Fetishisation of Violence
The following is part of my midterm for one of my classes. I thought y'all might be interested.
Over the course of the semester thus far we have covered a wide variety of historical and contemporary women’s issues. Within this exam, I have had the opportunity to discuss concepts from the definition of feminism to the history of the women’s movement to the construction of gender. The fetishisation of violence was mentioned “Killing Us Softly,” but we have not discussed it in-depth, and it’s an issue which I personally find extremely interesting. My discussion consciously exists within the context of our societal conceptions of rape and violence against women, but focuses on the ideological conflation of violence, power, and eroticism.
Violence, power and eroticism are strongly connected in modern society. This connection may persist from feudal historical traditions in which men were required to be able to fight in order to achieve success and social status, but while sword-fighting may have become obsolete, the equation of violence with virility endures. In his 1999 film Tough Guise, Jackson Katz discusses the implicit association of masculinity with violence in contemporary America; Katz asserts that in order to perform masculinity, a contemporary American must engage either verbally, physically, or ideologically in violence as a display of strength. Male sexuality is often treated as inherently violent; guns are a commonly accepted phallic symbol within American culture, and, as Katz points out, the guns we see in popular media have gotten much larger over time, as the association between violence and sexuality has consolidated. I am reminded of a United States Marine Core song that a male friend of mine recited to me once: “This is my rifle, this is my gun/One is for fighting, one is for fun.” On ‘rifle,’ he mimed holding a rifle, and on ‘gun,’ he grabbed his genitals; the subtext here is that his penis is a weapon, and that this is “fun.”
Violence is further sexualized in advertising, as demonstrated in Jean Kilbourne’s 2000 film, Killing Us Softly. Women bearing stylized marks of violence-such as bondage, or make-up evoking bruises or wounds-are consistently eroticized and presented to the viewer as attractive. Images of power, sexuality and violence collide fantastically within advertising. It is an accepted axiom that “sex sells,” and that nearly all advertisements portraying women, or men and women together, have implicit or explicit sexual messages. Furthermore, power is a well-established part of these images: “Men are most likely to be shown in dominating, self-assured poses,” (Anderson 54) and since these power constructions exist in the same space as the advertised sexuality, they necessarily interact, and equate power with sex. When violence is introduced to the pre-established foundation of power and sexuality, a remarkable culture of fetishised violence emerges. As Kilbourne demonstrates, male violence against women is not only portrayed in advertising, it is portrayed as sexy. This idea is reinforced consistently in popular media, with the “artistic” rape scene ever-present in mainstream films, and erotic overtones ever-present in thrillers. This ideal is not only prevalent, it is accepted within the mainstream, internalized, and given explicit voice both within the mainstream and within sexual subcultures.
Our mass fetishisation of violence has broad implications for women and sexuality. On the one hand, its internalization can be link to destructive behavior. “Each of us sees thousands of advertisements per day” (Anderson 55), and it is unreasonable to expect us to remain unaffected; the terms in which our culture constructs sexuality must influence the way we perform gender. It would not be unreasonable to link the fetishisation of violence to violence against women, be it verbal, ideological, policy-based, battery, our alarmingly and shamefully high rape statistics. Women’s own internalization of this standard might even explain the commonality of the rape fantasy; because rape is used to subjugate women, and at the same time, women are trained to examine the world from the male perspective and identify readily with men and male sexuality, and men and women are trained to view male-on-female violence as erotic, it is ironically unsurprising that we are aroused by the same thing we most deeply fear.
However, the negative implications of the institutionalized fetishisation of violence could easily lead us to unfairly marginalize legitimate expressions of sexuality. The BDSM subculture, for instance, is simultaneously characterized by sexual power-play and violence, and the slogan “safe, sane and consensual.” While BDSM is undoubtedly influenced to some extent by the predominant cultural conception of violence as erotic, to accuse this subculture of perpetuating real sexual violence both diminishes the (already much-minimalized) gravity of true sexual violence, and denies informed, adult women and men their rightful sexual agency. A demand that all sexual expressions be gentle in nature infantilizes women by victimizing them and ignoring their own potential to be aggressive. While the institutionalized fetishisation of violence is undoubtedly harmful to women, emphasis should perhaps be placed on the absolute importance of consent, over more traditional values of gentleness or protection.
Works Cited
Anderson, Margaret L. Thinking About Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender. 7th ed. University of Delaware, 2006.
Blocks, Jeanne and Jack Blocks. The Pinks and the Blues. Film. 1980.
Freedman, Estelle B. No Turning Back: the History of Feminism and the Future of Women. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002.
Hannam, Julie. Feminism. Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited, 2007.
Jean Kilbourne. Killing Us Softly. Film. 2000.
Katz, Jason."Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity." Tough Guise. Film. 1999.
Over the course of the semester thus far we have covered a wide variety of historical and contemporary women’s issues. Within this exam, I have had the opportunity to discuss concepts from the definition of feminism to the history of the women’s movement to the construction of gender. The fetishisation of violence was mentioned “Killing Us Softly,” but we have not discussed it in-depth, and it’s an issue which I personally find extremely interesting. My discussion consciously exists within the context of our societal conceptions of rape and violence against women, but focuses on the ideological conflation of violence, power, and eroticism.
Violence, power and eroticism are strongly connected in modern society. This connection may persist from feudal historical traditions in which men were required to be able to fight in order to achieve success and social status, but while sword-fighting may have become obsolete, the equation of violence with virility endures. In his 1999 film Tough Guise, Jackson Katz discusses the implicit association of masculinity with violence in contemporary America; Katz asserts that in order to perform masculinity, a contemporary American must engage either verbally, physically, or ideologically in violence as a display of strength. Male sexuality is often treated as inherently violent; guns are a commonly accepted phallic symbol within American culture, and, as Katz points out, the guns we see in popular media have gotten much larger over time, as the association between violence and sexuality has consolidated. I am reminded of a United States Marine Core song that a male friend of mine recited to me once: “This is my rifle, this is my gun/One is for fighting, one is for fun.” On ‘rifle,’ he mimed holding a rifle, and on ‘gun,’ he grabbed his genitals; the subtext here is that his penis is a weapon, and that this is “fun.”
Violence is further sexualized in advertising, as demonstrated in Jean Kilbourne’s 2000 film, Killing Us Softly. Women bearing stylized marks of violence-such as bondage, or make-up evoking bruises or wounds-are consistently eroticized and presented to the viewer as attractive. Images of power, sexuality and violence collide fantastically within advertising. It is an accepted axiom that “sex sells,” and that nearly all advertisements portraying women, or men and women together, have implicit or explicit sexual messages. Furthermore, power is a well-established part of these images: “Men are most likely to be shown in dominating, self-assured poses,” (Anderson 54) and since these power constructions exist in the same space as the advertised sexuality, they necessarily interact, and equate power with sex. When violence is introduced to the pre-established foundation of power and sexuality, a remarkable culture of fetishised violence emerges. As Kilbourne demonstrates, male violence against women is not only portrayed in advertising, it is portrayed as sexy. This idea is reinforced consistently in popular media, with the “artistic” rape scene ever-present in mainstream films, and erotic overtones ever-present in thrillers. This ideal is not only prevalent, it is accepted within the mainstream, internalized, and given explicit voice both within the mainstream and within sexual subcultures.
Our mass fetishisation of violence has broad implications for women and sexuality. On the one hand, its internalization can be link to destructive behavior. “Each of us sees thousands of advertisements per day” (Anderson 55), and it is unreasonable to expect us to remain unaffected; the terms in which our culture constructs sexuality must influence the way we perform gender. It would not be unreasonable to link the fetishisation of violence to violence against women, be it verbal, ideological, policy-based, battery, our alarmingly and shamefully high rape statistics. Women’s own internalization of this standard might even explain the commonality of the rape fantasy; because rape is used to subjugate women, and at the same time, women are trained to examine the world from the male perspective and identify readily with men and male sexuality, and men and women are trained to view male-on-female violence as erotic, it is ironically unsurprising that we are aroused by the same thing we most deeply fear.
However, the negative implications of the institutionalized fetishisation of violence could easily lead us to unfairly marginalize legitimate expressions of sexuality. The BDSM subculture, for instance, is simultaneously characterized by sexual power-play and violence, and the slogan “safe, sane and consensual.” While BDSM is undoubtedly influenced to some extent by the predominant cultural conception of violence as erotic, to accuse this subculture of perpetuating real sexual violence both diminishes the (already much-minimalized) gravity of true sexual violence, and denies informed, adult women and men their rightful sexual agency. A demand that all sexual expressions be gentle in nature infantilizes women by victimizing them and ignoring their own potential to be aggressive. While the institutionalized fetishisation of violence is undoubtedly harmful to women, emphasis should perhaps be placed on the absolute importance of consent, over more traditional values of gentleness or protection.
Works Cited
Anderson, Margaret L. Thinking About Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender. 7th ed. University of Delaware, 2006.
Blocks, Jeanne and Jack Blocks. The Pinks and the Blues. Film. 1980.
Freedman, Estelle B. No Turning Back: the History of Feminism and the Future of Women. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002.
Hannam, Julie. Feminism. Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited, 2007.
Jean Kilbourne. Killing Us Softly. Film. 2000.
Katz, Jason."Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity." Tough Guise. Film. 1999.