The typical American female TV criminal is nasty, cutthroat, cunning, duplicitous and sexy to boot. Oxygen, a women-oriented cable channel, hypes its popular “Snapped” series this way: “From millionaire brides with everything to lose, to small-town sweethearts who should simply know better, these shocking but true stories turn common assumptions about crime and criminals upside down.” The show promises to… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (16)Page 1 of 1 pagesTV 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 ladydiver - while i am sympathetic to your friends situation, taking the law into her hands and serving as judge, jury and executioner was just wrong. Clearly.
That said, one might hope for a reduced sentence, due to her circumstances. Was the abuse ever reported? What actions - short of murder - did she take prior to her killing? How much of her story is a “he says she says” story (that is, undocumented)?
It amazes me that such things can go on for 20 years (!!!). I would hope that the lesson to be learned is to seek help sooner - both for the sake of the spouse being abused and the spouse doing the abusing. With such help, perhaps both can be salvaged.
Posted by wolf on Dec 12, 2005 at 12:33 PM Do you ever wonder about the social and economic conditions that contribute to this sort of crime?
Interestingly , the initial ending of the movie ‘Fatal Attraction’ involved the female ‘villian’ killing herself...that was the ‘Madame Butterfly’ ending, where the masculinized female/ feminized testosterone junky killed herself through a crisis of thwarted want and self identity.
This went flat on the first viewings, so the director and producers conceived of an alternate ending....the woman on the side stalks and tries to kill her competitor for the man…
psycho bitch.
This was such a radical departure from our expectations for woman that we thrilled to it....(’The Hand That Rocks the Cradle’ was the same.) What a shocker!
Because we live in a culture that subsists on the ideal of a ‘motherly’ woman, and villifies any other representation as unwomanly or evil, we are easily shocked.
This sort of crime/movie/news article points to our fears of the unloving woman, . We hardly examine why men commit heinous crimes, much less women.You won’t find me fighting the fight for woman to be considered as violent , ignorant, and self serving as the ‘patriarchy’.
I’m working on a different agenda, lol.
Posted by minerva on Dec 16, 2005 at 7:52 PM Er - Kuya. “Bad Girls” is actually made by ITV (Independent Television) in the UK, rather than by any branch of the BBC! (I’m British, I know!)
ITV shows generally have to be more commercial than those made on the BBC… or Channel 4, I think. ITV is therefore probably a little bit more like the “network” TV stations you are used to. (Still finds the time to fund interesting dramas and documentaries, though.)
The ratings of “Bad Girls” isn’t bad in the UK, not bad at all, it’s a very popular show, as our magazines attest. (Looked for precise viewing figures for it, but couldn’t find, because the site’s down, or something, or I didn’t find the right one.)
Here is the OFFICIAL site for the program, anyway: http://www.badgirls.co.uk/
Yeah, it’s a good show...though a bit stereotypical in its own way.
Posted by Liz on Dec 17, 2005 at 8:15 PM Oh, and PS. What YOU call “ratings”, we call “viewing figures”. Ofcom is supposed to count them but their site is crap.
Posted by Liz on Dec 17, 2005 at 8:16 PM We do use those little Nielsen-type boxes though… well… apparently a ridiculously small number of households in the UK - like about 1,000? use them!
Posted by Liz on Dec 17, 2005 at 8:17 PM ladydiver, I sympathize with you and your friend. And wolf is just a useless “moralizing” twerp… and he is male, as we all know!! (All we lefties and rabbitfriends on here that is!!)
Wolf, go and howl somewhere else. Take your moralizings to President Bush and ask him why HE advocates the killings of innocent civilians, let ALONE terrorists… whether it is a “them or us” situation or not.
Funny - how “them or us” is always seen to apply to a whole society… but rarely to its “lesser-status” individual members - such as non-elite women.
Posted by Liz on Dec 17, 2005 at 8:22 PM Liz
Don’t even get me started on Busch. Have you ever been to jibjab.com? Check it out it is pretty good. Thanks for your post. I realize that to change the way the system treats these women is going to be a long hard fight because of these people that use morals to justify actions. They may have morals but are some of the dumbest people I have ever seen. Look at the state our country is in and that says it all. Our supposed morals are killing many of our young men and women daily. I think that says it all. Thanks again Liz I really appreciate your taking the time out to post.
Posted by ladydiver on Dec 18, 2005 at 2:55 PM I would rather avoid getting into more esoteric fields requiring lengthy explanations, but this article does highlight a severe social problem that we do have with the Y chromosome apparently, war and murder being just two symptoms.
But on the topic of abuse, it often baffles men—amongst them Mr. Wolf—how and why women will put up with abuse for years. My sister was in an abusinve situation, her hubby, a stuck-up, pompous British fellow, marble-in-mouth and Oxford, what, used to regularly beat her with a belt, buckle side. It began on their honeymoon, when she told him she was pregnant. The abuse was only revealed when a concerned neighbor called the police one night. By that time my sister, who was a beautiful woman, had become virtually anorexic. And even though we were very close, she never once mentioned it. A man in the same situation would have either walked out at the first wallop, or taken a heavy frying pan to the abuser’s skull. (Whereby after that incident I did warn him, that the next time I would use him as a punching bag.)
I have in the meantime read about abuse and the mechanisms involved. Perhaps, rather than chasing Mr. Wolf off to another Website, please try a reasoned approach and explain why do women tend to put up with abuse for such a long time. Men have difficulty understanding that (I am a man, I admit it). It took my sister several more YEARS to separate from and divorce that creep.
Posted by Talleyrand on Dec 26, 2005 at 4:27 PM I want to say something about this apparent demonization of Mr. Wolf’s comments. I am a lifelong progressive, anti-war person who has worked in a battered women’s shelter since 1998 (in administration). My values were strongly inspired by my own experience of domestic violence growing up, as a child witness to my mother being abused. I remember my dad going on rages where he would tear around the house, or cross the double line on a two-lane highway with a gleam in his eye if he was driving at the time. He hung me upside down over a stairway when I was five and apparently almost strangled my mom. Of course, for my trouble, some of the alleged “progressives” I have known have told me that men who experience D.V. as children “aren’t really affected by it” and the like (fortunately none of the people at work do this-- but then, they are actually educated about the issue).
Let’s see what Mr. Wolf actually said: “ladydiver - while i am sympathetic to your friends situation, taking the law into her hands and serving as judge, jury and executioner was just wrong. Clearly.” Is this not the exact same thing we say when Bush has “nabbed himself another terrorist” and put him in the brig? That terrorism is really awful but you need to have due process as part of a democratic society?
Okay, and next he says, “That said, one might hope for a reduced sentence, due to her circumstances.” Not exactly hosting a flag for patriarchy forever, was he? And he asks, innocently, “Was the abuse ever reported? What actions - short of murder - did she take prior to her killing? ...
It amazes me that such things can go on for 20 years (!!!).”Yes, at the shelter where I work we tell people why people stay in abusive relationships and that it’s complicated—it is; my mom stayed (fortunately some psychoactive drugs seemed to calm my dad down after a few years). But we also say, quite explicity, “seek help”! I think most of us ARE amazed that it goes on twenty years, and we have meetings and strategy sessions on how to help our mostly-female clients overcome the tendency to go back into similar abusive relationships (which they really do do, a lot of the time). We do not tell women that they should murder their partners or that it is OK; we don’t even let them spank their children while they’re housed with us. We provide services for both sexes for the most part at this point, including both men who are beaten and women who are abusive (while acknowledging that mostly it’s men beating women at this time). We are in favor of due process and work with the police, although we recognize that they have limitations and biases.
It’s sad that our progressive movement seems to have an inconsistent Party Line just like the republicans do-- in this case we’re in favor of due process and against vigilantism UNLESS it’s vigilantism against people alleged to be the types of criminals we hate most. Due process is a cherished and integral part of our criminal justice system. It’s one of the key things that separates us from a dictatorship-- which most of us leftists are only too happy to point out when the subject is Bush locking up Padilla without charge. Why are we ganging up on a poster because he defended due process of law?
Dave
Posted by davelwhite on Dec 28, 2005 at 12:26 AM You show me where due process worked in the many documented cases where women have done everything according to the law and still end up dead. If we do not make changes in a system that clearly does not protect us then the situation my friend is in may be the same for many other women. In the prison system now many women are there for similar crimes. We need to do something to change the system. I am not trying to justify murder. I am trying to help change the system to prevent this from happening to someone else. I find it hard to believe that the above comments come from someone who has any knowledge of Battered Women Syndrome or Abuse. You may also want to check into the Stockholm Syndrome. I plan on becoming more involved as an activists for these women. What we need is education. Especially people that are supposed to be helping these women. I think everyone that is involved must have training in this area. I think someone with an attitude like the one above could really hurt instead of help these women. As far as Bush well he just does whatever he wants no matter what the cost to our country and people. Due process what is it really?
Beth
Posted by ladydiver on Dec 28, 2005 at 1:39 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Silja J.A. Talvi
- All Work, No Play
Vacation time shouldn't be the privilege of a few, but the right of all - 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
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
