Print

Print


(Sorry for posting a subject heading with no text just now . . .)
 
My chief objection to John's posts on the issue of domestic violence is that
the majority of them seem to reflect a discursive level of
violence that's aimed at inflaming -- rather than furthering --
an intelligent discussion of this topic.  I'm sick of the flames on
Screen-L, and I find these particular flames dangerous and distorted.
I believe this is a "film and TV studies *discussion* list," if
the list header is anything to go by.
 
Like Donna, like Missy, nothing in my own experience or in my research
of domestic abuse (both of which have been considerable) has led me to
the conclusion that men suffer abuse at the hands of women more frequently
than women do at the hands of men.  That men *do* suffer in such ways
is certainly true, and true, incidents of this sort *do* go largely go
unreported.  This is a problem.  That it is as prevalent or as widespread
a problem as domestic violence against women is, simply, untrue.  To
represent it otherwise is misleading, irresponsible, and, in the
case of John's private and public posts, ugly.  It's a mindset that's
right on up there with the position that, because it is possible
to document some claims of child sexual abuse or incest as false, the
problem itself does not exist and the "victims" we really need to be
focusing on are those who have been accused.
 
Could we get back to the subject heading at hand -- the role that the media
is playing in a purported case of domestic violence?
 
Fair warning:  Donna prefers to delete any messages she gets from John.  A
reasonable choice.  I will forward to the list at large any similar
personal posts I may receive from the same source, as part of the ongoing
debate.
 
Alison McKee
Department of Film and Television
UCLA
[log in to unmask]