Culture > December 7, 2005

Bad Girls (cont’d)

This past August, California’s Governor Schwarzenegger denied Woodmore parole, reversing the Board of Parole Hearings’ earlier decision to set her free.

Shows like “Snapped” don’t only misrepresent the lives of women like Woodmore, they distort the realities of rising female incarceration. Most women aren’t behind bars because they committed murder. In the United States, the dramatic increase in the female prison population has much to do with decades of ever-more draconian drug laws. (According to the latest findings from the BJS, women were more likely to be in a state prison for a drug offense in 2004, at 32 percent of inmates, than men were, at the rate of 21 percent.)

Nationally, some 200,000 women are now sitting in jails or prisons—more than eight times as many incarcerated women as in 1980. At least 75 percent of these women are mothers. Out of the 7 million Americans under some form of correctional supervision, 1 million are women.

Two eye-opening new books, Nell Bernstein’s All Alone in the World: Children of the Incarcerated and Renny Golden’s War on the Family: Mothers in Prison and the Families They Leave Behind, highlight another byproduct of women’s mass incarceration that has, thus far, been overlooked. As Bernstein and Golden discuss, one in 10 American children have a parent ensnared in the criminal justice system, while one in 33 will go to sleep tonight without being able to see a parent because she or he is behind bars.

Not only do the vast majority of these women in jail or prison leave at least one child behind when they get locked up, they also are more likely than male prisoners to arrive there with serious histories of emotional, sexual and physical abuse at the hands of family members, partners or strangers. Many are already mentally ill, sick, or both, with chronic diseases, including cancer, hepatitis C and HIV, diseases that end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars, and which often result in the end of a prisoner’s life while still incarcerated.

But stereotyping women in prison as “victims” is no more accurate than buying into the “Snapped” line of heartless, conniving, and (literally) back-stabbing vixens who have more than earned their lengthy stays behind bars.

In truth, many imprisoned women are survivors of the most awesome kind, who should be seen for the individuals they are. These women have carved out their own lives, identities and realities for themselves despite tremendous odds. Are these women complicated, and do they suffer just like you and I? Of course. Are they fierce enough to hurt anyone who bares his or her teeth in their general direction? On occasion. But does any of that make for good television?

Actually, it can.

In November, the cable channel BBC America began to broadcast one of Western Europe’s most popular dramas, “Bad Girls,” about the day-to-day life of inmates in a women’s prison.

Now in its seventh season, “Bad Girls” is the brainchild of three women who have been frank about the fact that the show gives them an opportunity to highlight many of the injustices of female incarceration.

“Eighty percent of women in prison are there for nonviolent crimes,” co-producer Eileen Gallagher recently told the New York Times. “[It is] basically our political philosophy that it’s a complete waste of money to lock them up.”

“Bad Girls” has its over-the-top, soap-opera aspects, to be sure. But the rotating cast of characters come into prison as three-dimensional human beings. These fictionalized characters are ethnically diverse, speaking a variety of different regional dialects. Some are lesbians (yes, real same-sex, non-noir love in prison exists), and many are women in their 40s or 50s. One woman battles breast cancer with the support of her fellow prisoners, and most struggle to keep up some kind of relationship with their family and children on the outside. The more vulnerable women in prison have to fend off attacks from aggressive alpha-female prisoners and/or male correctional officers, sometimes unsuccessfully. These women often use drugs—in and out of prison—and many speak openly of having prostituted themselves in very unglamorous ways. As their stories unfold, so do the complex circumstances that lead real-life women to the prison cell they occupy today.

I’ll take “Bad Girls” over “Snapped” any day. Better still, give us an injection of truth-telling about women in prison, in all of its compelling and riveting reality. Television really could be that powerful, if we weren’t so afraid of what it might unleash.

The California Coalition for Women Prisoners has launched a campaign against Oxygen’s “Snapped” series.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  TV programs such as the “Snapped” series are both annoying and worrisome, because they trivialize the crimes and the criminals. How would women feel about a series focusing on male women-killers depicted as lovable rogues?

  And please spare us the statistics about women being abuse victims before they turn murderous. Such women almost invariably claim abuse, which can be defined in myriad ways, and abuse does not justify murder unless it’s immediately life-threatening.

  The women inmates are correct in complaining about “Snapped” and demanding more thorough and realistic depictions of females behind bars. More power to them.

  Posted by A.A. Murphy on Dec 7, 2005 at 7:55 AM

  abuse does not justify murder unless it’s immediately life-threatening.

  A.A., I think that is fairly uncontroversial.  What is your opinion of the idea that abuse may be a contributing factor in the cause of violent behavior?  Isn’t that a more important question in attempting to deal with the social phenomenon of violence than mere assigning personal responsibility in any given individual case?  In the interests of rehabilitation?

  Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 7, 2005 at 1:15 PM

  Sure, abuse can be a mitigating factor, especially if the victim is isolated and can’t get help. But I’m weary of hearing it used as an excuse for shooting one’s sleeping husband when the woman had ample opportunity previously to exit the situation or contact authorities.

  The entire women-can-do-no-wrong vibe that permeates these discussions grows tiresome after a while. Women can and often do commit crimes for little or no provocation, just like the fellas. Let’s get past the wounded-fawn posturing and focus on dealing with the many inequities women face in the system.

  Posted by A.A. Murphy on Dec 7, 2005 at 2:19 PM

  I’d be curious to know the ratings of “Bad Girls” compared to “Snapped”, as a function of market share. How does BBC determine its programming line-up and its renewal or cancellation of shows per season? I imagine there’s some sort of Nielsen-like rating process in the UK, although I couldn’t say for sure, but it would be interesting to know how much actual viewership each show gets as a function of straight-up appeal to the market. Does BBC govern its programming choices in a similar way as US networks, or is there some other kind of vetting process? Anyone out there know?

  As for “Snapped”, of course it’s sensationalized. That’s what the viewers want, apparently (and perhaps regrettably). What’s more interesting than sexiness? What’s more interesting than scandal, intrigue, ruthlessness? These are the features of soap opera dramas that last for decades, many of which have loyal viewers who tune in daily beginning when they’re teenagers and continuing into their middle age. Same for tabloid-style journalism. Publications that tickle the appetite for sensationalism enjoy sales that would put to shame the paid circulation of more serious-minded papers. Many people just want to be entertained, and don’t feel deprived if a show tickles their fancy while glossing over the more complex realities of prison life or any other aspect of life.

  It’s when factual, complex, deeper content can be made truly entertaining that we have a chance to get beyond simplistic titillation as the primary effect of viewing TV shows. But just pinning programming to fact or depth, without addressing the reasons why most people watch TV (to be entertained) is a failing strategy. Some people with a greater interest in depth and complexity rather than entertainment value will tune in, but they’re a minority faction within any TV or cable market you could name. In that kind of choice, again perhaps regrettably but still realistically, the shows that titillate will win out in the ratings game and get picked up next season, while the deeper, more intellectually stimulating shows that don’t intrigue the audience will be more likely to languish and die out.

  Probably the best fronts from which to address this challenge would be within the programming processes of the networks and in schools. If people are raised with informative, entertaining shows that really address the multi-faceted nature of its subject matter, and are trained in school to be thinkers instead of just passive consumers of canned info, the more intelligent programs will have a better chance. But they’ll still have to entertain. It’s the difference between the TV continuing to be the proverbial “idiot box” or becoming a portal to areas of knowledge, interest, AND enjoyment.

  Posted by Kuya on Dec 7, 2005 at 7:38 PM

  My best friend is in jail for killing an abusive husband that was sleeping.  Most of the situations that I have heard of in real life are not like what is on TV.  It is not unusual for this to happen.  There are many women that are in prison for killing an abuse partner.  These women are sentenced to longer prison terms and serve a higher My friend was abused for over twenty years.  She was tied up and tortured for hours.  He threatened to tie her up and make her watch while her family members were cut up in to little pieces.  She had no reason to doubt that he was capable of this.  It was her or him.  I am trying to get the Governor to grant her clemency.  I have had a local channel do a show on the news twice and have been contacted by Montel.  Abuse is a problem that is not prejudice.  It affects people in all walks of life.  Many times the abusers were abused themselves.  We need to break the pattern and teach young children to respect each other and that no one should treat another person abusively.  I am looking for any comments or advice.  I would like to get in touch with an advocacy group and begin to help in this cause.  Please let me know if you have any suggestions.

  Posted by ladydiver on Dec 8, 2005 at 5:43 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 16 posts.

Member Login

Also by Silja J.A. Talvi

• Reporting From The Ground Up
  The power of street reporting
• Seattle Battles the Homeless
  
• Women Behind Bars
  War on drugs leads to explosion of female incarcerations
• Tupperware and Tasers
  
• Suffering Secondary Trauma
  Finding Iris Chang: Friendship, Ambition and the Loss of an Extraordinary Mind explores the complexity of Chang's psychology as it formed around the demands of her profession and her personal struggles stemming from her writing about The Rape of Nanking
• Justice Denied
  One man stands between Flozelle Woodmore and the "free" world--California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger