Canadian Press recently reported on a study finding that more women
are being charged with husband abuse.
Should this surprise us? Yes.
But not because men's victimization in the home, or in general, is
a recent phenomenon. It isn't. It's surprising because the news media
covered an issue it has traditionally ignored.
In their widely-cited book "Manufacturing Consent", Noam Chomsky and
Edward Herman argue that the U.S. news media are biased. On one hand,
they report on "worthy" victims -- those who have suffered violence
in nations on hostile terms with the United States. They are "featured
prominently and dramatically" with the detail and context needed to
"generate reader interest and sympathetic emotion." In contrast, the
"unworthy" victims of violence, in nations on friendly terms with the
United States, "merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and
little context that will enrage or excite."
My study of Canadian newspapers found a similar phenomenon. But in
this case, the worthy victims were women and the unworthy victims were
men.
I examined coverage of gender and violence in 1242 headlines published
in seven major Canadian dailies from 1989 to 1992. (I chose headlines
since they summarize news articles and are the most read and remembered
part of a newspaper.) Considering that statistics on violence typically
show that men are at least as victimized as women, the contrast in the
amount of coverage given to each was striking:
Of the 540 headlines which directly referred to the gender of victims,
525 (97.2%) focused on women and 15 (2.8%) focused on men, a ratio of
35 to 1.
A random sampling of the articles accompanying the rest of the headlines
suggested the gap was even greater. I estimated that a total of 991
headlines focused on the gender of victims. Of these, 972 (98.1%) emphasized
women and 19 ( 1.9%) emphasized men, a ratio of 51 to 1.
====================================
Our hypothesis is that worthy victims
will be featured prominently and dra-
matically, that they will be humanized,
and that their victimization will receive
the detail and context in story construc-
tion that will generate reader interest
and sympathetic emotion. In contrast,
unworthy victims will merit only slight
detail, minimal humanization, and little
context that will excite and enrage.
-- Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent (1988, p.35)
====================================
The contrast in the content of head-lines was as dramatic. The few
headlines on male victims tended to give only raw data on the amount
of violence they suffered. This suffering was not personalized or explained.
Headlines on women focused on the quality, rather than the quantity,
of violence they experienced (the exceptions tended to use words like
"epidemic" or "rampant"). They covered a wide range of subjects from
individual cases of victimization to violence as a societal problem,
the term "violence against women" expanding past sexual and domestic
crime to encompass all violent acts.
Women's suffering was increasingly seen less in specific terms, such
as by husbands against wives, and more in general terms, such as by
men against women. These generalizations were especially evident in
coverage of the Montreal Massacre. The actions of Marc Lepine were associated
with all violence by men against women and his victims were associated
with all women.
Why was violence against women an issue that launched a thousand headlines?
And why was violence against men unable to set even a lifeboat of concern
adrift? One evident reason is that men, being constantly portrayed as
the perpetrators of violence, were easily ignored as victims in a simple
dichotomy of good and evil.
The type of sources used by and available to the media were also a
crucial factor. They were lobby groups, government departments, individuals,
studies or programs overwhelmingly focused on women's issues. While
they provided the media with a steady flow of information on women's
suffering, there were no parallel sources to present such information
on men.
Digging deeper, this coverage reflects some fundamental ways we think
of women and men in our society. The absence of coverage of male victims
is not surprising in a society that teaches males to be tough, hide
their pain and "take it like a man." If "big boys don't cry" in the
play-ground we can hardly expect men's victimization to be easily expressed
in the media.
Many studies have found the media to have a significant impact on
public policy and public perceptions. The portrayal of women's victimization
in newspapers can reasonably be linked to actions like shelter funding
and the creation of the National Panel on Violence Against Women.
Coverage of male victims, or rather the lack of it, can likewise be
linked to inaction. Male victims need not apply.
==================================================================
This article summarizes the master's thesis Jim Boyce completed at
Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario. Copies of the research
were available from the author, but the whereabouts of the author are
now unknown. Fortunately, the complete thesis is now available at: boycecnt.html
.
NP*
==================================================================
*The characters NP in the article indicate "....permission is already
given for it to be reproduced elsewhere for non-profit purposes, provided
that Balance and the author are duly credited and that no material changes
are made in its contents." (inside of cover page of Balance)
The above quoted article was published in Balance (Spring 1995). Balance
was published quarterly by the Movement for the Establishment of Real
Gender Equality (MERGE). It is no longer in print. Balance is now available
at: <http://www.agt.net/public/dolphin/>.
