I think some societal double standards come down to "counterbalancing."

[PlanetaryOrbit]

Some people have protested against the fact that men are often depicted as stupid in movies, sitcoms and commercials, and that violence by women against men on television is often perceived as "comedic" rather than abusive.

And let's be fair; that is a double standard, why should it be any more acceptable for a woman to slap a man in the face than vice versa?


That being said, I think the real reason why such a double standard persists is because of "counterbalancing": Men are typically considered the stronger gender, and historically have had many advantages over women; therefore these double standards are acceptable because they help "balance" things and make the scales more "even."



I'm not saying this is right. I'm just saying, I think this is how or why these double standards exist.


Any thoughts?

[KT2000]

1. Possibly, but

another aspect to consider, especially in commercials, is that the target audience is women because they are the ones who make purchases. At least that is how the advertisers see it.

[Ex Lurker]

36. The "men as oafs" trope in popular culture is a subset of the "adults are incompetent idiots" trope

I'd love to see a TV show where the parents had a modicum of common sense and the kids weren't wisecracking smartasses.

Now get off my lawn!

[KT2000]

38. Yes - respect for one's elders

is a thing of the past I am afraid. If I had rolled my eyes and cracked wise about my parents being stupid, which is common fare on TV now - all I can say is it would not have been good for me.

Have a friend who is from China. There, the respect for elders is so ingrained from birth. She said that when growing up, she used to sit on the steps with her grandmother and share some fruit, like an apple. The children ate the peelings and the grandmother got the rest of the apple. That was to show her respect and that they wanted her to live a long time so she got the best.

And there- men are NEVER the oafs - but that's another story. But here, I wish more men would complain to the advertisers.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. The comedy of female violence comes from the marginalization of female agency.

Not from glorifying it.

The reason why we laugh at such things is because we don't take it seriously. And the reason why we don't take it seriously is because we look down upon women as physically inferior.

It's not a matter of balance. In fact, such comedy only further serves to debase women.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

3. If it debases both sides, then it really should stop.

But I think the reason society considers violence by women against men on TV to be okay is because it represents the "weaker" gender beating up the "stronger" one.

[Gravitycollapse]

4. No. Society would never be okay with glorifying the subordinate dominating.

That would run contrary to the entire socio-sexual hegemony.

The reason why it's comical is that it is not viewed as actual violence. We see it like we would see a toddler hitting its parent. Potentially evocative but totally harmless. This is debasing women, not men. Although we can argue that the entire spectacle, in the end, dooms us all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Spot on.

Not viewed as actual violence. Absolutely true. The cycle of IPV is aggravated by the fact that half of all violent heterosexual relationships are reciprocally violent and that 70% of the nonreciprocal violence is perpetrated by the woman. We pretend this doesn't exist that denial is a major contributor to the chronic nature of IPV.

[kcr]

6. It never ceases to amaze me the leaps that you make

It's amazing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. GC said "(violence by women) is not seen as actual violence"

My observation doesn't seem to be a leap at all, but a simple and obvious proof of (his/her) statement.

This may be a case of a blind squirrel stumbling over a nut, but nevertheless... yay squirrel.

[kcr]

11. Of course you don't see it as an absurd leap

why would you? Especially when you take a statement out of context and proclaim it to be simple! and obvious! to fit your bizarre conclusion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. And yet, you haven't offered an alternative argument.

Are you disagreeing with GC that "violence by women isn't seen as actual violence"? Or are you disagreeing with me when I say "violence by women isn't seen as actual violence"?

I guess if I could phrase it in such a way that indicates women are victimized by their perpetration of violence without consequence and for humorous effect, or that men are privileged by being more heavily punished for the same crime, I could get you to agree with me too.

Sadly, there is a limit to my creative writing ability, and ability to prevaricate.

[kcr]

14. Oh, I already have.

I've already had the argument with you about your false claims that women perpetrate violence more often than men. I'm sure I'm not the only one. It gets debunked all the time.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. Violence by anyone is Not okay and should be avoided as a last resort.

Otherwise, GravityCollapse is correct with his analysis.

[treestar]

8. +1

That is it exactly.

People keep insisting it's just the same. Sort of like the complaints of no White Entertainment Channel. It's just ignoring history to call it a double standard.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

9. Why isn't it a double standard?

Shouldn't all violence by either gender against either gender be considered wrong?

[kcr]

15. It's not that it isn't considered wrong

the point is you don't ignore the inequality and the history. For example, when you do, you start getting crap like claims that women are actually more violent. Claiming it's a double standard ignores the inequality. But pointing that out isn't saying it's right for anyone to be violent. No one should be violent toward another human being.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Gibberish. If it was wrong it wouldn't be funny. nt

[kcr]

17. Talk about gibberish

Yes, you're right. Because no one ever laughs at misogynistic humor, or racist humor, or humor about disabled people. Oh, wait...

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Are you *trying* to make my argument?

Yes, I'd have to agree that humor based on hitting men is very much like humor about picking on racial minorities or kicking a crutch out from under a crippled kid.

Because the crippled kid won't fight back.

[kcr]

19. You said, "If it was wrong, it wouldn't be funny"

So, I guess if it's making your argument for you to point out that it's controversial humor because violence is wrong, then, okay. Point for you. But I don't see where anyone was claiming otherwise. My point was being wrong has never been a deterrent to humor being funny.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. Yes. To the people buying the soap sold on these shows, it's not wrong.

As you yourself are in fact arguing just two posts above this.

If it was wrong, why would context matter? Why would the inequality and history matter?

"Historical context" is an argument that is always, present company included, a phrase used to justify the unjustifable.

And when it comes to IPV, women are more frequently violent. I'm sure they think the historical context matters too.

[kcr]

21. You are doing a heap of conflating

And you started it the second you trudged in here with your bogus domestic violence claims, picking it up and hurling it down on the table like a big heavy bag of bricks, and shouting Here it is! I want to hijack this discussion about context with this one study I just love to reference all the time!. No, I don't think violence against men isn't wrong. No one in this thread has, even though they understand the concept of counterbalance. Because it has nothing to do with supporting or advocating violence against men or claiming even one iota that it is okay.

Context and history matter in this particular discussion because the discussion is about whether or not there is a double standard in how violence is portrayed in comedy. Why would you leave that out of the discussion? That would make no sense.

[treestar]

24. It is not like that

Men are the dominant group. You're just ignoring that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Sooo... men are the dominant group, therefore it's funny when women hit them?

You're working from a definition of "dominant" with which I'm unfamiliar.

[treestar]

31. Of course.

Don't the men laugh and say things like "You're cute when you're mad?" Common in comedy to have some little woman punching on some big man and he can afford to laugh at that, can't he?

[AgingAmerican]

28. I've known a few women

...who would dispute that assertion.

[treestar]

23. Wrong but not equally so

Note my example about the "White Entertainment Channel."

[HappyMe]

13. Any violence by either gender against the other gender is plain wrong.

[delta17]

22. The double standard is sexist in itself, though.

The idea is that it is OK for a woman to hit a man, because they are weak and harmless. Men are expected to shrug it off, and any man who overreacts to it is considered a p****.

I saw it a few times as a wrestler in High School. There were a few female wrestlers out there, and some were pretty good. Most guys were terrified of wrestling a girl because if they lost, they would never hear the end of it. Getting pinned by a guy was considered fine as long as you fought hard.

[seabeyond]

33. "OK for a woman to hit a man, because they are weak and harmless. " exactly. nt

[delta17]

35. Just to clarify.

I don't think that women are weak and harmless, just pointing out a common stereotype.

[seabeyond]

37. oh, i agree. i had a brother who a girl hit him. it hurt. it pissed me off. i had an oldest son

where a girl would pinch his ear. it hurt. pissed me off. said something to her about that one.

i hadnt figured why the men were to giggle after the woman slapped them. (this was in programming when young, not so much older). but, it always seemed to be passed off as normal behavior. it always bothered me.

you pointed out why they would respond as they did. i hadnt thought about that

i knew it was tied to their macho, hadnt thought "weak" woman.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Some people are painfully stupid or wilfully blind.

What exactly is it that men are depicted as being stupid ABOUT, in sitcoms and commercials? Domestic chores, usually. "Oh look at Bob failing to properly do the laundry or the ironing or the housework; clearly his wife should just do it because she's so much more clever about these woman things than any man could possibly be." The way male "stupidity" is depicted in sitcoms and in TV commercials? It reinforces traditionally stereotyped gender roles. This isn't any kind of "counterbalancing", at all.

[Squinch]

26. ^^^^ It is meant to make women feel that the crap jobs that fall to them are more important

than they are, and that it is worthwhile for women to do them. It is "allowing" women an area of competence in those jobs that no one really wants to do.

Ads are changing. Right now, many, many ads are popping up that depict men doing housework, so we can compare the attitudes in the ads that say men can do housework with the ads that say men can't do housework.

Those ads that insist that "men can't do housework" depict housework as crucial to the well being of the family, and women need to be smart to do it right.

Those ads in which men are doing housework concentrate on the message that "Housework sucks. No one wants to do it. This product gets it done faster and easier."

[seabeyond]

34. "men are depicted as being stupid ABOUT... Domestic chores, usually" yes. and a lot of men

like propagating this myth that a man cannot wipe a counter cause it serves them well.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

39. If you don't mind my asking, who are you referring to as stupid or blind?

Men are depicted as being stupid about many different things, not just chores or laundry.

[raccoon]

29. IMO it's only in the movies and TV where a woman slaps a man in the face, and of course

he never retaliates in any way.

I expect in RL, if a woman slapped a man in the face, regardless of what the circumstances were, he'd hit her back. In the movies/TV, that wouldn't be funny.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Not true.

Roughly half of relationships with violence are reciprocal. In nonreciprocally violent relationships (one partner is violent toward the other) 70% of the time, it's the woman who is violent to the man who doesn't retaliate.

70% times 50% is 35%. So 35% of all domestic violence is women perpetrating violence on nonretaliatory men.

[seabeyond]

32. it should not be acceptable. back in my day, a slap was suppose to be the woman thing to do and men

were suppose to be ok with it. even chuckle.

thought it horrible way back then

think it is horrible now

see how easy that is.

[AverageJoe90]

40. That may be true.

And I think that many of these were probably quite well-intentioned on the whole, to give women, minorities, etc. the sense of empowerment that they so rightly deserved. But I do think some of these may possibly have backfired, such as the women slapping men being less of a problem than vice versa, etc.(which the MRA dickbags are whining about constantly these days, as part of this make-believe "misandrist" conspiracy).