We love to watch women suffer. Being women, they do it so beautifully...

[Nightfable]

Ok, I've just read this article while I was googling for news about the little missing girl Madeleine Mccann and I nearly fell out of my chair. Do people really feel this way about women suffering?

I'll be honest, I myself do love reading a book or watching a program that has a female hero going through hardships and obstacles and somehow overcoming them (e.g. Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind) but does that mean I unconsciously relish in violence against women? Does that make me a bad person for it?

I'm not sure how to feel about this...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2903281.ece?ILC-EVYcomments&ATTR=HRBlue

[Dualnames]

I don't reckon it makes you a bad person. I want to see women do stuff...that makes me a pervor and a little weirdo.

[Radiant]

That's a load of opinionated bull.

People love watching other people suffer, period. It's called schadenfreude. Yes, admit it, funniest home videos and celeb scandals and Darwin Awards are fun to many. And yes, thinking so makes (nearly) everybody a (slightly) bad person - but whether the suffering person is male or female is, to most people, irrelevant.

[mchammer]

hero going through hardships and obstacles and somehow overcoming them

Can't you find this plot from every book/movie/serie. 

[Nightfable]

That's a load of opinionated bull.

People love watching other people suffer, period. It's called schadenfreude.

Ahhh... yes, I see. But if you've have to choose between a female or a male going through some hardships, wouldn't most rather see the female than the male? Don't they show more women victim in the show CSI than men?

I just thought the article was eye-opening.

By the way it took me almost 30 minutes to write back because I can't find the right words to explain what I think, that's what happens when your English isn't your first language.

hero going through hardships and obstacles and somehow overcoming them

Can't you find this plot from every book/movie/serie. 

I know, but I meant women in this case.

[Radiant]

Ahhh... yes, I see. But if you've have to choose between a female or a male going through some hardships, wouldn't most rather see the female than the male?

Well, yes, because if the target audience is women, then showing women will make them commiserate more; whereas if the target audience is men, the winning combination is schadenfreude plus boobies.

I mean, why do you think they invented cheerleaders? The one thing that's got to be better than watching sport, is watching sport and boobies. Predictable, no?

If psychology doesn't make you laugh, it's bound to make you cry.

[mchammer]

Ahhh... yes, I see. But if you've have to choose between a female or a male going through some hardships, wouldn't most rather see the female than the male? Don't they show more women victim in

Well.. kinda yes,
but at least for me it's not because I'd love to see women suffer. I just feel more sympathy towards women than men. But i dont know if that's because im a man myself.

Btw I just red Alexandre Dumas Jr's Camille. Great book and fits well to topic 

[Stupot]

I don't think I particularly prefer seeing women suffer over men.
I love watching skating cock-ups.

There is some strange sympathy a man feels when seeing another man bang his bollocks.  We can almost feel the pain ourselves and we feel a sense of brotherhood with the sufferer, but as well as the sympathy it is also one of the most hilarious things to witness.  It's beautiful.

Although I didnt appreciate my sister laughing when it happened to me... but if another guy had been there laughing at me I probably would have laughed along with them even though I was in agony.

[Tuomas]

I think I'd rather see the woman survive rather than tortured. But alas, the survival often requires some preparations. Now thinking of it, I truly don't realise that I've ever paid attention in the difficulties the women experience in the movies mentioned or in the stories I've heard/read.

However, on second thought, I really love Dostoevsky's books, and he most often has a strong female character in them, like Natasya in The Idiot. I might suppose it's got something to do with how a woman is often related to maternity, which then brings strong bonds and feelings. That, and it is possible, that most people who are there to analyse this and then giving their opinions are in fact men. And I have a hard time emphatising with another, unknown man, except for certain, great stories or performances or even happenings.

[Dowland]

Careful, Buffy, on the contrary, was not an archetype of a weak, victimized woman. Buffy was actually a *strong* woman who, while retaining her femininity, fought off incredible odds. That was novel and incredibly on TV, where women are rarely presented as anything but supporting characters or bubbling mess. Only show coming close to that was Veronica Mars--a tough, attractive blond, who manages to face the (very) difficult odds stacked against her and prevail.


Our society is very normative (as discussed in that previous post about "am I asocial"): that means heteronormative, priviledging white people, ... but also extremely sexist. It is not normal, that important founding documents throughout the world state laws in terms of men (the declaration of independence says "all men are created equal", etc., etc.) ... of course progress has been made. Women can vote. We have a woman presidential candidate in the US (and a woman chancellor in Deutschland) ... but things are also very much the same.

I disagree that "we like to see women suffer because they look good doing it". I think the correct way to see it is, "we have not accepted that women are entitled to the same responsibilities, privileges as men"; society, to a degree, does not widely accept that women can be strong, that women can be successful.

(I don't think "CSI victims" is at all part of this phenomena---more plausibly, women are more prone to physical aggressions, because they are, on average, physically weaker then men.)


For instance, I don't know who watches much TV, but strong female leads are extremely rare. From Ally McBeal, where all the women where depicted either as airheads or dominatrix (Ling) ... to today, with Grey's Anatomy. In Grey's Anatomy, the character of Addison Shepard was initially introduced as a strong, confident and successful neonatal specialist. But the strength of her success antagonized viewers, and a lot considered her a bitch. That is why, to make the character more likeable, she has been made increasingly ditzier and clumsier ... Now the character that is getting her own show, Private Practice, is not at all the character that was first introduced. I find it terrible that this strong character had to be dumbbed down to be likeable.

That is sexism, and that is what the article is talking about.

Others example include Paris Hilton, and her friend. Of course she has acted like a spoiled brat, but I don't know how I would react if I had so much pressure for the media--so many people, tabloids, who live on my mistakes. When she was prosecuted for drunk driving, she was not treated fairly. On the base that she was not prosecuted enough, she had to go through an overly tough prosecution, and sentence.

Where is the male equivalent? Am I to believe that male stud celebrities don't get drunk? Don't get rawdy?

And next to that, real (male) crooks, who actually do destroy lives, such a Scooter Libby, get a jail free card.

Finally, Hillary, yes, she is getting agressed because she is a shadowy candidate, with some contestable views (and some very unclear views), for an office that has already been too corrupted ... but it's also because she is the first woman candidate (which is, of itself, terrible for the so called first democracy), because the odds are against her, because a lot of people are not ready to see a woman succeed that much. See John Edwards' comments about her skirt; John McCain laughing at a supporter calling her a bitch.

Yes, this society, for all its progress, is still incredibly sexist, and biased against successful women. But no, I don't think it's because they "look good suffering", or because we "enjoy seeing them suffer". I feel like strong women threaten a lot of men--men, who feel like those women are going after their jobs, or something, I don't know ... (and, no, please, nobody tell me that a strong woman is a turn on, because a lot of men say that in private, but are in truth not prepared to be governed by a woman).

[Radiant]

(and, no, please, nobody tell me that a strong woman is a turn on, because a lot of men say that in private, but are in truth not prepared to be governed by a woman).

Well, if that is the case, then America seriously needs to grow up, because most European countries have been ruled by a queen or two throughout history.

[Dowland]

Monarchies are different in two ways:

* first the queens are usually highly symbolical leaders; in England today, while there is a Queen, the political responsibilities, and day to day governing, fall on the Prime Minister (who, granted, serves at the pleasure of HM) ... in other countries, it might be a viceroy, or a chancellor, etc.;

* second the queens did not gain their position through success--they have generally not earned it through hard work, etc., it is a charge that they carry through blood, and hence they are not threatening, because it is not a position that could've been "gained" any other way.

Of course, there have been leaders such as Margaret Thatcher ... but they are the exception. And one might argue that Margaret Thatcher was not allowed to "retain much of her femininity".

[Radiant]

Monarchies are different in two ways:

I am aware of that, but since the point is not "women's ability to govern" but "American men's uneasy feelings towards having a woman at the top of the pyramid", the point still stands.

[Dowland]

Monarchies are different in two ways:

I am aware of that, but since the point is not "women's ability to govern" but "American men's uneasy feelings towards having a woman at the top of the pyramid", the point still stands.

Agreed, but it's "men's uneasy feelings towards having a woman *climb* to the top of the pyramid". The difference is between a woman getting there on her own, and woman being installed there through rules established by men (the rules of that monarchy, the blood of a royal family). And the rationalization that, women are at the top, but in a insulated bubble that does not influence the world of men so much.

This sexism is certainly not restricted to America (granted there is a good deal of backwards thinking there). And why the anti American feeling? Did you see the mud-slinging that occurred in France, when a woman was the primary candidate of the socialist party?

[ildu]

Ahhh... yes, I see. But if you've have to choose between a female or a male going through some hardships, wouldn't most rather see the female than the male?

I don't even know how to answer that, really. It has never even crossed my mind that I'd get any kick out of watching people suffer. If were talking about glossy american tv shows, I think it's the overcoming of something rather than the suffering itself that we like. Anyway, suffering is relative and unmeasurable. Is it mental, physical or some other kind of suffering? Is the pleasure we get sexual, empathetic, or what? Or is it just interest, and getting involved in someone else's story, because we identify with it? I certainly don't get any kick from watching the lead actors in Requiem for a Dream suffering, but I still regard the movie as interesting, because it tells a story of the dark side of reality. I don't get any perverted pleasure from watching people stumbling on America's Funniest Home Videos, and I wouldn't call that suffering either. It's such a broad spectrum that I would wag my finger at anyone who makes such a simplistic argument as the author of this article does.

Are Americans waiting on the edge of their seats for Hillary to screw up? Perhaps. Is she being bullied by 'all the guys' just because she's a woman? No, she's being bullied like any presidential front-runner would be, when it's getting closer to the actual election. People seem to forget that she is currently the most likely candidate to become president in 2008. Even the cordial Obama is taking his gloves off to get some leverage on the polls.

[Becky]

(and, no, please, nobody tell me that a strong woman is a turn on, because a lot of men say that in private, but are in truth not prepared to be governed by a woman)

You don't need to govern men to be a strong woman.

Edited to remove stupidity.

[Dowland]

Are Americans waiting on the edge of their seats for Hillary to screw up? Perhaps. Is she being bullied by 'all the guys' just because she's a woman? No, she's being bullied like any presidential front-runner would be, when it's getting closer to the actual election. People seem to forget that she is currently the most likely candidate to become president in 2008. Even the cordial Obama is taking his gloves off to get some leverage on the polls.

Agreed that, to a degree, Hillary is being debated agressively, because she is the most likely candidate. But some of the attacks, she gets because she is a woman. Edwards was talking about her skirt--I don't think any candidate would dream about talking about the pants of another candidate. Furthermore ... she is often referred to by her first name; whereas the men are referred to by their last name. Of course, you could say that this is because of Bill Clinton, her husband. But since he has completely left politics (as a candidate to various positions, I mean) ... then talking about "Clinton" would naturally evoke Hillary Clinton, in any context. You can of course argue that this is unimportant ... but sexism is not necessarily calling women bitches, it's also a small, accumulations of slights. Most of them involuntary. (Which makes them all the more awful.)

[Dowland]

You don't need to govern men to be a strong woman.

Becky agreed, and I completely walked into that one: what I meant was, I sometimes hear men telling me, "No, you're wrong, I think a strong woman is incredibly sexy." *wink* ... when they do not realize that they actually would have a problem, in a real life situation, to be subordinate of a woman. I chose the example of leader, because of Hillary, and how she was discussed in the article, but of course, you do not need to be a presidential candidate (or vampire hunter) to be a strong woman. :-)

Sorry for my unclear phrasing ...

[Becky]

Again, just because a woman is a "strong woman" doesn't mean she orders about men.  I consider myself a strong woman, I would not let myself be subordinated, but I do not subordinate my boyfriend.  You can have equal relationships...

[Dowland]

Again I am sorry Becky if I've made it seemed like all strong women have to order men around. That is not what I am saying. What I said was men who say (who think) they are turned on by strong women, sometimes have strong feelings against those strong women that they are subordinated to (or would have strong feelings against women they would be subordinated to). This is an implication, not an equivalence. I am not saying all strong women subordinate men.

But that is not really the problem. When I say subordinate, I do not mean in a affective relationship (such as that with your boyfriend), but in a professional relationship (a boss who's a woman, etc.). And again, this has not prevented women from climbing the ladder. This has prevented them from climbing the ladder with as much as ease as men.

On another point ... men are not the only proponents of sexism. As witnessed by the John McCain supporter debacle, not all women are for advancing the cause!!