Extreme images of violence against women. "Moral and edgy" or vile misogynist cliche?

[Eleison]

"The assumption is now ? and it seems to be correct ? that audiences are happy to watch their heroines being beaten and gagged, and to stare at explicitly rendered photographs of women cut and splayed and killed."

Great article by Natasha Walton in the Guardian today about the intense and lingering depiction of violence against women in films and TV programmes that habitually excuse their horrific images by presenting them in stories that are 'moral' because they narrate the investigation, condemnation, and punishment of the crime.

When Stephen Griffiths describes himself in court by the 'crossbow cannibal' tag that a newspaper gave him, don't we have to see that the conventional excited and graphic presentation of the murder of women in the media in news reports and in drama feeds back into reality, nourishing the fantasies and encouraging the actions not just of serial killers but of common-or-garden misogynists?

Aye I agree to some extent. Although I would rather DD's used the laptop in the sitting room. Am more concerned about MSN and Facebook really.

But it reminded me of a documentary about the American Film Board of Classification which decides what certificate to put on films.

It views sex, nudity and swearing as far more deserving of a box-office killing 18-rating than extreme violence which is more likely to be considered family viewing and given a lower rating.

Anyway ...off subject

Had no idea about the Steve Jobs thing. It reminds me of Brian May who apparently disapproved of the naked women covers/parties Queen had, on the basis that it was degrading to women. Lone voice, but a good one.

I did not know that about Brian May. Good on him.

I did not know that about Brian May. Good on him.

I wasn't aware the freddie mercury had a lot of parties featuring hordes of naked women

I did see some footage of one of his parties once, and there were lots of people in their underwear/very tight revealing clothing. They definitely weren't women though

I didn't know that about Brian May either. Though always thought he was a good egg since he finished off his PhD despite being an internationally famous rock star

Those Britain's Got Talent acts look vile and depressing.

Good post swallowed a fly.

All makes sense to me.

Those are very interesting thoughts ISAF. I'm sure you are right that the constant association of certain things programmes us in many of the ways that you are suggesting. I guess that is a pervasive problem in our image-dominated society, and it calls a Clockwork Orange to mind, as well as the indoctrination sessions in 1984. I agree also that women themselves, including heterosexual women, come to make the association between the female form in itself and the sexualised and perversely sexualised staple representation of it relentlessly, most worryingly in the association with violence and pain. God knows what that does to us but it isn't good!

here

Ha!

Good post SAF.

Question: is it possible to construct a study to show the effect of this, or any other, society-wide cultural trend?

Thanks

Whenever I debate this issue on t'internet, somebody always pops up to say 'where's the evidence that this stuff does any harm'. I suspect that the kind of evidence they're after - longitudinal studies? - doesn't exist, and moreover can't exist, because it's too difficult to measure effects of this kind when there's no such thing as a control group. I know there are short-term studies of the kind you mention - eg showing a group a lot of fairly extreme porn and then asking them immediately, eg, whether they think women routinely lie about rape. But very little/no long-term stuff.

Which means that we have to advocate for action on the basis of our own hunches/feelings, which can be a weak position from which to argue.

which which which which which which which

feel free to pepper these around your own posts

Yeah they were women! It was when they were making the Bicycle Race video (?) or cover or something, which was all naked women. I think Brian just wanted to stargaze and play his guitar, dear of him.

Really interesting points being raised here, that association thing is something I'd never thought of before, but must be something in it.

What I wonder is, why do we always need proof for everything. I mean, obviously if you're trying to make a new drug or something you need it. But in cases like this why don't our feelings matter? I mean, when Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand rang up an old man to talk about shagging his granddaughter, they both got loads of trouble from it. It wasn't because someone "proved" that their comments had a detrimental effect on the nation's morals or anything, it was because loads of people thought they were gross and insulting. Well I think depictions of extreme pornified violence against women are gross and demeaning.

What can we do about it?

Wowee, did I just paraphrase something accidentally? That's fascinating, I had no idea that this stuff was being talked about.

I think when you go to school female you can't help thinking that at least some of the stuff with men's names on it - scientific processes, elements, theories - must have been discovered/used/thought of by women some time.

I have always been really annoyed when I'm making an observation about something, anything, and someone comes back with something like: "Well that's a typical Keynesian-Platonic-Manichean take on the issue". Actually, no, it's my take on the issue. It puts you in the position of being either an ignoramus (of these oh so wise words written in a book), or a plagiarist (of these oh so wise etc). How many women throughout time, putting a sleeping baby to bed or staring out at the sky as they wash up, have wondered if the world was real or just a dream that we will wake up from (or whatever). Some bloke writes it down and suddenly we all have to pretend that we are copying him, he's the one who had it first, it's his.

Fascinating thread - particularly the Brian May revelation

Did anyone see 'Five Daughters' about the Ipswich murders? Brilliantly, it wasn't about the man who killed five women and why he did it. It focused on the women themselves and the violence was off screen (apart from some shots of the bodies being discovered). It was really very different from the usual crime dramas we see. Agree entirely with the OP.

Elephants - 'why do we always need proof for everything. I mean, obviously if you're trying to make a new drug or something you need it. But in cases like this why don't our feelings matter?' - it's a tough one isn't it. There's such a trend for evidence-based policy-making at the moment, and I'm sympathetic to it in some ways, but it isn't the answer to everything - not least in these enormous, amorphous social questions.

'What can we do about it?' - Wish I knew. I was speaking to one of the campaign women at Object the other day and asked her (with this thread in mind) whether Object had this issue on their radar - she said they don't explicitly but she'd mention it to them. Lobbying the TV companies/cinema distributors would be the way to go I suppose?

Thanks v much for that SAF - what's E&M - evidence and...??

I'm off to Google 'feminist epistomology'

Cat - I didn't watch it but had got the impression that it did, as you say, prioritise the women's experiences over the stupid little prick who killed them. Wonder who wrote it?

E & M = Elephaants & Miasmas I think PW.