jerk reactions, just a possible explanation.
I would say that there is a definite hesitancy for men to label women's actions as abusive. I've experienced this personally in much the same instance as was pointed out in the article, I was in a relationship that was a toxic, manipulative nightmare. After breaking up for the n-th time she tried to crash my car into oncoming traffic because she wanted both of us to die. She tried to beat down my door after I started seeing another woman, not to mention that she would stalk me all over town. I had black eyes and busted lips to explain to my friends. I'm a black belt in a martial art and I've studied several others, how was I going to convince anyone I was being abused? I simply had no concept of it. In much the same way that if i described some of my sexual encounters, only switching the gender, you'd be convinced I was date raped. The behavior of abuse or sexual predation crosses gender, socioeconomic status, and culture/ethnicity. This sketch is in poor taste most definitely, but would we have been having this discussion without it?
As I've mentioned in some previous Domestic Violence threads, I went to jail for assaulting my then boyfriend.
He was a gang member and drug dealer. Much larger and stronger than me. I was at the end of my rope and completely lost all sense of decency and punched him (and pushed, scratched et al).
Surprisingly, plenty of people, both friends and acquaintences seemed to think me justified (I won't go into the details here). I find this shocking given were the tables turned, the opinions and reality* would have been
different.
In addition to what I firmly believe:
domestic violence can never be justified regardless of which gender
was the perpetrator.
*while I was thrown in jail, I was also allowed $1,000 bail and because no charges were brought by him, avoided both a court appearance and permanent mark on my record.
My best friend has a very rare disease. It doesn't get much attention or funding for research - and hey, she/her family/I understand. Cancer, heart disease, depression, etc affect a lot more people. But it still hurts physically and impedes her mobility/ability to work/social life. To my knowledge, no one has ever told her that her suffering is negligible because so few people are affected by her illness.
My point is this. I completely understand concerns that focusing on violence against men could obscure the fact that women are the most likely victims. I also understand how this type of thing could devolve into "what about the mens?!" But the fact is: one person suffering from violence is too many. One man, one woman, one child. I don't want to put this into a reply to anyone of several comments, because I don't want it to seem like I am calling anyone out when I'm NOT, because they are making valid points. However, I see it as akin to having a rare illness. One person suffering means a lot when that person is you or someone you love. We also can't ignore the fact that some diseases spread - whenever violence (any kind of violence) is tolerated, or even perceived to be tolerated, it spreads - to other people, and within the relationship. Violence often escalates. A couple of slaps might not be a big deal (physically, at least) but it might not always be a slap. Knives and guns are great equalizers.
12/09/09
Thanks especially for connecting how "we sweep violence against women under the rug, and play violence against men for laughs, but are still too afraid to risk confronting any of these issues directly"
12/08/09
Who writes for SNL now? That was horrible.
12/08/09
12/08/09
SNL can be pretty tasteless at times ("Dick in a Box.") and I usually find all of that stuff hilarious. The only thing I found funny in that skit was the Wolf Blitzer impersonation. The only thing I found funny about that greeting card was that this girl was going to spend $5.99 on a stupid card because she couldn't find the second card isle with cheaper, less offensive fare.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/08/09
To open up the dialogue about domestic violence? Them? FIRST?
And how exactly do you envision this going? Hilarious AND empowering? Awesome! I can't wait to see it!
I get where you are coming from, and you raise some important issues about domestic violence, gender, etc. but your context is all kinds of wrong.
Opening up the dialogue about domestic violence is OUR job. Here, in our schools, in our homes, etc. It's not the job of a SKETCH COMEDY SHOW. Why? because comedy is about not taking things too seriously. So to get upset that a comedic sketch doesn't appropriately take up your cause is like...getting upset that your cat doesn't want to walk on a leash.
Taking "sensitive" subject matter off the table of comedic social commentary is lame, alarmist and misses the point entirely.
Would you rather they ignored the incident all together?
If it weren't for those SNL writers, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place! Right?
Anyways. you make good points. I'm just annoyed by the huffy assumption that something as base as a half-assed SNL sketch is somehow supposed to bear a martyrs' cross of every feminist cause we deem worthy. That's your job. Theirs is to lighten the fucking mood. Watch out though! If you stop thinking about domestic violence for longer than 3 minutes, you might actually enjoy yourself!
12/08/09
I find this a very fitting medium to open the dialogue.
And point you to George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" routine as a prime example.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
The first year was normal, in fact we barely fought at all. One night she thought I was lying to her and flew into a rage. I'm not an arguer, I was raised to take a break, get some distance, try to work things out without raised voices. She was screaming and then she slapped me, hard, right across the mouth. So hard, that she split my lip. She apologized profusely, there was crying, begging and we stayed together.
A month later she was angry because I left her alone at a party for about a half-hour (I was helping move cars and had told her it would take a while) and she grabbed my ear while I was driving and pulled hard enough to draw blood.
A few weeks later she got really drunk at her office party and needed me to give her a ride. She ended up getting mad at me for "making her wait" (it was friday afternoon rush hour and I was an hour away even without traffic) When we got into her apartment she started screaming at me about how I was a pussy. I told her I was done and started to leave. She hit me with a knifeblock across my back and started throwing things off her kitchen counter at me. I ended up in the ER needing about 20 stitches where the edge of something hit me.
At this point friends of mine became aware of what was going on. Luckily for me, one of my closest friend's works in domestic violence counseling.
I was a living stereotype. I'm 6'2", big build, raised in a respectful environment, never hit a person in anger, always the "steady" boyfriend, the one mom and dad loved. Tended to date women who had some hurt in their histories, tried to "help" (I was 23, like I was a healer-shaman or something?) when I could.
I felt ashamed. Embarrassed. I felt like less of a man, like I should have been able to stop this, or fight back or something. Counseling helped, meeting with a mixed gender domestic violence group for a few months really helped too. I learned, or re-learned, that if I'd fought back, if I'd sunk to a physical level, I'd have just ended up making everything so much worse. I got out. I got help. I got away. That's the best of all possible solutions.
I don't find stupid shit like that skit funny, just...well...stupid. I'm used to people thinking that it's funny when a man gets beaten by a woman. That's it's ok to joke about, to smirk about, to laugh off.
Because any "real" man would hit back right? Any "real" man would clock her right? Which says a lot more about their "manhood than it does about mine.
12/08/09
12/08/09
Sort of a tangent, but it's guys like you (and my boyfriend) that make me hate it even more when people, including women, mock any sign of sensitivity in a man. It's just so pathetic that the bar has to be so low and the box so small for what a man can do, say and show. And that goes for the abusers and the abused. We can all do better.
12/07/09
Repeated sexual affairs that put your partner's health at risk? Now that's abuse.
None of it is funny.
12/08/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/08/09
12/07/09
First, Feminism and the Feminist school of thought single handedly brought recognition to this pervasive destructive social problem, to their credit. Unfortunately, this has led to an inflexible and rigid DV model, premised on male domination of women (both from a legal and treatment standpoint).
Although the feminist model successfully addresses roughly 60% of DV cases, it falters on 40% of them. In other words, 40% of DV cases are being improperly treated or completely dismissed altogether. These cases typically include male victims and drug/alcohol fueled DV cases.
Drug/Alcohol cases aside, this feminist inflexibility has unfortunately led the legal system as a whole to "laugh" men out of the courthouse when they have a DV problem at home.
Now, the problem here isn't that men are being severely battered (although in some cases they are). The problem is that after being abused by their spouse/significant other, which in turn leads some men to retaliate, which usually results in hospitalization of the female.
Of course, the feminist model fails to really address the problem of female perpetrators of DV, despite its pervasiveness (but in fairness to feminism there are a host of social stereotypes that also reinforce this inability to accept males as legitimate victims of DV). However, with feminists at the reigns of DV laws, DV treatment centers, and DV academia, they have turned a cold shoulder to this very real and actually fairly well studied/documented problem. So while it is easy to point the finger at SNL, perhaps the feminist policy makers should turn the finger elsewhere.
12/07/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
It's hardly a perfect system for either gender. Doesn't mean we have to work on one situation at the expense of the other, or that we have to treat every case the same.
12/08/09
As I am sure you know, DV coalitions are typically run by women, who dictate coalition policy. Although all coalition heads were good intentioned, they typically turn cold shoulders to the idea of male victims and services for male victims.
HTH.
12/08/09
As for my own personal work experience, that number is about right for DV cases. You'd be surprised how many cases involve alcohol fueled DV rage (well I was at least). But the victim break down was usually 60% women, 30% men, 10% other (aka parent-sibling, sibling-sibling, etc.), with between 10-20% of all cases being drug/alcohol related.
What fun.
12/08/09
If calling it "her'story" is sexist against men, does that mean that every time someone uses the word "history" is misogynist? Because I could get behind that feminist rhetorical device.
On the other hand, I question why making something explicitly inclusive to women excludes men; women have had to deal with the fact that, for example, throughout most of history "man" was used instead of "person." If using the feminine pronoun is so exclusive to men, maybe we need to get a sharpie and go through the Constitution and le Bible and stuff and black out every "man" and write "PERSON" next to each reference to "man" that we find.
Including women: Not sexist against men.
Recognizing that we live in a patriarchy: not sexist against men.
12/09/09
12/10/09
12/07/09
If a man terrorizes his wife and children, using only light slaps, financial threats or physical intimidation like screaming in their faces, degrading them publicly and privately or throwing and damaging objects, is it not an abusive relationship? I would say it most definitely is, and the elements of terror, power imbalance and control are the defining aspects of an abusive relationship.
It's wrong to say that women can't abuses men because they can't beat them to a bloody pulp, and it sets up a dangerous social and legal precedent that is damaging for all victims of abuse.
12/07/09
Yes, the majority of serious injuries and murders that results from domestic violence are suffered by women, by men. That is true. There is no denial of this fact.
There is, however, great denial of other forms of abuse - non-serious injuries, financial, emotional, social when it is inflicted by a woman on a man. But it happens, and it's not getting the attention it needs because so many people are in denial that it serious. We need to support all victims of abuse, no matter their sex or gender.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
I am amazed at all "the what about teh menz" pre-emptive strikes in the thread.
I understand the reasoning behind a lot of people who believe I am equalizing the situation. I am not. I am, however, looking at the reactions of a partiarchial/kyriarchial system.
As I wrote above:
I know many people will shrug this off as well - but it's worth asking why we sweep violence against women under the rug, and play violence against men for laughs, but are still too afraid to risk confronting any of these issues directly.
During the Chris Brown and Rihanna discussions, I was frustrated by how many people did not want to even raise the conversation. And, even after Rihanna's photos are released and Brown copped to it, it isn't as if people were clamoring to have a national dialogue on domestic violence. Many people did not have their views challenged at all. And many people and sites participated in a lot of victim blaming.
This situation is different. There is no telling if something happened. However, looking at the way in which we frame convos about domestic violence is always worth examining.
There are a lot of people who do not come forward about things they are going through, possibly because society disregards their narratives. Downthread, greeneyedfem points out how the non-hetero narrative is often erased by this narrative:
It can be difficult for LGBT folks to admit that violence and/or controlling behavior is an issue in their relationships (it's a "straight" issue), and hard to find resources and support when they try to get help. Many shelters do not have training, resources, or space for LGBT clients.
In addition, it leaves some men more vulnerable and more willing to perpetuate/allow/accept abuse. I write on sexual assault, rape, and sexual abuse often. Normally, my articles are focused on women. But I often get reminders from readers about harmful dynamics that impact hetero men, gay men, and lesbians that are not discussed as often.
Because of the dynamics my readers pointed out, I looked at Andreana Clay's essay in Home Girls Make Some Noise about queer sexuality in a hip hop space with different eyes. Especially here, when she writes:
I am in now way suggesting that the objectification of women is thrown out completely. Bending your girl over to the front and telling her to touch her toes and having her do so in high heels and a thong may not be the path to liberation. I also make no claims that queer women don’t engage in harmful acts upon one another. I was once at a party and heard a woman telling someone else that she and her friends pulled a train on "this bitch" that she picked up at a club one night. And, to my horror, one of her friends standing next to her asked her "why she didn’t invite her to that party." The same objectification and violence towards women can happen regardless of the gender of the protagonist. And queer communities are similar to the hip-hop community in that they reflect popular culture and discourse. This is not to exclude these actions, but to point out what this ideology, which some of us have internalized, suggests about the value of Black female bodies in this culture.
In addition, it was my readers pointing out how they didn't know how to discuss certain things that happened to them which led me to look at Lil Wayne's loss of virginity narrative (widely known in hip-hop circles) as one that started with sexual abuse:
Lil’ Wayne seems to me to be uncomfortable with the line of questioning, and yet Jimmy Kimmel and the other man on the show continue to laugh and joke around about it, even after Lil’ Wayne says very clearly that the experience was harmful to him.
It seems like a reasonable question, to ask what the hell is wrong with Jimmy Kimmel. But the problem is, while not excusing his actions for a single second, that he has a whole culture (and audience) backing him up.
In the majority of sexual assault cases, where a woman is the victim of a man’s violence, rape apology is rooted primarily not in the denial that male violence exists, but in the denial that male violence means something and needs to be stopped. Conversely, in cases where a man is the victim of a woman’s violence, rape apologism is strongly rooted in the denial that women’s actions can count as violence at all — and especially that their actions can count as sexual violence against men, who are routinely construed as incapable of being victims.
In cases of both of these two types of sexual violence (though hardly the only two that exist), the victim is accused of "wanting it." But while the female victim is also, when that reasoning fails, accused of deserving it, this seems to not be the case with men. No, they just always wanted it. (Again, talking only about male victims of women — gay male victims of other men are routinely portrayed as "deserving" it as well as "wanting" it.) There are no sneers about what he should and shouldn’t have been doing. Just jokes about how awesome the assault must have been for him. Like we see Jimmy Kimmel engaging in above.
And, as my correspondent AJ points out:
Lil’ Wayne, being a Black male–and a hip-hop artist at that, in an industry that says Black male voices are profitable and, therefore, listenable only in R&B and hip-hop–simply isn’t allowed that same space to talk about such issues.
I know space is at a premium in feminism.
I know that it is so easy to have those who are not in solidarity with us continuously dominate our voices and narratives as well.
But I do think we shouldn't be scared up speaking up against harmful systems, however they manifest - especially if its two sides of the same oppressive coin.
12/07/09
I understand the reasoning behind a lot of people who believe I am equalizing the situation. I am not. I am, however, looking at the reactions of a partiarchial/kyriarchial system.
I think that's the point being missed. Your article evinces this point clearly. About the-- "what about teh menz." I am a bit confused by what this means; if it's the comments pointing out that women are subject to physical abuse or whether it's people pointing out that men do indeed get abused.
I was taken aback and frustrated by the "meh. Women can't really hurt a men so it's not abuse." Or the comments claiming it's a weak comparison to the abuse women suffer or just a red flag.
12/07/09
I don't see anyone in this thread saying that female-on-male violence is trivial or insubstantial. In fact, if anything, I think people here take female-on-male violence quite seriously. (You won't find a whole bunch of SNL-style joking around here.)
On another note, personally it's the accusation that feminists don't care about male suffering that will start to get my hackles up. Which I do hear a lot from the male commenters around here. It seems to me that the culture at large might not take it seriously, but when people start arguing that it's "feminism" that has caused this I kind of want to laugh.
12/07/09
I also think you are overstating the case and don't see the same things as you in the comments. "a weak comparison to the abuse women suffer" is not the point being made either.
12/07/09
Yeah I get that, but lets focus on the topic at hand.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
He was a gang member and drug dealer. Much larger and stronger than me. I was at the end of my rope and completely lost all sense of decency and punched him (and pushed, scratched et al).
Surprisingly, plenty of people, both friends and acquaintences seemed to think me justified (I won't go into the details here). I find this shocking given were the tables turned, the opinions and reality* would have been
different.
In addition to what I firmly believe:
domestic violence can never be justified regardless of which gender
was the perpetrator.
*while I was thrown in jail, I was also allowed $1,000 bail and because no charges were brought by him, avoided both a court appearance and permanent mark on my record.
12/07/09
My point is this. I completely understand concerns that focusing on violence against men could obscure the fact that women are the most likely victims. I also understand how this type of thing could devolve into "what about the mens?!" But the fact is: one person suffering from violence is too many. One man, one woman, one child. I don't want to put this into a reply to anyone of several comments, because I don't want it to seem like I am calling anyone out when I'm NOT, because they are making valid points. However, I see it as akin to having a rare illness. One person suffering means a lot when that person is you or someone you love. We also can't ignore the fact that some diseases spread - whenever violence (any kind of violence) is tolerated, or even perceived to be tolerated, it spreads - to other people, and within the relationship. Violence often escalates. A couple of slaps might not be a big deal (physically, at least) but it might not always be a slap. Knives and guns are great equalizers.