These domestic violence ads were banned from television:
and:
and:
But yet television executives apparently have no problem with onscreen violence against women. According to The Parents Television Council:
- Incidents of violence against women and teenage girls are increasing on television at rates that far exceed the overall increases in violence on television. Violence, irrespective of gender, on television increased only 2% from 2004 to 2009, while incidents of violence against women increased 120% during that same period.
- The most frequent type of violence against women on television was beating (29%), followed by credible threats of violence (18%), shooting (11%), rape (8%), stabbing (6%), and torture (2%). Violence against women resulted in death 19% of the time.
- Violence towards women or the graphic consequences of violence tends overwhelmingly to be depicted (92%) rather than implied (5%) or described (3%).
- Every network but ABC demonstrated a significant increase in the number of storylines that included violence against women between 2004 and 2009.
- Although female victims were primarily of adult age, collectively, there was a 400% increase in the depiction of teen girls as victims across all networks from 2004 to 2009.
- Fox stood out for using violence against women as a punch line in its comedies — in particular Family Guy and American Dad — trivializing the gravity of the issue of violence against women.
- From 2004 to 2009 there was an 81% increase in incidences of intimate partner
So there you have it, a culture of visual impunity that implies that violence against women is a perfectly okay form of entertainment is acceptable but talking about the real thing is unsuitable for viewers.
One Response to “The Not So Entertaining Escalation Of Violence Against Women On Television”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
from Jennifer Drew whose wise commentary has been quoted numerous times on FPN:
I am not in the least surprised televison companies have refused to
screen three advertisements raising public awareness of male terrorism
against female partners. The obvious reason is these male-dominant
companies do not want the issue of male violence against women to be
publicised, because it will upset and anger the fragile sensibilities of
male viewers. Programme makers are engaging in double thinking wherein
on the one hand it is supposedly acceptable for increasing fictionalised
acts of gratutious and sexually eroticised male violence against women
to be shown since it is only ‘fantasy’ (sic). Whereas three
advertisements informing male and female viewers that male violence
against women is not ‘sexually erotic’ but is about male ownership and
male domination of female partners.
Incidents of fictionalised male violence against women have increased in
just five years by 120% and yet male-dominated and male-controlled
programme companies refuse to show these educational advertisements.
Perhaps the answer is straightforward – male and female viewers must on
no account be told about the realities of real male violence against
women because it would offend the fragile sensibilities of male viewers.
Which sex is being protected from having to take responsibility for
which group is overwhelmingly committing intimate male partner terrorism
against women – women or men?
Regards,
Jennifer