Femme fatale

Further to this, this:

The episode of police drama Law & Order: Special Victims Unit featuring Jennifer Love   Hewitt as a guest star aired in the US last night and the scenes were highly distressing.

The former Ghost Whisperer star played a battered and bruised woman, Vicki Sayers, who has been brutally raped by the same man over a period of fifteen years.

As I mentioned in my Rape Culture post below, there is a disturbing number of rape plotlines in primetime lately.

True a lot of violent crime against women consists of rape. So I concede that it makes sense that, when women are victims on CSI or Criminal Minds, rape is almost to be expected.

However there is something very sickening about how it's increasingly fodder for entertainment, how it's depcted not so much in a horrifying way but in a kinky sexual way.

Of course, none of the shows sanction rape but they sure get lurid about it.

I don't know. Maybe I am just getting old.

What do you think?

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: I see from comments coming in -- which the Star mods have yet to post -- that some people believe that these TV rapes are instructive. Perhaps they are.

But here's the thing: The majority of actual rapes are committed not by strangers and serial killers, as we so often see in media, but acquaintancesof the victim.

Sometimes it's called ''date rape.'' Sometimes abuse. Sometimes incest. It's still rape.

So how do these gruesome TV plotlines fit in with informing viewers of men's responsibility not to rape if the perpetrators in these episodes are, more often than not, portrayed as sick, violent sociopaths?

The reality is different (PDF).

Police-reported data, which include victims of every age, indicate that the accused was a family member in nearly a third (31%) of sexual offence incidents that came to the attention of law enforcement in 2007, with extended family members (10%), the victim’s parents (10%), or some other immediate family member (7%) identified as the accused most frequently. Less often, relatives accused in sexual assaults were current or former spouses (4%), and rarely were they the victim’s child (0.3%). Similar to the proportion of sexual offences where the accused was a relative, 28% of police-reported sexual assaults involved offenders who were casual acquaintances of the victim. To a lesser extent, offenders were identified as friends (8%), authority figures (6%), current or former boyfriends/girlfriends (5%), or business acquaintances (4%) of the victims.

So I don't buy the notion that there's something ''instructive'' in the gruesome rapes (and murders) of women in entertainment media.

 

GaGa

Okay, I am back.

Things have been pretty weird and hectic in my personal life. Lots of pressure, and  matters over which I have no control.

Did manage to catch bits and pieces of last night's Grammys.Yes, it was about spectacle, but it was also spectacular.

About halfway through it hit me hard. Women were stealing the show. Not just Beyoncé and Taylor Swift, but also the wonderfully talented Lady GaGa.

And, as for Pink, I ask you: Has there ever been a Grammy performance to match hers?

And in high heels yet. 

There's a video of her headspinning rendition of Glitter in the Air here. But it may not last long due to copyright issues.

If ratings were up 35 per cent over last year's telecast, cherchez les femme

Click here for a Star slideshow of highlights.

Double Standard, Double Foul

Lots of fussing in the US -- and rightly so -- over a planned ad for the upcoming Super Olympics of Commercialism and Cholestrol-loaded Snacks Bowl XLIV bought to you by James Dobson's right-wing, anti-choice, anti-same sex marriage, super Christian Focus on the Family.

The spot, which advocates against choice, features college football star and minister Tim Tebow and his missionary mother in what is obviously a heartwrenching story.

But American women -- whose reproductive choices are already under attack by other religious groups, plus their own Congress -- are objecting, claiming that the ad is divisive and doesn't belong on the highest-rated show of the year.

The ad - paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family - is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two BCS championships.

The controversy over the ad was raised Sunday when Tebow met with reporters in Mobile, Ala., before beginning preparations for next weekend's Senior Bowl.

"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe," Tebow said. "I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."

Thirty-second commercials during the Super Bowl are selling for $2.5 million to $2.8 million. Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, said funds for the Tebow ad were donated by a few "very generous friends" and did not come from the group's general fund.

Now, believe it or not, I have no problem with advocacy groups buying airtime on the publicly-owned airwaves, even if I don't agree with their cause. I see pitches for all sorts of issues, religions and, of course, during elections, politicians I loathe. 

I just think it's fair that the sources of funding for the ads be revealed.

I also feel that the policy should apply across the board. If you can buy an ad that is against choice, then you should be able to buy an ad that promotes choice or any other idea, as long as it's legal. No?

In recent years, there's been one Super Bowl ad controversy after another -- and all of them are ''resolved'' by CBS kowtowing to the (religious) right.

In 2004, the network did not see fit to air an ad by Move.on advocating against George W. Bush.

In 2006, it rejected a United Church of Jesus ad promoting its open arms policy towards gays and lesbians.

At the time, CBS claimed it had a policy of refusing advertising that "touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance".

Last year, it was a PETA ad that didn't get by the network censors. Okay, so it was sexist but it isn't much different from much of what airs in prime time already.

Now, once again, the network appeases the right by offending those who believe that a woman 's rights trumps those of the fetus in her body. Nothing like drop-kicking women.

But wait!

Before we Canadians get that smug, superior look on our mugs, know that Vancouver-based AdBusters, an anti-corporate advocacy group, has repeatedly tried -- and failed -- to get its non-commercial commercials (eg. the vodka ''ad'' above) on the networks. Not even the public broadcaster CBC will give it access. Not at any price.

And, as two readers have informed me, guess what's been airing in primetime Toronto, on the CTV-owned CP24?

Yup.

You guessed it.

 

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Give it up for Shakespeare Sister Melissa in yesterday's Guardian!

... such ads make no effort to appeal to women's reason. Implicit, and not very subtly so, is the narrative that a pregnant woman should prostrate herself at the feet of the Fates because of the possibility that she may give birth to A Great Man.

And let us not mince words: It is no coincidence that we are meant to "imagine" the snuffing out of a man's potential via abortion, forestalling as it does our "imagining" the protagonist's potential come to a screeching, shuddering halt in the shadow of an unwanted pregnancy that cannot be terminated.

WAY UP THERE WOMAN DATE: Wow. Luna, our favourite Feminist Christian Socialist and frequent commenter, posted this awesome commentary.

How did Pam Tebow do it? How did she have four kids, and spend the last part of her pregnancy in hospital? Did she have AWESOME health insurance? No... she was in the Philippines where her medical needs were taken care of. Focus on the Family is AGAINST the health care bill. Again, they are proving that they don't have a second thought for women, or even for the babies, once they are born.

And who looked after her other kids? Obviously, she had a support system. What would I do in her situation? I have two kids at home who need constant care. I don't have family in town. The women at my church, while awesome, are not capable of looking after Crackle, his meltdowns and his extremely restricted diet. If I'm incapacitated, we're screwed. The Tebow's had more than just luck and God's blessing. They had resources. It's amazing how that sort of thing is just brushed under the rug. How we're all lumped into the same category.

Rapier Wit

ABC's Modern Family star Sofia Vergara is 37. She has a son who is 18.

Do the math.

Now watch this clip from Wednesday's The View:

What's so funny, Whoopi, Babs and the rest of you? This is a joke?

A 13 year old getting raped and pregnant is a JOKE?

Or maybe because it's not, you know, rape-rape, it's ahahaha funny.

At least Whoopi choked on this one.

Cycle of Violence

November is Women Abuse Awareness Month in Canada, and already I am receiving news releases from social service agencies, police forces and community groups.(Note that October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the US.)

Of course, men are occasionally the victims of violence by their partners but the latest statistics prove once again that women by far are the victims, and are at much greater risk of being killed or seriously injured by their partners.

True, 65 Ontario men died between 2002-2007 in domestic violence incidents -- but the vast majority killed themselves after killing their partners and, sometimes, their children.

The irony is that, as some UK research shows, men abuse more but women are more likely to be arrested.

Men were significantly more likely than women to use physical violence, threats, harassment and to damage the women’s property, while the women were more likely to damage their own. Men’s violence tended to create a context of fear and control, whereas women were more likely to use verbal abuse or some physical violence. However, women were more likely to use a weapon, although this was at times in order to stop further violence from their partners.

In terms of arrests, there were more arrests overall of men than of women. All cases with seven or more incidents, most of which involved men, led to arrest although women were three times more likely to be arrested. During the six-year period men were arrested once in every ten incidents and women arrested once in every three incidents.

Cases involving men as sole perpetrators were those most likely to result in intense fear and control of partners, while many cases where women were recorded as sole perpetrators were characterised by the police as the women being alcoholic or possibly as mentally ill.

Canadian spousal violence stats also show that women were more like to commit ''major assault'' than men but, given the absolute numbers, nearly three times as many women were victims of ''major assault'' than men.

With the current economic situation affecting so many jobs held by men, the risks for women are increased. Research indicate that men who are depressed are more likely to lash out, especially if their partners are leaving or threatening to leave them.

This is not a knock on men, although some readers will see it that way. I acknowledge that only a teeny tiny fraction of men in North America think it's acceptable to hit women and probably even fewer do. And sure, there have been many false charges of abuse. But that doesn't diminish the reality of the situation.

The truth is, violence against women should also be a men's issue. 

Ultimately, this would cause a shift in male culture such that some men’s sexist abuse of women and girls would be regarded – by other men -- not only as distasteful but as utterly unacceptable. In this new climate, individuals would be strongly discouraged from acting out in abusive ways because of the anticipated negative consequences: loss of respect, friends, and status, and greater likelihood of facing both legal and non-legal sanctions. In fact, if men’s violence against women truly carried a significant stigma in male culture, it is possible that most incidents of sexist abuse would never happen. This is because contrary to popular myth, the vast majority of boys and men who assault, harass and bully girls and women are not sociopaths. They are average guys. Many of them see the sexist treatment of women as normal. They behave toward women the way they think men are supposed to. If the example and the expectations of the men around them changed, they would be likely to adjust their behavior accordingly.

Which brings us to this harrowing story today:

A 15-year-old girl leaving early from the homecoming dance at Richmond High School was enticed into a darkened alley just off campus to hang out with as many as a dozen young men who were drinking.

When the girl joined in and became drunk herself, police say, the men attacked her.

One after another, as many as six men raped the girl, police said Monday. Others watched. For more than two hours, no one tried to stop the attacks, and no one called police.

"What's shocking about it is there were so many people willing to involve themselves in such a serious crime," police Lt. Mark Gagan said.

Equally shocking, he said, was "the number of people who witnessed it and who were in the area of it occurring who did not take steps to stop it, report it or help our victim."

Isn't there something really really wrong with the culture when 15 boys stand around and do nothing but gawk? How many of them had cell phones? How many of them could easily walked away and called 911?

And yes, usually when I raise these kinds of questions, my comments threads fill up with the usual suspects defending the indefensible. Or pretending there is no problem. Or blaming the victims.

Finally, just to show that I am an equal opportunity basher, I was surprised but not thrilled to see what Joan did to her boorish husband-rapist on the most recent episode of Mad Men. 

After Greg, or Dr. Blockhead as I've come to think of him, the thumb-fingered surgeon who wants to be a shrink, blows his psychiatry interview despite Joan's shrewd advice, he's breaks out his bottle of whine.

"Stop acting like you know everything. You don't know. You don't know what it's like to want something your whole life, and to plan for it and count on it and not get it."

Since she most definitely does, she bashes her very own Exhibit A over the head with a vase of flowers.

But I was disappointed for all the reasons Deeply Problematic outlined.

Joan has been a victim of this man's violence, and that complicates this act. What Joan did to Greg was nowhere near the same; Greg's act of violence and entitlement was one of the most horrific scenes of the entire series, barely approached by any other acts of violence or cruelty on the show. I can understand that urge to applaud her for kicking his ass - it's delayed justice. But she actually hasn't gotten justice from one awesome scene, and Joan being kickass doesn't mean that it's okay for her to be physically violent to Greg (outside of of self-defense, of course). And this is particularly striking and unsettling because of Mad Men's habit of ignoring this serious, contemporary (in the sense of 1960s and today) issue.

So, what else is new?

Consider: The YWCA just published a report Life Beyond Shelter which calls for the coordination of policies between all levels of government. It's available here.

As Dammit Janet! notes, it received little notice in the corporate media. That's because it wasn't about so-called ''honour killings.''

Woman abuse. Ho-hum. Old news.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: About that two hour-long gang rape of the San Francisco teen, read the comments here.

We're all waiting for the inevitable cell phone videos to turn up online.

Who wants to play with who wants to be a millionaire?

Via BuzzFeed, this three-month old video which is suddenly climbing the charts.

All I can say is, ewwww.

Imagine if were Regis with a gorgeous woman contestant.

Ewwww.

CONnubial bliss

With a nod to my funny filmmaker friend Albert Nerenberg, here's that clip from last night's Mercer Report I blogged about yesterday:

Heh.

Model Behaviour

Not.

Seems to me that, if you're an interviewer who expects people to answer your questions, you should answer questions from other interviewers -- especially if you consented to the interview. 

Bill Walker, former Star journalist turned PR VP at Veritas Communications agrees:

Banks and her PR handler committed one of the worst communications Fumbles in recent memory. She was asked by McFadden about being criticized by former models Paulina Porizkova and Janice Dickenson, both of whom were once cast members on Banks’ show America’s Next Top Model. Porizkova, for example, claimed she was fired from the show on her birthday, that Banks ignored her off camera and that Banks was up to 6 hours late at times for the show’s judges’ panel. The video, click here, is worth watching. Banks’ response to McFadden’s question was silence. She smiled and arched her eyebrows. Meanwhile, off camera, her publicist, Lisa Israel, is heard telling McFadden: “Lets not go there.” ABC chose to identify Israel by name on screen, although she is not seen. And with the cameras still rolling, McFadden looks over angrily and tells Israel: “Well, I am going there. I am going to go there.”

But what really bugs me about this clip is not what Tyra Banks says by not answering but what the entire sequence suggests ... but not in so many words.

Cat fight!

How lovely to be a woman

So, last night, my favourite show Mad Men started with the closing clip from the 1963 movie musical Bye Bye Birdie. Video here. 

This flick made a huge impression on my friends and me back then. We practiced all of Ann-Margret's moves and, I have to say, while watching Mad Men last night, I found myself on my feet ''throwing myself at the (imaginary) camera,'' as Don Draper said.

Yes, I was alone.

Bye Bye Birdie hit the big screen just before Beatlemania, and it came on the tail end of the Elvis worship. But it wasn't the singing idol(s) aspect we loved. It was the depiction of what we imagined teenaged life to be, the going steady, the parties, the dancing, the whole Barbie & Beach Party & Betty & Veronica thing.

Then came the Pill and pot, psychedelic music and a radical shift in pop culture.

But for just a few months, we lived in this glorious bubble, dying to be Ann-Margret, who was so much sexier than the perennial Disney star Annette Funicello.

Anyway, I am not embarrassed to admit that this bit below was my favourite scene and song, one I performed in front of the mirror, with one of my dad's sweaters. I still sing it every once in a while, just to make friends cringe.

And I still came out a feminist.

By the way, here's my treeware take of last week on the instructive value of Mad Men today.

(Jezebel and Feministing have their takes on last night here but be warned, there are spoilers.)

In a Stewie

Funny Videos

Ever since it debuted -- back in my TV critic days -- Family Guy has been one of my favourite shows. Not only does it make me laugh out loud but it also delights and shocks me with how shreds the edges of the envelope.

But only once has an episode been banned from Fox.

Now comes word that an abortion episode is in the works -- and expectations are that it won't get past the Fox censors.

"Twentieth Century Fox, as always, allowed us to produce the episode and then said, 'You know what? We're scared to f--king death of this.' "

While MacFarlane skimped on plot details and Fox remains mum on the episode, the Family Guy guy did suggest that the network will likely balk and only release the episode on DVD, similar to what happened with the show's infamous 2000 installment "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein," in which family patriarch Peter Griffin sets out to convert Christ (see uppity date!-AZ)  to Judaism because he thinks it'll make him rich.

More here.

It's exactly the sort of controversy that's unlikely to wound the hit series, however. Even if the program never airs on broadcast television, envelope-pushing content is the show's specialty and outrage could boost DVD sales if/when the episode is released on home video.

The news comes on the heels of "Family Guy" making history as the first animated series in decades to receive a best comedy series Emmy nomination.

The show's creators continued the anti-Fox theme with a send-up of "The Empire Strikes Back" -- the follow-up this season to its fan-favorite "Star Wars" parody -- in which the rolling text at the start of the episode chastised the movie studio for letting George Lucas walk away with merchandising rights to the property.

"Are you listening stockholders?" the text asked. "This is the same company that canceled 'Family Guy' twice. Who's running that joint?"

Advertisers, of course.

And, if they smell a boycott, they will balk.

Stay, um, tuned.

OOPSIE DATE: My Star pal Josh Rubin caught the typo in the source I cited, a typo I completely missed. It's not Christ who is the subject of conversion -- he was already Jewish -- but Chris.)