"The series attaches a certain sense of empowerment to unconventional behavior — like infidelity — and it defies the standards of pop-cultural feminism by refusing to solicit our sympathies for women obviously in trouble."

This was clearly written by someone who either didn't watch the infidelity episode or had an agenda before seeing it. IMO Secret lives allows women to tell their story, their way and the view to draw their own conclusions. The infidelity episode had women who were happy with their decision, women who were unhappy with their decision, the impact their decision had on subsequent relationships and the impact the decision had on current spouses.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the producers/ directors didn't have a slant (they do choose the guests after all), but they don't interfere with the way a woman tells her story. If allowing a woman to explain her life, her way is bad...well...we still have a long way to go.

I have it in my living will that if I ever do voluntarily watch one of these shows, anybody may terminate my existence with extreme prejudice for a $3.50 bounty.

As an avid fan of The Bad Girls Club, I think I can vouch for everyone involved when I say that it is definitely not feminist.

Every time I flip through the channels there is a Snapped marathon on Lifetime. I've watched several episodes, and it's really irritating hearing the snide tones of the woman who does the voiceover. The whole fetishizing of "women who kill" is pretty sad, especially considering that statistically the vast majority of all murders are committed by men.

Don't get me wrong, the "woman in distress" movies that Lifetime used to play were ridiculous, too. But I don't see them as feminist by any stretch of the term. Woman as victim of sexy and often pornographic violence is a common staple of fiction that certainly wasn't invented by Lifetime. The solicitation of sympathy for the "female in distress" trope is as old as the hills.

I wonder if this article's author will consider the upcoming film "Captivity" (or whatever it's called) a celebration of victimhood.

I watch the "Secret Lives of Women" and I actually like the show alot. It looks at women in different lifestyles, something which is rarely shown on TV. Whether you agree with the lifestyle these women have or not, it's nice to see women who don't just fill a media stereotype.

Surely shows like this really and/or also intend to provoke the sort of indignation with which my mom used to watch the "bad woman" characters on soaps rather than acceptance, let alone celebration, of "abberant" women? That wouldn't be subverting the judgment that comes from "pop-culture feminism" (or even conventional values), but strengthening it. Obviously I don't watch the shows. But I don't see empowerment in flipping from the abused Cinderella type to the soulless murderess anymore than I did in seeing roles for women limited to virgin or whore. (Will women on TV ever get to be people?)

Also, when we're bombarded constantly with the notion of obesity as a "disease," are we really supposed to accept anorexia as a "lifestyle"?

Lee, I find your callous attitude towards partner abuse disturbing. I know women who have been in that situation, and it's insulting to say that they should've just left. It's not always that easy. In theory, yes, you leave as soon as someone lays a hand on you. In practice, I know women who've had their children or family members threatened. How many people want that on their conscience? And police still don't take domestic abuse or stalking seriously enough to really protect those victims, and their abusers know it.

People I know and love have nearly died from the beatings they've taken at the hands of an abuser, so I support the "justifiable homicide" classification for women who kill their abusive husbands. Are there other ways? Yes, of course there are. But most victims of abuse have been groomed to where they don't believe anyone will help them, it's part of the abuser's psychological control over them.

“In the US especially - there are massive numbers and amounts of programs for a woman to take advantage of and leave her husband or partner.�
Really Lee? Please educate us about those programs, because you clearly know a lot more about them that we do.

Lee, I also find your attitude rather offensive and disturbing. There are many reasons why women don't leave, and a lot of them have to do with people like yourself who blame victims instead of the abusers.

As for the idea that there is a culture of celebrating victimhood . . . it sounds like someone has been reading WAY too much Camille Paglia and not paying nearly enough attention to the real world. The day I'll celebrate is the day that women will not disproportionately have a victimhood to speak of.

Actually, there aren't a massive number of programs for abused women in the US. It might seem like it, but relative to the number of women who need help, it's quite a small number.
I used to volunteer for a program that serves abused women and their children. While they did fantastic, important work, they were only able to serve 1/3 of the women who needed their services (due to lack of funds, space).

Lee's like a little cockroach who scampers into the conversation whenever we condemn violence against women. Speaking about the problem means we're "playing victims." (Kind of like how speaking about HIV/AIDS is "playing an AIDS patient.")
We should show our support by shutting up, dontcha know?

Lee, I love how you know so much better than abused people do. It's easy for you to say that you'd walk away if your wife hit you. I doubt you'd be in fear of your life if she did.

Explain to me again how easy it is to walk away from an abusive husband when he (and previous bad relationships) has spent so much time convincing you that you're not worth better treatment, that this is normal, that your reactions are your fault and not a result of his actions, that you can't survive on your own (and maybe financially you can't), that he's the only one who'll ever want you despite your horrific faults, that the times he's good to you ought to outweigh the times he's abusive, and that this is really the best that someone like you could expect.

It's a constant psychological barrage, with the good times doing as much damage as the bad ones. It's difficult, if not sometimes impossible, to see beyond your current situation, and planning any kind of escape becomes a kind of mental torture. The physical assaults are bad, but sometimes they do less long-term damage than the emotional and psychological ones.

How do I know this? Because I was married to a psychologically, emotionally, and physically abusive man. I got out, but it took me five years of marriage (and two dating). I'm still recovering from the psychological after-effects, which display themselves in many ways, including low self-esteem, distrust in my decision making, and the occasional self-destructive behavior.

I have a good man now, one who loves and values me and knows how to treat a woman. And I have a hell of a time convincing myself that I deserve him, or that kind of good treatment.

I can speak about partner abuse with some authority because I've experienced it and the long-term damage that it can do. From what authority do you speak?

Here's a fun little stat I came across while researching a paper back in college, Lee. Since the 1970's, there has been a marked DECREASE in the incidence of spousal murder when the wife is the killer and the husband the victim. As women gain more access to leave abusive relationships without physical or economic repurcussions, they are less likely to resort to murder to escape. In the meantime, there has been no equal reduction in the spousal murders of wives by their husbands. All of these stats are readily available via the Bureau of Justice Statistics, if you want to educate yourself. That's where I originally found them.

Lee, have you read anything at all on the subject of threat assessment? An abused woman is in more danger after she leaves her partner. So, no, she can't just leave: she has to disappear. She cannot risk having him track her and her children down.

Imagine what kind of time and preparation it would take to vanish from the lives of the people around you, while keeping this a secret from those you share a house with. Now imagine doing it when your partner is the one controlling all the household finances.

Not so quick and easy, is it?

Oh boy does this drive me mad. No-one "chooses" victimhood. You become a victim when someone else does something awful to you. You choose to become an abuser, a rapist, a murderer, but the victim can't be said to have chosen any such thing. Anyway we all know that women can't be victims of sexual violence ... not when we enjoy it so much!

http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/2007/05/newspaper-pulp.html

From what authority do you speak?

Well that's easy: he's a man!

No, I meant real authority. Not that bullshit "let's make happy assumptions about people who's lives are nothing like anything I've ever experienced" crap.

I just...I can't explain to you how angry it makes me when people say things like he's said. If you've never been there, you can't imagine how bad it can get. And I got off easy on the physical side. Even with all I've gone through, I have a hard time imagining how bad it can be for other women who's husbands are more free with their fists (or feet, or guns, or rocks, or walls...).

Lee just has no idea, and it's appalling and disgusting that he feels free to judge people like that.

Yes, he has no idea, Kimmy. You explain so well the forces that keep one in place. Thank you for putting yourself on the line. I agree that it is appalling and disgusting and infuriating that people can make categorical statements like his. I don't know if it's airheadedness, denial, a desire to maintain the status quo or to protect manhood in general, or what, but I sure know there's a total lack of empathy there and a simplemindedness.

Back on topic- I love Snapped, for the same reasons I watch endless amounts of Court TV. I have always found murder to be fascinating, and I think Snapped offers some insight- especially how some of the women are actually interviewed- most Forensic Files and Cold Case shows don't interview the killer.

Switching gears, I read that NYT article, and I didn't arrive at the same interpretation as Vanessa. When the author mentioned "celebrations of victimhood," what immediately came to my mind were the exploitative Lifetime movies that made a sort of porn out of the abused/stalked wife/coed finally seeks revenge -- like that Farrah Fawcett movie a long time ago (the title escapes me). I always felt the violence was eroticized and lurid, and the empowerment of the victim was sensationalized or just sort of tacked on perfunctorily. In other words, the fetishized victimhood was meant to be the draw, rather than the empowerment.

I also didn't get the impression that the NYT reporter thinks that shifting the focus to sociopathic women is necessarily a better option. The article made the point that most women who murder their husbands do so as a result of DV, and that the show doesn't address that. Maybe it was wishful thinking on my part, but I didn't think the article was so much endorsing as just describing Snapped & its approach to portraying women. That last quote does note that the women are "obviously in trouble," which I think indicates that the writer believes something is missing in the Snapped producers' worldview.

I dunno, my take is that such a shift is just the other side of a sexist coin: either a woman is a sexualized victim or a crazy femme fatale. Again, could be me just seeing what I want to, but I didn't find anything in the NYT's tone to indicate that the reporter didn't feel the same way.

Gaaahhh! I tried to stop from posting, because I thought, "Hey, I should go reread that article first," but too late! So, I stand by my 1st paragraph, but I'm not as attached to my second 2, and can see that I was reading more than was actually there. That said, I still don't know that Gina Bellafante (the author) was endorsing Oxygen's "bad girls" approach or just noting that it has raised ratings for whatever reason.

Oh, and the Farrah Fawcett movie was The Burning Bed, I think.

I've seen a couple episodes of "Snapped" and it's never failed to piss me off. It may not be true of all of them, but in the two episodes I saw, the husband was portrayed as a kind, supportive, doting, "perfect" husband and father whom the "snapped" wife callously offs because she wants all his money and/or is cheating on him.
So I'd say all the show does is swap one negative stereotype for another. Gee, would I rather be a punching bag or an golddigging slut? Decisions, decisions...

I agree about the freak-show part, but women's television is ABSOLUTELY about victimhood! All you have to do is watch two minutes of any Lifetime movie to see they are all stories based on women's weaknesses, women being overpowered by and/or saved by men, women falling apart in a crisis... They're definitely not making a move in a positive direction, but "women's programming" is already silly and sexist.