With the increase in reality television, cameras will catch more and more awful behavior. I agree that showing it without condemnation condones it. On the other hand, merely editing it is covering it up, and therefore is complicity.

My solutions, about which I'm sure reasonable people will disagree, are: (1) throw the bastard off the show for his behavior; or (2) run a public service announcement in episodes where the abuse is evident (which I think would clearly show condemnation, and also take advantage of a teachable moment where people who are abusers or who are abused might come to a realization).

Actually, I thought that a couple of times, Jonathan's behavior came awfully close to physical abuse.

The producers really dropped the ball on this one, but I don't think that Jonathan's behavior was depicted as being acceptable. Other players were clearly appalled and were frequently shown commenting on it. The host once intervened, although his response was totally inadequate. Jonathan should have been kicked off the show, and they should have made a clear statement that his behavior was abusive. But it's not like he was depicted as a good guy who occasionally lost his temper.

Anyway, Jonathan and Victoria should never have been cast in the first place. They cast teams who will bring the drama, and I'm sure they knew that Jonathan was going to be a jerk towards his wife. They may not have realized exactly how extreme his behavior would be, but on some level, I think they were counting on him to be abusive. And that's inexcusable.

I have not seen the show, though I have read about this guy before. I doubt his abuse is limited to or caused by the show. If the producers had not cast him, he'd just be keeping it secret more effectively. I would rather see it out in the open, and condemned in the open, than perpetrated in silence.

I don't agree with that. The purpose of reality T.V. is to entertain, not to educate. They cast Jonathan and Victoria because the producers thought they'd provide entertaining conflict, not because they wanted to save them from their horrible marriage or educate the public about the reality of emotional abuse. That's why, when Jonathan clearly crossed the line, they privately told him to tone it down, rather than intervening or publicly calling his behavior abusive. And honestly, I think they cast Jonathan and Victoria because they got so much mileage last season out of Colin and Christie, another dysfunctional (although not clearly abusive) relationship featuring a guy with a rage problem. The producers think that emotional abuse makes for compelling television.

What made the producers and most viewers think twice was not the emotional abuse but the indicators of physical abuse. The moment people realized there was something wrong was when he raised his hand as if to strike her and she cowered in anticipation of a blow. The host intervened a few episodes later when Jonathan shoved Victoria so hard she staggered, and then she showed up at the finish line weeping uncontrollably. I don't think anyone thought twice when he was just calling her stupid and useless. That's just par for the reality show course. That's just fun, compelling television.

I'm really skeptical of claims that reality shows educate people. There may be times when they are forced into that role, but it's not what they're set up to do, and it's not what they're good at. And since they're much more likely to minimize abuse than to educate about it, I'd prefer that they not show it in the first place.

I agree with you, for the most part. I'm not defending reality TV, and I don't think the producers are motivated to do good. They're selling thirty second spots. And I did not know that there was a prior emotionally unstable pairing on the show.

I also did not know that the producers privately told the guy to tone it down -- that is complicity, and I hope she sues them for their role when she finally gets the courage to leave, even if the case is a loser.

The only point I was trying to make, is that I would not rather have this guy abusing her in private where nobody can see, and I would not rather the producers concealed it. Now that they have already created a problem, I think the only acceptable way for the producers to handle it is right up front.

While I agree that reality TV is not a good format to educate, with all the camera crews following people these days this situation will not be unique. This time, the producers apparenly wanted an abuser, just not a physical abuser. But in the future, some producer who cannot read people will accidentally cast a couple where the man beats or emotionally abuses the woman. When it happens, however bad reality TV is as a medium to raise consciousness, that's the spot they are in.

What irks me are the articles at Slate, Salon, and EW.com which took the abuse entirely in stride. When J&V were eliminated, all three publications claimed, "well, that's why we *watch* reality TV in the first place, no?" and asserted that we'd miss Jonathan when he was gone. I don't, and, judging by internet posts, most all of TAR's fans were absolutely horrified at his behavior.

I remember the fan reaction after the shoving incident in Berlin, which is adequately reviewed on the first of two pages here:

http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/story.cgi?show=76&story=7258&page=15&sort=&limit=

One poster had recommended the show to her mother - not a bad move, until this episode. After viewing, Mom told her: "You *like* this? That was the most horrifying thing I've ever seen in my life!" I think it was not only the shove but Victoria's screams that did it - they weren't fakey screams, or screams or frustration or argument, but the _real_ screams of a terrified woman who knew she was in for horror no matter *what* she did. That was the moment we knew we were watching abuse unfold on-screen. (One person said she was sure she'd hear those screams in her sleep that night. I knew what she meant.)

And there *was* constant verbal abuse by Jonathan. You can't capture its true spirit in text due to its constancy and decibel level, but a few gems:

"Tihs poorly trained _housepet_ I'm saddled with!"
"This is a RACE, Victoria!! This is NOT about COMPASSION!!"
"BE THE WOMAN AND _SHUT UP!!_"

Even though Colin last season was a jerk, he was never abusive to his partner.

Most of the TAR's fans were, again, beyond disgusted, and most of the newspaper articles about the couple were appalled at Jonathan's behavior. It disturbs me, though, that three major publications can write off Jonathan as another Richard Hatch and tell his detractors, "you *know* you love it, baby". As a big TAR fan - it really was the "classy", cream-of-the-crop reality show until this season - I'm horribly disappointed in the show, and this was a massive failure of psych-screening. (It's not as if Jonathan hides his abusive behavior - he was a perpetually aggressive, abusive SOB, and not just to his wife, either. He had confrontations with about 2/3 of the other racers and actually got thrown out of a cab for verbally berating the driver.)

As for the PSA suggestion: the abuse can't be covered up, but CBS (and other media outlets, at least initially) seemed to be treading lightly around Jonathan for feared of being sued. As obvious as it was, no one ever outright called it "abuse", and airing an anti-abuse public-service announcement insinuates that there was abuse on the show in the first place.
I agree with the PSA option, though. It's not so much for the education - though every little bit *does* help - as much as that the producers would be acknowledging that the situation is horrible and not entertaining. Though covering up the abuse would be even *more* despicable, something *that* horrifying cannot go unanswered by those who air it.)

I forgot about the "be the woman and shut up" loveliness. Ick. I don't watch much reality T.V., and maybe that's why, but the whole Jonathan drama was pretty much the most disturbing thing I can remember seeing on T.V. ever.

I don't watch much TV, and I've never seen the show you reference. But I have seen (over and over again) on non-reality shows the husband portrayed as a dufus, and the wife is usually the one who makes fun of him. I think it's disingenuous to act as if TV is one-sided in this, and to condemn the networks only for the reality shows -- at least that is real, don't you think actually scripting abuse is worse? Just a thought.

I've never seen the show, but I know that emotional (and psychological) abuse have always been big problems. Too often, the focus in on physical abuse, in particular tabulating physical "hits" to supposedly prove that men and women are equally abusive. Abuse is much more complex, and more attention to emotional abuse needs to be paid.

Mark, the fact that you equate teasing a man with berating, shoving, constant abuse, and almost certain beating of a woman demonstrates pretty effectively that you JUST...DON'T...GET...IT. Or is it that men really do deserve better than women in your mind?

Amanda-

When did I equate the two? (Hint: I didn't) The post was on emotional abuse, was it not? Who said anything abotu physical abuse (shoving, etc)? Not me. As I said, I have never seen whatever show you guys are talking about. If it shows physical violence, then I'm against it. But since the post was on emotional abuse, I wanted to point out that it occurs very frequently on scripted shows that are non-reality, too, which to me is worse.

When did I suggest that "men really do deserve better than women in your mind"? here we go again. It seems I can't make a comment around here without my motives being attacked. Try making a coherent argument that addresses the merits of what I wrote, rather than attacking me. Please.

Mark:

The article Vanessa posted was actually about how emotional abuse gets ignored, and lots of folks do not recognize abuse unless it is physical.

What you said earlier is that in fictional television, there is a dynamic where women make fun of inept men. I agree that many men in sitcoms are played as the butt of jokes -- and that's a dynamic that merits some analysis. But, if I understood your comment correctly, you were saying that this dynamic offsets the couple on a reality TV show where, in many people's opinion anyway, a man has systematically heaped insults and degradation on a woman.

(Now, I understand you have not watched the show and neither have I. I'm not offering an opinion on the guy's behavior so much as a comment assuming it is what folks think it is.)

There seem to be two discussions going: one about the network's obligation once they spot the abuse, and the other about whether they are essentially sponsoring the conduct for ratings by putting the guy on the show, and by keeping him on, telling him to "tone it down" but not addressing it as a problem.

I'm not sure that what a network does with its fictional content really interacts with either of these questions. I'm not saying that it is not worth analyzing the content of fictional shows. I'm just saying that I think the content of fictional shows is mostly tangential to the discussion of how a network ought to handle a real-life abusive situation on a reality show.

Finally, your response to Amanda was that you were not equating teasing with physical abuse -- and I did not understand you to. But I agree with the initial post that abuse does not have to be physical to be abuse. Anybody, man or woman, can get angry and say something hurtful, and anybody can make a hurtful joke. I think, though, that we have all seen at least one couple where one partner engages in a regular campaign to undermine and break down the other. It may be difficult to quantify the point at which reasonable people believe it is something other than deliberate; it may be tough to determine whether the close cases are abuse, but I have seen emotional abuse that I thought was not a close case. I bet a lot of us have. I have not seen such a situation on any sitcom.

Mark: I do agree that the prevalence of casting the husband as the stupid doofus on sitcoms is unfair, tiresome, and sexist. This one incident (or string of incidents) on TAR, though, was just beyond the pale. It made viewers actually sickened and scared watching it. I'd point you to a place where you could see the stuff we're discussing, but a) I don't know a site that has them, and b) I'm loathe to give the psychopath more publicity.

Really now. Ladies from feministing are too good and too pure to deny battered women posting about their own experiences of women on women violence.

Then pray, do tell, why did your all knowing and GRRRRL POWER moderators delete the post of an actual abused woman in such a relationship and my
previous post of how women are responsable for emotional abuse as well as a significant proportion of domestic abuse (with children of course).

Oh you think I'm being an ass?

Well let me tell you, my cousin was abused SURVIVED. Her stepmom "emotionally abused" (more like manipulated) her to the point where she physically mutilated herself and had to go to therapy. All at the age of 14 and 15. And she's not the last or first one I know of.

Now...is that something you do to a CHILD??
If it had been a man doing that to her, you would've been in an outrage!!

So come on! Let me hear you protest! Foam at the mouth at this injustice! A CHILD got ABUSED! The! Outrage!

Oh wait. Never mind. Abusers are only allowed to have penises (now I can only wonder why I ever got a stupid notion like that.)

Your actions have proven to me exactly what I need to know. That you're superior-than-thou and close-minded frauds. I bet you hate the fact that a WOMAN called you on your flawed logic.

I feel for that dyke who's post you deleted, because I bet she's not the first lesbian to be in an abusive relationship. She must be really feeling humbled about you having had deleted her post and must be thinking 'Wow. Those feministings are SO caring. Let me spread the word!'

Delete, ban, or keep this post up. I don't care what you do with it. But if the feminist movement has to have your hypocritical faces attached to it, then I no longer want a part of it.

Excuse me for being a jerk, but you guys are earning that treatment by completely ignoring and not acknolowedging people who have been abused. That to me, tells me you are as bad as the perpetrators of abuse.

I am going to go back to the kitchen, take off my shoes and spend the rest of my life making DAMN sure my big swollen belly doesn't accidentally knock over my husbands dinner.

Ok, let me get this straight: women NEVER are perpetrators of emotional abuse? What exactly is Feministing's stance on that?

Imagine a girl who in a relationship and that guy treated her the following way:

He didn't let her hang out with her friends
He was always trying to change her
He would put her down in front of her friends
He would get angry at her if she didn't pay for his dinner.
He expected her to do EVERYTHING in the relationship.
He would cheat on her and then tell her its he did it because it she wasn't giving enough.
He makes her feel worthless.

Now imagine that a girl does this to her guy.
I know far more guys in these type of relationships than girls, so don't pretend that women are innocent creatures that can do no wrong.

Equal rights is about equal ACCOUNTABILITY.
You, Feministing do NOT promote equal rights.
These she-abusers are NOT victims. They are sick twisted fucks that should be thrown in jail the same way their male counterparts are.

AnonymousFem, we're not denying anyone a chance to write about their experiences or censoring content. We will however erase a comment when it contains verbal abuse directed at Feministing contributors. Not being the person that erased the comment, I can't tell you why it was deleted. But I can assure you that it wasn't because we don't want to hear about violence committed by women. We've written about this in the past, in fact.

But I do have to say that some of your insults sound eerily like the "men's rights" folks who frequent the site...

i wonder if some people seeing Jonathan berate and dominate Victoria, and Victoria cowering and taking the abuse, will have an aha! moment of their own. Women make so many excuses for men like this-- he didn't mean it, it's just his wacky 'sense of humor," he's under a lot of stress right now, etc. Maybe seeing the same behavior in other people will clarify for some women exactly how their own relationship looks to other people. Assuming, of course, that they don't live in a world in which everyone else they know is involved in similar relationships.

It's TV people. It's meant to be entertainment. We don't know if or How this might have been a set up of the show. Often they are, just to make it more interesting. But perhaps we need to outlaw all Punch and Judy shows too... Perhaps only the oldest folks here remember Mr. Punchenelo...

Mark, don't be daft. When someone says, "There is a man abusing a woman on TV," and you reply with, "Yeah? Well sometimes they make jokes at men's expense! How come we're not talking about that?", you are essentially saying that your topic is more important to discuss.

By the way, he shoved her across the finish line while she sobbed hysterically. That's physical abuse. Period. You can go to jail for shoving someone like that. Believe me.

"i wonder if some people seeing Jonathan berate and dominate Victoria, and Victoria cowering and taking the abuse, will have an aha! moment of their own."

It's possible, especially since there were signals that other people didn't find it normal or acceptable. On the other hand, Jonathan and Victoria are making the talk show rounds declaring that they have a great relationship and making all sorts of excuses for his abuse. I could see people realizing that she's putting up with stuff she shouldn't be, but I could also see them buying the line that he's just a type-A guy who was stressed out and hopped up on prednisone. Nobody got hurt, so no big deal. And if what he's doing isn't emotional abuse, then nothing is.

But maybe I'm just annoyed because the Amazing Race used to be fun, and Jonathan and Victoria were not fun.

VJ, name one person who was entertained by the shoving incident - one person who isn't a raging sociopath. Everyone I know who watched it was aghast, beause it's not "just TV" - it's a look at an abusive relationship that's continuing outside the show.

On Sally's post, I *hope* that no one's buying the prednisone excuse (or whatever excuse he has these days - after that didn't go over well, he concocted a bit about him "intentionally trying to create a character"), but I haven't seen the recent talk shows. I understand that Harry Smith on The Early Show was unequivocal about Jonathan's behavior being horrible to watch, but if Slate, Salon, and Entertainment Weekly now view him as a "good reality character", anything can happen, I guess.

Sally's last statement there - boy, is it spot-on.

Amanda-

I repeat -- I NEVER SAW THE SHOW.

And the post was solely about emotional, not physical abuse. The word "emotional" appears five times in the post, the word physical appears zero times. That is what I responded to.

In fact, the reference to the show was this:

"On “The Amazing Race”, a team of two that are married shows numerous accounts of Jonathan Baker berating his wife, Victoria Fuller, calling her “stupid”, “useless” and “dumb”."

Is "berating" physical, or emotional abuse?

Again, I have never seen the show. Clear?

The two are not separate issues, like you'd imagine. Victims of physical abuse are often emotionally abused for long periods before the physical abuse begins. Their will to fight back is broken down--sounds like a classic example. He set her up for failure by giving her no-win situations, blamed her for everything, called her stupid, tricked her into situations where she had to clean up his mess or get stuck in a foreign country, endless screamed abuse and before it was all over, he was threatening to hit her and he shoved her.

No, they aren't separate issues.

All I can say, Amanda is that the post did not address physical abuse. Sorry.

Be that as it may, the distinctions between different kinds of abuse tend to lead people to drawing conclusions about abuse--that it is in three neat, tidy categories that do not overlap--and therefore make us willfully blind to what is and what is not abuse. Yelling at his wife the way he did is far, far worse than if my boyfriend accidentally left a bruise on my hip bone when we were playfully wrestling, for instance.