Jennifer Lopez's Violent, Anti-Male Music Video 'Do It Well'
February 29th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
In the music video "Do It Well," singer Jennifer Lopez packs all of the following into a 3 minute, 17 second video:
She pushes a man down a flight of stairs
She kicks a man in the head
She wraps a man's arm behind his back and shoves him
She hits a man in the head (twice)
She kicks a man
She throws a man
She pushes a man over a stairway railing, and he flips back head first.
The video is considerably more violent than Carrie Underwood's anti-male Before He Cheats, which was bad enough.
To watch the video, click here. Thanks to JC, a reader, for sending it.
"));
19 queries. 0.434 seconds.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Didn't she star is some misandrist, Men-are-evil-stalkers movie where she beats the crap out of her abusive ex, all to save her poor innocent child from the bad man?
February 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Feminist marketing sells. In America, it's entertainming to watch violence against men. If the roles where reversed and a woman was struck...
Jennifer Lopez, 39 years old, married three times, has two children.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000182/bio
February 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
She has a little boy at a depraved sex club, too. Quality.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
This is the kind of mutli-layered cultural artifact that I appreciate!
First of all, it is a wonderful illustration of feminist "raunch culture...." displaying a supposedly powerful independent and violent woman who is also a quasi-porn star sex object .... celebrating her liberated sexuality by being violent.
How original, right?
Lots of half-naked gay men dancing around her. Hmmmm? What's up with that?
The song's lyrics are incoherent, but seem to be about her complaint that she can't make it with the supremely macho guy she is attracted to....
At the end of the video, she rescues a little boy who is portrayed as some kind of kitchen slave.
The last few frames are Lopez kicking a guy over a stairway banister (presumably a 15 foot fall) and then poutily walking up the stairs with the waif she has rescued.
When did all the feminist psychology majors start writing MTV video scripts?
This is some deep .... s*%t!
February 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I couldn't take her or the plot in her 'men are stalker-batterer's movie' she starred in a few years back. I felt a bit sorry for Mark Anthony when he married her, and sensed that Ben Affleck (sp?) escaped her apparent domination.
Mike
February 29th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
She is angry because she has to accept the mistakes she has made in her life concerning her lack of comportment, dignity, chastity, purity et al and rather than taking responsibilty and admiting what she is and what she has done, she will first mentally justify her innocence by foisting the guilt upon a man or men then articulate that in words, then song and to boot, she knows that she has an opportunity to monetarily capitalize upon it. Considering the world we live in, she sees nothing wrong with that. What a pity for her and the world.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Who let that feral cat out of her cage? Is this the kind of behavior that young women aspire to? These are some very sad times. In the not too distant "what were they thinking" future this artifact will be proof of why it all came down. A Shera like that doesn't need a macho man. What she needs is a good hosing down with a fire hose. I'm glad I was never a fan of J-Lo.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Jennifer Lopez hasn't been called "J-Ho" for nothing. She's typical of the man-hating feminists ruining our society, who will turn it into a land of chaos, violence and death for the benefit of the banking and corporate elite. I can't imagine why any man would want to have anything to do with the likes of her, she sold herself out to the almighty dollar.
Taras
February 29th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Stephen,
A feral cat is the farthest thing from what J-Lo has become.
"Feral" means wild and free.
Ms. Lopez is a total corporately controlled commodity.
Not to get all neo-Marxist up in here, but really.
She could not write a single authentic expression in a song lyric, even if Bob Dylan was her boyfriend!
February 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
My cats can sing better than Jennifer Lopez can....... You're right Stephen, calling her a feral cat is a compliment!
Taras
February 29th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
As far as I can tell, the video depiction is a fantasy, the fantasy that many American women have: instead of just robbing a man blind using children as a justification, the new American woman is glorified for beating the man physically for having been interested in fathering, albeit the fantasy is not that the man is fathering, but rather abusing and enslaving the children.
As art, it is a reflection of what is already here.
I believe that it is a powerful tool for the Family Rights Movement in that it really shows today's female culure as it is. With J Lo's viewership, this will touch billions of viewers.
The wolf of female violence will no longer be able to hide in sheep's clothing.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I must be getting old. I don't get it at all. (But I do like roy's analysis.)
The curious thing is that the men are not obviously bad guys. Even James Bond has to have an actual reason to beat the crap out of someone, not just because he's pissed.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
There is no such thing as misandry to some people. This is called "empowerment."
Pretend the radical feminists are correct and that males are the oppressor class (I say "pretend" because that is utter crap) -- but even if that were true, why does this society seem to relish the idea of women "getting back at" innocent men who presumably have never personally oppressed women? If a slave in 1855 killed innocent white people who never owned slaves and who were not oppressive to blacks, would this be tolerated as legitimate "pay back" against oppressors? Certainly not. Yet we live in a culture that seems to relish "pay back" against innocent men in the name of "empowering" women. That is so sick and twisted, it is beyond description.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Thanks roy, for clearing up the meaning of feral. I was under the impression that feral involved a betrayal. For instance say you have a cat that you domesticate and one day it turns on you because it was wild and free to begin with. I was attempting to say that J-Lo bites the hand that feeds her with that video.
Stephen MW, good points about feminists exposing their true motives through this video. They've cut our work in half. They were given enough rope now watch them hang.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Saint J-Lo's misandrist "Bad-Man gets beat up by a girl" movie is called "Enough", released in 2002.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Remember when women were called the "gentle" sex?
If this was ever true (which I very much doubt), it no longer is.
Women should already be feeling more and more uneasy, even as they bask in their "victory" over their male oppressors. Nature is cruel -- and at some level, women have to know this. Action DEMANDS equal and opposite reaction. Or, as they say, what goes around comes around. When it does come around, men will have seen women as oh-so-strong police officers, military personnel, boxers, and, like J-Lo, just mean, violent, unrestrained, sadistic psychopaths. Men's perception of what "female" means is changing rapidly -- much to women's detriment I fear. Any woman who sees this video and is not very afraid of what the future holds for women is just blind. You go, girl! Create a generation of men whose physical aggression is triggered by both men and women. True equality. What harm could it do?
Does anyone remember the early Don Johnson movie, "A Boy and His Dog"? Women should keep the ending of that movie in mind as they relentlessly degrade the lives of men. The future they are creating for all of us is a hell.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
That lousy, misandrist movie Lopez starred in years ago was called "Enough." It obviously did not leave a big impression if no one can remember the name.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I have "A Boy and His Dog." Best thing Don Johnson ever did. And Harlan Ellison, for that matter.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Wow, I feel sorry for her children, but particularly her son. What a responsible, conscientious and aware mother J-lo appears not to be.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
This is acceptable entertainmennt but heaven forbit Snoop Dogg say the word bi!ch even once.
And Glenn in your list of things you forgot the man in chains and locked in a cage at around the 2:00 mark.
When did all the feminist psychology majors start writing MTV video scripts?
Roy they started doing that so they can:
1. Teach the young girls watching these videos that its okay to beat on guys.
2. Teach the young boys watching these videos that a woman has the "right" the beat the daylights out of them for any reason and they cannot fight back.
In short it has the same effect as those women's studies in college except they are meant to target younger kids so that by the time they get to college they have the women's studies mentality already ingrained in them.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I wonder if it's something more simple: The stars are doing these hate videos because women enjoy watching them and they sell records to frustrated young, girls angry at the shortage of high income sucker men out there willing to marry them. It may be they're just filling a capitalistic marketing niche.
This brings to mind the South Park episode where J-LO was replaced with a hand puppet singing about her love of tacos and falls in love with Ben Afflack. It's been claimed that J-LO was "not amused."
February 29th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
"That lousy, misandrist movie Lopez starred in years ago was called 'Enough.'"
That's correct; it was entitled ENOUGH. Which just so happens to be my one-word review of all similar films.
"It obviously did not leave a big impression if no one can remember the name."
That's part of the problem, though: women-beating-up-men as a concept has become so commonplace that we don't even notice it anymore.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Want a free forum to air your views on this garbage? I'm sure this video is on Youtube (and its clones); just get a handle there and start talking...
February 29th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Did the black guy she pushed down the stairs die? Was she arrested for assault or murder? Is she taking roids?
February 29th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
When I read all the truthful and rigorous analysis that Glenn's blog attracts and incites --
I gotta wonder.....
is there a single guy here who would buy a woman a nice dinner in return for the opportunity of an intelligent conversation?
Because this in one tough crowd.
Probably not a whole lot of eHarmony.com subscribers....
February 29th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I think you misse her knee kicking the man in the face
b
February 29th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Is she singing about the little boy? Is she a pedophile?
b
February 29th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Another half-witted female with the fame to spread her hatred and stupidity around the world.I guess this explains why her previous two marriages tanked.I notice she always marries men less well-known than herself- the first two were a waiter and a backup singer, the current one I'd never even heard of before he married her. I notice rich, famous men like Diddy and Affleck never stick with her kind, or maybe she doesn't stick with them as she needs the balance of power in order to be "an unpleasant female person", you know, the kind that rhymes with her bank account.
I dont generally subscribe to the idea of pre-historic matriarchies, but some of those who do claim the girls got really nasty, so the men rebelled and established the rather unpleasant patriarchies that dominate certain parts of the world. I dont know why that popped into my head, it just did. Fancy that.
Thanks to Jay R for mentioning "A boy and his dog." I'd completely forgotten about this movie( for some strange reason it never gets mentioned in the West's pro-feminist popular culture) but i'm going to buy it today, who knows, maybe one day i'll be in a position to remake it.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
This is somewhat disappointing, as I had thought that Jennifer Lopez was better than this. I guess it shows we can all be fooled, even a cynical curmudgeon like me.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
is there a single guy here who would buy a woman a nice dinner in return for the opportunity of an intelligent conversation?
I would if the offer to go out for said nice dinner wouldn't be used as "evidence" that I was trying to "mind", "eye", or "anything other than actual sex " rape her.
Seriously I enjoy conversation so I would say yes I would and I think that many of the guys here would do so as well. The problem that the social landscape has been so horribly twisted that it is harder and harder to ask a woman on a date.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
"Is there a single guy here who would buy a woman a nice dinner in return for the opportunity of an intelligent conversation?"
Why is her having an intelligent conversation something that must be bought?
March 1st, 2008 at 12:21 am
Boy isn't this refreshing after a full day of work events related to the UN's 52'nd Committee on the Status of Women. Let me recap the whole day of events, and then finish with the thought related to this thread. This morning's meetings included the annual influx of opinion that because men are biologically larger and consume more food we must therefore be more responsible for global warming based on our greater consumption. Then off to the wonderful Nordic countries presentation compliments of Finland, that informed us of a Finnish female CEO creating 10% more profit than any other company in Finland, erego, it is better for a companies to have female CEO's. Mid-day was invested in issues like poverty hurting women more than men, and lack of education for females in developing countries, particularly in the sciences. Then back to the office to examine how the UN Statistics folk collect and analyze data for Domestic Violence against Women. Absent from the latter of course was even the hint, sniff or mention of Domestic Violence against Men. Good that you posted this Glenn, after this day I was all but brainwashed that misandry and Violence against men was only a figment of my imagination. Well back to my EU Counsel Report on how to further the needs, interests and financing of Women's Rights Issues. Gosh, why do I feel so ill. Maybe it has to do with the fact that so many tax dollars generated by men are funneled to this idiotic gender feminist mindset that has wrenched the reins away from those genuinely committed to sanity and humanity.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:37 am
roy Says:
February 29th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
When I read all the truthful and rigorous analysis that Glenn's blog attracts and incites --
I gotta wonder.....
is there a single guy here who would buy a woman a nice dinner in return for the opportunity of an intelligent conversation?
Because this in one tough crowd.
Probably not a whole lot of eHarmony.com subscribers....
-------------------------------------
Hahaha .... LOL!
You're one to talk ;-)
March 1st, 2008 at 2:07 am
J-Lo is perhaps among the increasing number of women poisoned by modern feminist ideology which indoctrinates them with the notion that to manifest their "female power" is to villify and violently act out against men.
But let's look at this closely. Women in Hollywood, indeed women in general, are always complaining about how showbiz is a man's playground in which women are admitted by invitation only. They are often given very low quality roles and are not recognised and rewarded half as much as the men for their efforts, they say.
Supposing this is true ... is the feminist charge that men do in fact don't take a woman's position seriously a valid one? Why, if they did, is J-Lo's, women's, behaviour in the video and other media a mainstream phenomenon and a large margin of their most zealous supporters (as opposed to challengers) are MEN (who believe "the little women" bringing out their claws are harmless)? They're like kittens trying to face off with a tiger. While the people who support the men's movement is marginalised as all matter of oppressive, woman-hating evil?
The inaction of men .... sexism (in this case thinking women are weak and should not be taken as any serious threat) or chivalry (men's inherent sense of protection and deference toward women which in turn allow women to get away with atrocities a man couldn't) Which is it? Is it one or the other or a mixture of both? How will we ever know if one of the major perspectives is being locked out of the discussion?
Do you see why this is perhaps the mainstream media's biggest failure in modern history? Their complete disregard for the male perspective in the gender argument. The very thing they assert to be the plight of women for eons!
We can't bake a good cake without all the ingredients. If one or more ingredient is missing, the cake is lacking, albeit still being edible.
The same applies here. For the past 4 decades we've all been dosed with female perspective on gender issues. While society is functioning it is lacking a great potential to be whole, to be complete because we lack one signification ingredient: the male perspective.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:58 am
Hey, you think weird AL would have the guts to do a parody and whack the crud out of a few good looking women? Do it swell. yeah, I like it.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:09 am
Davina,
You once again have demonstrated you can parlay observation into eloquence via lucid writing. I couldn't agree more. "Gender" has become nomenclature for "women", and as such, remiss from the entire dialogue in its mainstream treatment, its political activity and its discourse in culture and society is the consideration of half of its equation- men.
March 1st, 2008 at 9:39 am
Take a chick out to dinner?
That's like a doctor paying his mental patients to tell him their problems.
Let the suckers be the unpaid therapist. That's what nice guys are for.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:17 am
Davina said...
The same applies here. For the past 4 decades we've all been dosed with female perspective on gender issues. While society is functioning it is lacking a great potential to be whole, to be complete because we lack one signification ingredient: the male perspective.
And it's been conducted very much like a witch hunt.
For men there have been no right answers. Damned without a right to reply. Even proof of innocence is proof of guilt.
In the previous witch hunts the majority of victims were women. Who were their accusers?
gendercide.org in it's analysis of the witch hunts sugests that women were the protagonists in a majority of cases and that men were mostly only secondarily involved.
(* I've picked up the last of several commentaries.)
Does anyone else find it interesting that female specific punishments such as the Scold's Bridle emerged in the aftermath of the witch hunts?
Ahhh....enough paranoia...
Davina is absolutely right. utterly one sided politics.
The centre of the feminist power base is in the various ministries and departments for womens affairs, some of them in my country named in the rather Orwellian fashion "Equal Opportunity" commissions. They are inhabited by feminist folk whose claim to fame or qualification is, apparently, "gender" but who are the last people anyone should expect to have any empathy for men.
These are the people who influence the funding that keeps the entire feminist industry network in place from the education system, medical system, courts and enforcement through to the DV/sexual assault networks. Noticeably in those areas dealing with kids and people with problems.
What was it Esther Vilar said about putting mens' welfare in the hands of women?
Notice when feminists have control of anything they are only willing to act on behalf of their perceived own - women. They demand exclusivity. They "own" issues.
Isn't that how the patriarchy operates? Doesn't the patriarchy exclude women from everything - even Superbowl ad spots?
March 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
(Davina) -- "Hahaha .... LOL! You're one to talk ;-)"
Davina is starting to scare me.
She has 29 aspects of compatibility with me according to eHarmony.com.
And only one aspect is causing my fear.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
(Davina again) -- "We can't bake a good cake without all the ingredients. If one or more ingredient is missing, the cake is lacking, albeit still being edible."
Now you need to study Zen Buddhism, where yin and yang are considered complimentary instead of antagonistic.
I like your cake metaphor.
Custard pie would be better.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
And what is that aspect causing you fear, praytell?
March 1st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
is there a single guy here who would buy a woman a nice dinner in return for the opportunity of an intelligent conversation?
------
You're forgetting, Davina, that Roy doesn't think we're all that bright anyway, so I don't see him taking anyone to Le Bec Fin anytime soon.
LOL
March 1st, 2008 at 9:38 pm
# roy Says "When I read all the truthful and rigorous analysis that Glenn's blog attracts and incites --
I gotta wonder.....
is there a single guy here who would buy a woman a nice dinner in return for the opportunity of an intelligent conversation?
Because this in one tough crowd.
Probably not a whole lot of eHarmony.com subscribers...."
There's so much wrong with that paragraph (just as there were a lot wrong with the South Park episode of J-Lo handpuppets liking "tacos" and giving Ben Aflack handjobs...
Anyways, where to start? If a man isn't paying for intelligent conversation, will the woman then decide to be unintelligent? Look at me! I've been intelligent all these years and for free! Dalvina, stop GIVING AWAY your intelligence!
I love the great line from Al Bundy: "Women don't put push up bras on their heads."
Eharmony is a service that seeks to get more female subscribers than typical online services by appealing onesidedly to their demands (that they not be matched with men shorter than them) but at the same time kowtowing to THEIR physical insecurities (don't show the man her picture until he's filled out the profile.) The intellectual compatibility mumbo-jumbo is mostly about appealing to the women subscriber's need to feel that the men "love her for her mind."
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 am
Davina and Rosemarie,
You are both delightful in a kind of textual way.....
I always have observed that a woman's most erotic organ is her mind.
You are perhaps the best of Glenn's narrative wenches...
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:45 am
James D. Says:
March 1st, 2008 at 2:58 am
Hey, you think weird AL would have the guts to do a parody and whack the crud out of a few good looking women? Do it swell. yeah, I like it.
---------------------------------------
You beat me to it! I got exactly the same idea. Remember the rolling-on-the-floor scene from "Like a Surgeon"? I only saw it recently, and it gave me the best laugh in years.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Am I in the doghouse now?
No Celia, Davina, Betsy, Rosemarie, Melissa coming to my rescue?
No female chauvinists?
No female-heroines-with-words-on-a-screen?
I was betting that at least three of these women were theoretically-inclined.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Rosemarie: "You're forgetting, Davina, that Roy doesn't think we're all that bright anyway, so I don't see him taking anyone to Le Bec Fin anytime soon. LOL."
LOL, Rosemarie! I'm in complete agreement. :-)
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
You know what?
The doghouse is pretty comfortable.
Big plasma TV. MIcrowave. Internet.
Those girls are starting to seem like distant memories.
But damn.
They all write so well!
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Le Bec Fin ?
Rosemarie, I would never insult you with a dinner at such a crappy overpriced swindle in Philly.
I have a better little restaurant in mind.
In Carriacou, West Indies. (Grenadines)
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
This is a very interesting conversation going on here. I like it. But I don't actually think this video is anti- male. In case nobody noticed all the weird-ass costumes and people running around, the video is set in a fetish club. There is no further point to it other than to make the video sexy for MTV. Low class and commercial, but not really saying anything other than there are people with weird fantasies that involve chains, dressing up like mice, and getting beat up. Notice: men offer J-Lo money. She beats them. She's just a dominatrix.
I'm not really sure why she's saving the little kid from the fetish club though, unless the implication is that he's a victim? It's rather odd. The biggest problem with the video besides its rampant commercialism is just that the lyrics have nothing to do with ANYTHING in the video. Oh well. My 2 cents.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Adrienne,
You will have to educate me here....
Your argument is that because the video portrays a "fetish club," that there is nothing anti-male depicted?
Despite all the acts of physical violence by J-Lo against several men?
Is that because the men are assumed to be willing sex objects and victims of female aggression?
This is really interesting and I hope you will reply with some detailed analysis.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I caught the same thing Adrienne mentioned - the lyrics do not match the video. The lyrics are all about how she needs, "... A One Woman Man 7 Days A Week," and how she has never met another man that she clicked with so quickly.
While I agree that the violence is wrong, and that it appears to give approval to woman being violent to men, I do not see it as intentionally anti-male.
Before you start throwing things, let me explain.
Take a look at many rap videos by male rappers. In those, you will see violence against females, females chained to walls in little clothing -- basically the reverse of J-Lo's video. At times, it is worse, at the lyrics match the video, talking about raping the b&^%$, smacking her down, and so forth.
NEITHER are appropriate. NEITHER should be on the TV. NEITHER should be anywhere near children.
But is does lead me to the possible conclusion that J-Lo's (or probably more realisticly, the video director's) intent was not to be anti-male -- it was just to be commercial and sell records.
Just my two cents. In this particular case, the action was wrong, but I am not certain the intent was there.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Jeanene -- "NEITHER are appropriate. NEITHER should be on the TV. NEITHER should be anywhere near children."
Another new female voice! (Assuming gender...) Welcome to a fun little club at Glenn's place.
You appear to be arguing for censorship.
In the interest of chidren?
Please provide an inventory of all the things you would censor.
The Bible maybe?
It is a really violent book!
I am curious about your comment that the violence in the video is not "intentionally anti-male."
What part of assaulting a man is unintentional?
Was it "accidental?"
Welcome Jeanene ... your words will be taken seriously in Glenn's salon.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I actually would have to agree that it looks like a fetish club. There are 2 guys I can see who J-lo beats up without it being a fetish and they both instigated something. (not that I like/dislike/care at all about MIss Lopez)
1: The guy at the top of the stairs grabs at her and yells at her when she tries to enter, and she kicks him down the stairs
2: the black guy right afterwards grabs her arm and she does some aikido on him.
Also, in the very very beginning her cellphone has a pic of the boy kid in the kitchen, so she's clearly going into the club (supposidly clearly, lol) to save him from the start.
Some of the guys do seem to be beaten up more than necessary. But it does seem like a dominatrix kind of thing.
I don't see that it is intentionally anti-male either, in that I don't think she intentionally made it to be anti-male. But that doesn't mean it's not anti-male *unintentionally*. In this day and age, many ads, movies, media, etc are "unintentionally anti-male" to the point that when the person who made them is informed "this seems anti-male" they are surprised.
Roy, you don't have to bare the fangs right away! LOL. Jeanene is *mostly* right, IMO. I really don't think kids should see people tied up and being whipped while mostly naked in a fetish club. As for it being on TV, I'd not mind if it were on cable and on the appropriate channels. I do believe kids can be rather effected by this kinda thing. Most parents would agree, I think. But that's neither here nor there, and we don't need to really debate that as well.
I can understand everyone furor pertaining to this music video, but I really don't think J-lo did it intentionally. Instead, I would probably just chalk it up to Miss Lopez being another victim of the way media sells feminism now in much the way the 80s (I think it was the 80s) sold the gangsta rap about raping women and being a pimp to female prostitutes.
Sex and violence sell. We're just seeing the newest seller that is making media foam at the mouth: violence (and now sex) against men.
*sigh*
But you're right. If a guy tried to show women tied up and being beaten in a music video NOW, it wouldn't fly at all.
*slump*
March 5th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
"You appear to be arguing for censorship. "
Not in the way you are inferring. Though I should have clarified "TV " to mean broadcast television, I was also thinking about how certain cable channels for kids and teens show videos during commercial breaks that are overtly sexual and/or violent. Makes parental control and parental supervision almost worthless.
"I am curious about your comment that the violence in the video is not "intentionally anti-male." What part of assaulting a man is unintentional?"
Please understand than when a group of words are in quote such as I did, it means to take them together. I did not say that it was not intentionally violent. I said that the possibility exists that the concept of the video may not have intentionally anti-male. There is a difference.
What I was getting at was that, because of how there STILL are music videos with males committing violence against women, the point may have been to just show the opposite. If that is the case, then the goal (i.e. the INTENT) of the video would be just to show the opposite of other videos -- that is NOT the same as having the intent to bash males.
Please also note that I said "possible." Since I am not mind linked to the person that wrote that dreadful thing, I cannot tell you what there intent was, nor can I tell you what gave that person (or persons, for all I know) the idea. All I was saying was that, since the words of the song are not anti-male, then those involved in the creation of the video may not have made the video with the intent to be anti-male. Violent against men - yes, but to say that all violence against males is anti-male is an improper conclusion.