Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 3:50 AM
Mon Dec 21
18 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan Morrissey
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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.