Female assaults male
TVNZ’s reply to a complaint regarding the humorification (just invented new word :P) of a news item depicting female assaults male. Apparently, the complaints committee also thought that this was a mock-able event adding that it was a celebrity involved.
We didn’t see them mocking when another celebrity was just held by the neck (not even kicked and punched like in this case). The only difference that time was that the neck was a female’s.
We harp on about gender equality, and domestic violence… SO WHY THIS DOUBLE STANDARD???????
ANY FORM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS NOT A MATTER OF MOCKING, NO MATTER WHAT TYPE OF GENITALS ARE INVOLVED ON EITHER SIDE.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fpefdejfxagb2tv/Ashish%20A%20Naiker%20Seven%20Sharp%20Decision.pdf
The response I received is almost word for word what you received.
“The humour in the clip comes from the Jay-Z’s and Beyoncé ‘s music being
used as a narrative of Solange’s behaviour”
Apparently the humour comes from the music. They missed out there – it went right over the top of my head. Silly me I thought they were laughing at the woman beating up the guy.
I can’t wait for the laughs next time a high profile males is involved in beating a woman – I wonder what they will say the source of humour is then?
Comment by Wayne Burrows — Wed 11th June 2014 @ 5:46 pm
I believe we need to write to the Broadcasting Standards Authority comparing with the other case I mentioned above. Both were celebrities, so why the double standards?
Comment by Ashish A Naicker — Wed 11th June 2014 @ 6:48 pm
Failing that, create a petition on change.org for a public apology. Failing that, a civil lawsuit.
Comment by Ashish A Naicker — Wed 11th June 2014 @ 6:50 pm
Dear Ashish and Wayne,
thanks for putting in the complaints. I hope that you will follow through to BSA? I would be happy to add my name, if you would like?
I didn’t see the programme, but I agree that treating violence as a joke hugely misses the point.
In my opinion, the presenters should have pointed out that her behaviour was assault and that in NZ the available sentence is 3? years jail? Also, I think that they should have pointed out Jay-Z’s restraint and noted the definition of self defence and the available sentence if any response wasn’t accepted as self defence.
The show as presented, made out that the incident wasn’t serious. Just because the violence is presented by a commercial broadcaster, doesn’t mean that everyone interprets it as drama only. We have a major problem in NZ with impressionable policemen and young people, for whom such shows normalise serious violence and avoidance of negotiation. This then means that minor situations are more at risk of escalating into serious injuring. Failing to make these points, leaves the segment as being dangerously misinforming to the public.
The worst culprits for normalising violence seem to be police shows and crime shows. More than 50% of prime time TV is based around violence. Although generally men’s violence is falling slowly, women’s violence is a growing problem, implying that we are not tackling it realistically.
Possibly the recent murder of a dairy owner illustrates this scenario?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 11th June 2014 @ 7:36 pm
I think you should both take it further by forwarding TVNZ’s pathetic “decision” to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
Comment by golfa — Wed 11th June 2014 @ 8:15 pm
Reasons
TVNZ’s argument is absurd.
In particular they argue that
“The humour in the clip comes from the Jay-Z’s and Beyoncé’s music being used as a narrative of Solange’s behaviour – there is no implication that the behaviour is appropriate or acceptable.”
1. The complaint was that the programme through their hosts, Mike Hosking and Toni Street, ‘made light of this serious issue laughing and joking about the violence’ not that the programme suggested the behaviour was ‘appropriate or acceptable’.
2. It is disingenuous of TVNZ to suggest that the humour was in using Jay-Z and Beyonce’s music as a narrative to the clip.
a. Television and other visual media have a long history of portraying violence against men as humour. It is not news to show a man being beaten for the purpose of laughing at it.
b. To illustrate that showing the violence to music is not humourous imagine the lack of humour of playing a story about Bobby Brown beating Whitney Houston to “I will always love you” or the story of the abuse of Nigella Lawson to theme from her TV show. These are simply not funny.
3. In laughing at this incident, through Hosking and Street, TVNZ, glamorised this violence of Solange against Jay-Z. (Standard 2d)
The portrayal was realistic – it was actual security camera footage; anti-social behaviour (including violence and the abuse of liquour – speculative in this instance) – the violence was clear.
The portrayal was to quote TVNZ’s quoted correspondent “people are finding it so fascinating”. This is glamorising the incident.
Glamorise is to romanticise or beautify. By showing a clip of violence to music is by the very nature beautifying and laughing at it is romanticising the situation.
4. Given that the violence was by a woman against a man and that if the gender roles were reversed I cannot imagine TVNZ or its hosts, Hosking and Street, laughing at the incident or portraying it as humour or light entertainment, this portrayal was denigratory to men. (Standard 7)
a. The portrayal was of violence by a woman against a man in a way that would patently not be acceptable if the genders were reversed;
b. By showing a clip that would be unacceptable if the gender roles were reversed and by laughing at it the broadcaster is portraying men as inferior;
c. It is not a free and frank view that is acceptable to laugh at a man being beaten. This portrayal goes too far;
d. The clip encourages negative gender stereotypes against men as victims. The clear message is woman perpetrator man victim constitutes humour and detracts from and diminishes the seriousness of the situation;
e. In laughing at the violence, Hosking and Street’s tone constituted an unacceptable tone for the portrayal of violence;
f. It was clear that Hosking and Street found this violence humourous. That is their humour was to be taken seriously;
g. The humour was repeated and sustained – the laughed at the beginning and were still laughing at the end of the video clip;
h. The laughing was gratuitous and made no legitimate contribution to the wider debate of the issues face by violence, particularly by violence perpetrated by women against men.
5. Repeating the last point, but this time in regard to standard 10a, the violence shown was gratuitous in that it was apparently (and mistakenly) shown for its humour value rather than as the serious issue of violence. (Standard 10a)
a. It is not necessary to ‘condone’ the violence for the depiction of that violence to be gratuitous.
b. I do not believe that for the vast majority of viewers – if indeed for any – that the music put to the incident served to highlight how the behaviour was unacceptable. Nor do I believe that laughing at the clip portrayed anything other than it was socially acceptable, notwithstanding the words of the hosts, for a woman to beat viciously a man.
The attitude of TVNZ and its hosts, Hosking and Street, was that a man being beaten by a woman is a source of humour.
Comment by Wayne Burrows — Sun 15th June 2014 @ 6:03 am
Young men’s violence fantasies cause real problems:
Example of #4 above
A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 28th June 2014 @ 5:01 pm
The normalising of Female Assualts Male.
The example to me that helps to explain societys attitude to female vs male violence is the programme Cheaters.
Not always, but in principle this programme uses the manipulation and sensationilising of violence by women against men for its own ill gotten gains.
Often the output of rage extends to physical attacks on the males(affair partner).
Women vs Men and Women vs Women violence is often portrayed with the old addage ‘he deserved it’ no mater who the victim is.
The same principle extends to the murder of men by thier partners, and incidently when the new partner acts (manipulated) to protect his turf.
This principle is and old principle, IE that once apon a time society and its culture said the same thing of women who were beaten in thier homes. Cant have been a good housewife?
Is today, cant have been a good husband?
What are the things men do to women to justify women being violent towards men?
What are the things women do to men to justify men being violent towards women?
Is the cheaters example just one where the(manipulated) participents are shoved into an imaginary corner, bounded by the invisible walls of a camera, men and womens fight or flight responses exposed.
What are the invisible walls in your home?
Can you get out?
Can the victim male escape. Without unbalanced public shame and private loss. Or are those fight or flight responses being preyed on by others, for thier ill gotten gains.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 3rd July 2014 @ 2:13 pm
Female assault Male Why is it that the police always take the side of the Female in most cases? I had never been trouble with the police until my partner at the time attacked me with a knife. all I wanted was some help for her when I spoke to them. It turned out that I was kicked off our property placed on bail through the courts and told not to go any where near the house (which we both owned) this gave her time to clear almost every thing out of it leaving me with next to nothing. I am away from her now for good but it sticks in my gut the way that women get away with it all.
Comment by Kenny — Sat 6th September 2014 @ 8:43 pm