I know that "crazy" people and drug addicts are funny and everything, and everyone on facebook, Twitter, Gawker and the MSM is having a hilarious field day with the "crazy" things Sheenie has been saying lately, but this man put a knife against his wife's throat and threatened to kill her.
And that's no joke.
Agreed.
Thank you Catchfire, this is exactly what I have been thinking about this who media frenzy.
The other issue (which according to news reports has been addressed today) is his children. Did they see the domestic abuse? Who was caring for them during all of this? Everyone is having a great time laughing at him, while his wife and children are being abused.
The courts appear to be taking this seriously.
Charlie Sheen said Wednesday that after his two young sons were removed from his house overnight, he's "very calm and focused" but ready to fight to get them back.
Interviewed live on NBC's Today show, Sheen said the nearly two-year-old twins, Bob and Max, were removed Tuesday night after a court order was granted to his estranged wife, Brooke Mueller, who is their mother.
Mueller is claiming the youngsters shouldn't be raised in that environment, where Sheen lives with his two "goddess" girlfriends and where partying that Sheen has described as "epic" has taken place.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2011/03/02/sheen-sons-removed.html
The media circus around this is just making me sick. The man is clearly ill. He is manicky has hell, and everyones getting the biggest kick out of watching this unfold. The pundits who follow and report this stuff should be ashamed of themselves.
It is disturbing watching someone who is ill exhibit the behaviour in a ton of public forums. We can all think of other celebrities who have been subjected to the same scrutiny. Although they have always been to some degree, fin de siecle celebrities became even more so public property. We are provided with our circuses. Unfortunately, a far worse job is done at providing bread.
What's most disgusting to me is the kind of pedestal he's been given as this emblem of real manhood. He's a real partyier, a real macho guy, the envy of all of us suckers who can't quite handle that kind of raucousness. His manic behaviour is offered as the limit of masculine behaviour, not its inevitable conclusion. The message is clear: as long as you stop just this short of Charlie Sheen, you're fucking golden, dude.
Not, you know, that this is a man in the thralls of addiction, who abuses his wife and kids, and who has lost grip on reality.
Why is this discussion about charlie sheen in the feminist forum?
It is a a discussion between men, about a man and his addictions.
VAW as a part of this discussion appears to be very far down the line.
It is very hard not to perceive this thread, and its topic, as tokenism, and/or self congratulations/satisfaction by the men discussing it, especially given that the reading audience is basically being told by the posting participants that they themselves are not "like charlie", nor like those who follow and gossip about his actions.
However, giving them the benefit of doubt, I will choose to see their acknowlegement of detrimental effects privileged white male role models have upon men, and thus how it negatively impacts women and society at large, and would ask that they take this awareness out of the extreme examples and into all other aspects of life.
What's most disgusting to me is the kind of pedestal he's been given as this emblem of real manhood. He's a real partyier, a real macho guy, the envy of all of us suckers who can't quite handle that kind of raucousness. His manic behaviour is offered as the limit of masculine behaviour, not its inevitable conclusion. The message is clear: as long as you stop just this short of Charlie Sheen, you're fucking golden, dude.
Not, you know, that this is a man in the thralls of addiction, who abuses his wife and kids, and who has lost grip on reality.
I was interpreting the Charlie Sheen fiasco as being a media-manipulation campaign, to sedate the public in a period of great global unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Wisconsin, et cetera. Every minute the MSM is discussing Sheen is a minute that they're not discussing issues of critical importance.
I think your analysis is interesting too. I hadn't connected the dots, but you're right, there was the exact same BS with Mel Gibson, when we as a society focused on everything that was wrong with the situation except for the domestic violence, which was background information. I think in that case as well, I only found out about the media's duplicity by going to the left-wing intellectual enclave that is babble.
As far as masculinity is considered, in general prime-time television promotes an extremely warped normative view of masculinity. Two and a Half Men is an example of this, and its cancellation may end up being good news for the sociological portrayal of men. Off the top of my head I cannot think of many broadcast, prime-time, american TV show which had a useful image of masculinity, the only two that come to mind are Sarah Connor Chronicles (two females in the three lead characters) and Vampire Diaries (apparently written by gay men).
Why is this discussion about charlie sheen in the feminist forum?
VAW as a part of this discussion appears to be very far down the line.
The article I linked to addressed this in part.
It is very hard not to perceive this thread, and its topic, as tokenism, and/or self congratulations/satisfaction by the men discussing it, especially given that the reading audience is basically being told by the posting participants that they themselves are not "like charlie", nor like those who follow and gossip about his actions.
However, giving them the benefit of doubt, I will choose to see their acknowlegement of detrimental effects privileged white male role models have upon men, and thus how it negatively impacts women and society at large, and would ask that they take this awareness out of the extreme examples and into all other aspects of life.
That is incredibly gracious of you.
Yes, I thought so too, especially now, given your response to my correct observations that this is hardly being discussed from a feminist POV, nor is it even about VAW. Nor about sexism and patriarchy and its impacts on women in every day life.
So....what I got back, in the feminist forum, from my women orientated observation was more elitist patriarchy.
Why is this discussion about charlie sheen in the feminist forum?It is a a discussion between men, about a man and his addictions.
VAW as a part of this discussion appears to be very far down the line.
It is very hard not to perceive this thread, and its topic, as tokenism, and/or self congratulations/satisfaction by the men discussing it, especially given that the reading audience is basically being told by the posting participants that they themselves are not "like charlie", nor like those who follow and gossip about his actions.
I'm sorry you feel this way, remind. The thread title is a direct quote from a feminist friend of mine, and I thought it prudent to start a thread as a tonic to the awful mainstream coverage Sheen's antics have been getting. There are loads of jokes going around the interwebs at the "expense" of Sheen which minimize, efface and make light of his acts of violence. rabble/babble exists to counter that, that's why I started this thread. I'm sorry you don't agree.
Have no issue with the thread title, and indeed looked back at my posts to see if I even mentioned the thread title, and I did not, my observations are merely about how the topic is being addressed here and by whom.
It cannot be tonic if it is not addressed from a VAW standpoint in the feminist forum.
I think is is very fair to discuss Charlie's disease and how said disease is impacted by patriarchy and privilege, I would just rather it not be in the feminist forum unless done so from a feminist VAW POV..
The title does not reflect the content of the thread in other words. Or should I say the content does not reflect the title or forum positioning mandates?
For me the most IMPORTANT issue is a woman getting beaten or threatened, not the content of excuses, or illness, surrounding the man. And that is because it is in the feminist forum.
Really tired of everything always being about the man, or men, with the woman playing the minor role.
Remind,
I've seen threads before that were posted out of the FF and other posters then claimed they should have been posted in the FF. A lot of threads could in fact be posted in multiple different forums, this one could legitimately be in the the media forum, or the body and soul forum (addiction issues). Perhaps one day the forum moderators will allow threads to be cross-posted on additional forums.
Catchfire's point, I think, was that the domestic abuse aspect of Sheen's behavior is receiving less attention than the other negative aspects, even though it is not less bad.
There is absolutely nothing new in the reality of domestic violence receiving less attention, it always does, and indeed this thread is a good representation of that societal reality. Which again is my point.
The content did not follow the thread title or topic, it became about charlie sheen's illness and the media. Plus some other gobbly gook. Immediately. Change the channel on the reality of hate crimes against women is the automatic response, seemingly everywhere.
And babble cannot be a tonic to the msm when it is essentially doing the same damn thing, catchfire's good intentions nothwithstanding.
is it surprising though? has the media ever taken these issues seriously? Plus we're talking here not just about the press but also the "entertainment" media like tmz and entertainment tonight. Not exactly a bastion of serious debate.
We know the media is more interested in providing entertainment as opposed to news or commentary. We know people seem to have a big appetite for reading BS celebrity gossip or non-stories like the baloon boy or a wedding in the UK.
Also, do we think for a second that the media, which is a major component of the "star system" and promotes sexist ideas to sell their products, be it TV, movies, cars, insurance, toothpaste, etc, is going to make an issue out of something that they profit from? Of course not!
Remind: i got the impression that this thread was not really inviting discussion but just pointing out the fact that while everyone is consumed by the latest crazy charlie sheen quote (featured prominently on cbc, national post today) there is something way more serious here that is not being mentioned or talked about and we should be reminded (no pun intended) of that. And perhaps this is due to the anonymity of the web, but i thought that both catchfire and caissa were women!
Thanks guys, for all the mansplaining, couldn't quite understand society and all this media supported VAW on my own....no fuckin wonder women come here very infrequently these days.
Why is this discussion about charlie sheen in the feminist forum?
It is a a discussion between men, about a man and his addictions.
VAW as a part of this discussion appears to be very far down the line.
It is very hard not to perceive this thread, and its topic, as tokenism, and/or self congratulations/satisfaction by the men discussing it, especially given that the reading audience is basically being told by the posting participants that they themselves are not "like charlie", nor like those who follow and gossip about his actions.
However, giving them the benefit of doubt, I will choose to see their acknowlegement of detrimental effects privileged white male role models have upon men, and thus how it negatively impacts women and society at large, and would ask that they take this awareness out of the extreme examples and into all other aspects of life.
Respectfully, I must disagree. This is an important discussion, made all the more relevent because men are engaged.
In every meeting, discussion, workshop or candlelight vigil I've attended, the active participation of men in the whole conversation about violence against women has been stressed as vital to effectively dealing with the issue.
I read through this thread a couple of times, and at no point did I get any sense of self-satisfaction or see the use of self-congratulatory language. Quite the opposite actually.
Charlie Sheen's behavior isn't an extreme example. It's a reality too many women and children live with, without the benefit of financial resources, access to affordable legal representation and a media spotlight. Sheen's actions have just been made highly visible because the guy's a famous actor. And because the media loves nothing better than exploiting a famous person's domestic drama to boost their ad revenues.
remind. i'm sorry that there are some males who want to talk about the media and it's relationship to violence against women, or are interested in talking about issues that affect women. How else are men supposed to come to an understanding of these issues if not by discussion and debate.
Even if it is at times uninformed, seems the best thing to do would be to help them understand as opposed to condemning them for discussing it in the first place.
perhaps if you contributed more than just derision to other posters or policing the threads for perceived infractions and either started a thread of your own, engaged in a substantive debate within the thread already started or tried to change the topic to what you feel is more important, things might improve? to me it just seems like you're often looking to start a fight with people on the board.
Well rebecca, we will have to agree to disagree, as I see their words as being different than your interpretation of their words and presence in this thread.
Not denying that men need to be involved, I just do not see that sort of allied commitment based upon the focus shift to Charlie's illness. To me that is a denial that all men are complicit in upholding patriarchy, and it is not an illness that caused him to do this. The msm is always making excuses or trivializing acts of hate against women, and I saw just that happening here with the ensuing discussion by the men..
I noted above that I believe catchfire's heart was in the correct place in his starting it. I just do not believe that is where it went.
Anyhow am done with participating in this thread, it just is not worth it for my own safety sake.
Milo, XCX##YN&%EDRC*U&RTGJI(IJKLGT&^&*()()UHJK
Remind ,the mansplainin was pretty lame and I agree with how you've observed the thread. I miss your voice on babble and I'm sick of the white-maleness of it all. We have to carry on these battles forever, it seems and you're a great inspiration to me.
Sometimes, as a white, privileged, male, I get lulled into thinking we're doing something. Most here are caught up in electoral politics and couldn't give a damn about shiite like this.
I see where you're coming from and wish more folks would see it.
That said, Caissa sure seems to get away with baiting remind in the feminist forum. After complaints by the same about moderation in other threads.
milo204, have you ever thought about putting the shoe on the other foot?
absolutely. It's what brings me to think about these kinds of issues and want to participate in discussions about them! I agree with remind that the msm routinely refuses to talk about these issues and shoves them under the rug/defends/promotes minimizing the extent of domestic abuse.
Which is why i think that it's entirely appropriate to start a thread that simply reminds us that while everyone is getting a kick out of his latest quotes and hijinks he's in reality an abuser who held a knife to his wife's throat.
That said, Caissa sure seems to get away with baiting remind in the feminist forum. After complaints by the same about moderation in other threads.
I simply answered her questions. I am extremely concerned that she feels she needs to stay out of this thread for her safety's sake. That said her personal attacks and questions re. the propriety of the thread being in the feminist forum might have been best addressed in Rabble Reactions.
She raises an interesting question: Is there one or several feminist AVW POV re. mental illness?
The media circus around this is just making me sick. The man is clearly ill. He is manicky as hell...
Exactly my thoughts, oldgoat, and I have seen some buzz about this on other message boards, people saying, "I'm a mental health professional, and this man clearly has bipolar disorder and requires treatment, not ridicule." The grandiosity, free association, pressured speech.
If a wealthy celebrity can't get proper psychiatric treatment, who can?
Men with psychiatric illnesses are a major cause of women being abused and living in poverty. The care needs to be two-pronged, addressing the psychiatric needs of the man, and helping the women and kids with their poverty and trauma. Substance abuse treatment is also frequently required - you can't really separate all these problems into separate jurisdictions, as you have to treat all these things together.
There are multiple issues at work here, any of which, in isolation, may be construed as belonging in other threads. I've opened a thread in rabble reactions, where anyone who wishes to discuss how to handle pluralistic threads, can do so without causing drift here.
Regardless, please keep in mind the mandate of the FF as you discuss the varied bits and pieces of the Charlie issue.
