Disturbing Parks and Recreation promo

[ToeInTheWater]

Okay, so TBH I’ve never watched this show, but I do know that it’s a comedy, and that Amy Poehler stars as Leslie Knope, a small-town bureaucrat/politician who works in the Parks and Recreation department.

Well, so I was watching NBC and saw a promo for the show that features a scene in which Leslie goes to visit a male character and, for some reason, winds up slapping him silly, hitting him over and over again. There is no laugh track, but it seemed (since this show is billed as a comedy) was meant to be a funny moment.

And it occurred to me that no mainstream broadcast network would ever show a male character doing the exact same thing to a woman, and portray it as funny. (Though maybe some pay cable channel would, I doubt that as well.)

Now, obviously this scene bothered me, otherwise I wouldn’t be posting, but am I over-reacting here? Should I take a “big picture” approach and state that male-on-female violence is, globally, a bigger problem than female-on-male violence, and accept this double standard?

And for context, I am a woman myself, and certainly don’t consider myself an MRA type, but it’s instances like these that make me hesitate to call myself a feminist.

 

[StSentry83]

I didn’t see the promo myself but contextually it would be funny if the guy in question was, say, Ron, for example, because Ron is played as a man who could punch her into the next room with only one pinky finger.

It sounds pretty bad the way you describe it but I’m going to hold out until I see it before passing judgment.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Okay, so TBH I’ve never watched this show, but I do know that it’s a comedy, and that Amy Poehler stars as Leslie Knope, a small-town bureaucrat/politician who works in the Parks and Recreation department.

Well, so I was watching NBC and saw a promo for the show that features a scene in which Leslie goes to visit a male character and, for some reason, winds up slapping him silly, hitting him over and over again. There is no laugh track, but it seemed (since this show is billed as a comedy) was meant to be a funny moment.

And it occurred to me that no mainstream broadcast network would ever show a male character doing the exact same thing to a woman, and portray it as funny. (Though maybe some pay cable channel would, I doubt that as well.)

Now, obviously this scene bothered me, otherwise I wouldn’t be posting, but am I over-reacting here? Should I take a “big picture” approach and state that male-on-female violence is, globally, a bigger problem than female-on-male violence, and accept this double standard?

And for context, I am a woman myself, and certainly don’t consider myself an MRA type, but it’s instances like these that make me hesitate to call myself a feminist.

Well, there are two sexes, why should’t there be two standards? Certainly, there can be unjust differentiation based on sex, but the problem with such treatment is that it is unjust, not that it treats a man and woman differently (for men and women are, in fact, different). We all recognize this. It would be completely normal for a woman to go walking down the street in a dress, make-up, and high heels. A man doing so would be completely abnormal. I’m sure you can think of a million other examples. The situation here shows the recognition that it is far worse for a physically stronger person to strike a weaker person. Men are normally stronger than women, thus male on female violence is worse than female on male violence. A woman striking a man, then, can be funny in a way a man hitting a woman should never be. It’s the same principal that makes Home Alone funny, with a six year old fighting off adult men, while a movie about an adult man hitting a six year wouldn’t be.

The underlying philosophical mistake you might be making is seeing men and women as interchangeable, seeing maleness and femaleness as a matter of indifference. Of course, the opposite is true.

The Catholic Encyclopedia sums up a more rational (albeit currently less popular) view:

“The same essentially identical human nature appears in the male and female sex in two-fold personal form; there are, consequently, male and female persons…there is no neutral human person without distinction of sex. Hence follows in the first place, woman’s claim to the possession of full and complete human nature, and thus, to complete equality in moral value and position as compared with man before the Creator. It is, therefore, not permissible to take one sex as the one absolutely perfect and as the standard of value for the other…The fact that there is no sexually neutral human being has, however, a second consequence. The sexual character can be separated from the human being as something secondary only in thought, not in actuality. The word “person” belongs neither to the soul nor to the body alone; it is rather, that the soul informing the body constitutes the full conception of the human personality only in its union with the body. It is in no way, therefore, permissible to limit differences only to the primary and secondary peculiarities of the body…These distinctions can be diminished or increased by education and custom but cannot be completely annulled. Just as it is not permissible to take one sex as the standard of the other, so from the social point of view it is not allowable to confuse the vocational activities of both. The most manly man and the most feminine woman are the most perfect types of their sexes.”

I think we ought to all be happy our society hasn’t (yet) degenerated to the point where we are expected to find male on female violence funny.

 

[ServusHumilis]

Having worked in a municipal department of parks and recreation I can say it nearly is as much of a joke as portrayed on the show.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

And it occurred to me that no mainstream broadcast network would ever show a male character doing the exact same thing to a woman, and portray it as funny. (Though maybe some pay cable channel would, I doubt that as well.)

Apparently cartoons don’t count.

 

[randomusername]

Well although the feminazis would never admit it, the average male is stronger than the average female. People find it humorous to see a strong people get beaten up by weak people, but the reverse is seen as cruel. But there is another standard for women. For example, GTA V isn’t being sold in some stores anymore because you can kill women in the game. That’s the only reason. They don’t care that you have to kill or beat up tons of men at every stage of the story. They don’t care that you can also kill as many men as you like in the game. It’s just the fact that you can kill women that it was banned for. And this is because people don’t want to be seen as sexist so they give women special treatment. Discrimination in all things only works one way.