NavigationWho's new
|
Giving society what it wantswords by dblhelix posted September 19, 2005 - 3:27am
I've been having some bad thoughts for a while. Thoughts that I don't like giving a voice to. With respect to the increasingly hostile climate towards women in the political arena, I've been thinking if Bush and the fundies didn't exist, the Democrats would have to invent them. Because without them, how would they explain their need to placate the with-belt-spankin' NASCAR Dad? I present to you, the Fall 2005 network television line-up: "One of the things we've noticed this season in all the pilots we've seen is the level of violence, particularly against women, has been ratcheted up to some really gruesome levels. "There was actually a mandate from the network saying we want only shows that perpetrate violence against women," executive producer Mark Gordon quipped. "We're just trying to get on the air. We're doing the best we can." The television network honchos shrug and tell us to ask society why this is what it wants to see. ( words about: television )
Ohmigawd what this will do to a new generation of young minds. Why oh why does this need to be out there? What happened to the progress made from all of our marches to take back the night. It feels like we are re-fighting 30 year old battles....we hadn't won all of them but had made progress. Back to the trenches....glad this site is here for women's voices. I think I'll be spending a lot of time here. (1)
Ohmigawd what this will do to a new generation of young minds as well as some of the subtler aspects: note how they defend themselves by saying they are doing women a favor. We should jump outside of our skins when peering out the window, and for the love of God, don't even think about buying a used car. It's fear-mongering. Women are weak and can't go out alone. Hey, where have I heard that before? (1)
in using repression to "empower" women. It's all of a piece -- a new kind of seamless garment -- and one size fits all, as long as the body in question is female. (1)
 Pandagon had a post about this same article a few days ago. Her take, however, was that because women are objectified in this society people can watch a woman get killed without it bothering the audience too much. On the other hand, watching a man, or boy, get killed hurts the audience s feelings because they identify more with males (think of them as more human) and they can t handle it. Amazingly, a lot of the comments agreed with that. I, for one, think it s a load of baloney, even though I m usually in agreement with Amanda s posts. Sure, I can see and understand identifying more with some people than with others (for example, seeing a child die is more horrifying to me than all the adult deaths of any gender). I even get the notion of objectification. What I draw a line at is the perception that men s deaths are seen as worse than women s deaths. It s just woman-hatred, pure and simple, and a certain delight in women s perceived vulnerability. And yes, there is an implied object lesson in there too' (1)
was that because women are objectified in this society people can watch a woman get killed without it bothering the audience The first article I saw on this was in the grocery store about a month ago. One of the 'entertainment' magazines. It had some quotes in it from network execs that are missing in the WaPo article. The networks blame Janet Jackson. Not kidding. They say that since they got fined by the FCC for T/A exposure, violence against women is now going to be used as a substitue for sex to satisfy the audience. Do the math. And yes, there is an implied object lesson in there too' (1)
TV dramas have definitely borrowed a theme or two on missing/maimed/murdered white women from the so-called news outlets. Or is it the other way around? Either way, they know that it sells,and that's all that counts. If torturing kittens got them ratings, they'd sell that too. (1)
 I made two small technical edits to the post. I "hid" the long URL inside an inline anchor so that it wouldn't blow the margins on a laptop, or smaller monitor. I used the Washington Post Headline as the visible part of the anchor but if you (dblhelix) don't like my choice feel free to change (after all, this is your blog!) I also "redid" the URL to match exactly the URL the technorati "who's blogging" window (that loads on the washington post page) is looking for (I think). At present the little window lists 15 blogs that are talking about this same story and I think the little "tweak" i made might end up listing Our Word, also, making us number 16. Now, technical stuff aside. I do sometimes edit other people's posts but it is ALWAYS for technical reasons and 99% of the time its because of a long url. I will also post something every time I do a tech edit and it will always be a technical edit ONLY. Now all that aside this article makes me glad that I don't watch anything on television anymore apart from movies (I like them old and bad) and the occasional John Stewart bit (Katrina Coverage excepted these past few weeks). I feel myself getting older and stranger when I read articles such as this. I simply do not know what to say. In some ways I no longer recognize my country. Or what worries me even more, the illusion of what I thought my country was is slipping away or worse, never existed. The network executives, all good corporate types Im sure. can take their "mandate" and well... lets not go there. Binti Pamoja (1)
Usually do the same but recently have only had time to post in the wee hours of the morning, which in turn makes me lazy. (1)
» "Giving society what it wants"
|
Recent comments
44 weeks 8 hours ago
44 weeks 8 hours ago
44 weeks 15 hours ago
44 weeks 15 hours ago
44 weeks 15 hours ago
1 year 3 weeks ago
1 year 17 weeks ago
1 year 20 weeks ago
1 year 32 weeks ago
1 year 36 weeks ago