More than 90% of the current crime reality based shows, focus on violence against women.

I didn't realize that was the case...

Well, for once the reality shows have found something that is actually real.

Most violence IS against women, worldwide in every country. Women and Children are the top scorers when it comes to getting beaten up.

The comma doesn't belong there.
__

Ex, actly!  

Without negating the horror of violence against women, I think, that, there's a level of misogynistic porn in place here,  rather than information, or mere entertainment.

Thank, you. So for commenting and taking the time to write. I wish I could state my point as well as you have your answer.

(Dont worry, dude over there will let you know)

Yes.

You know?. I've always said that even the most oppressed groups turn around and oppress their women. That's not even looking at them as victims of war. I didn't think of it in global terms. Doing so definitely inclined me to agree with you. Great point. Thank you J, for writing.

Good eye, dearest L.
I'm pretty well sure it went totally over his, head.

I think there could be several reasons for the emphasis in crime fiction.

Women actually are more frequent victims of violent crime, though whether it's actually as high as 90% I don't know.

TV stations and writers select topics which contain high emotional impact because this grabs and holds the attention (and hence attracts more advertising dollars for the station.) The weaker and less capable of self-defense a victim is, the higher the drama, but shows depicting children as victims (and perhaps animals) are less popular because they are too defenseless and it's too painful.

We have created a culture somewhat like the Romans with their violence in the Colosseum to amuse the plebians on their days off. The gradual desensitization to violence requires ever more gruesome and sensationalist topics.

I suspect that crime shows are written with a kind of propaganda - to educate the public about what is crime, to show that it's difficult to get away with it because the detectives and technology are so sophisticated, to give us the satisfaction that the bad guys get caught, and to make us feel safer and trust more in cops and the justice system, even while the news delivers facts often to the contrary.

Australian Government statistics as follows.

(I think we have a lower crime rate than the USA for several reasons: much smaller population spread across a wider area creates less tension; far less gun ownership and almost no semi's or auto's; fewer drugs.)

Age and gender of prisoners

• Between 1984 and 2007, the overall imprisonment rate for adult males increased from 170 to 319 per 100,000 of the adult male population per year.
• The adult female rate of imprisonment was seven per 100,000 per year in 1984 and 24 per 100,000 per year in 2007.
• As in the previous six years, seven percent of prisoners in 2007 were women.
• The number of adult male and female prisoners increased by an average of five percent and six percent respectively per annum over the period 1984–2007.
• Fifty-seven percent of prisoners in 2007 were known to have served a sentence prior to their current prison term.

• Ninety-three percent of prisoners in 2007 were male.
• Fifty-seven percent of all prisoners were under 35 years of age.
• Of both males and females, 25- to 34-year-olds again had the highest imprisonment rates in 2007 (642 and 54 respectively per 100,000 per year).

When looking at statistics for victims of crime, there are far more female victims of male violence than vice versa.

I could not find statistics for male victims of female violence, but it might be possible to calculate them from the other data.

Wow,  

I certainly appreciate the effort and the work you've done on this.  Thanks.

Just to get it out of the way, I don't think that the.stations care too much about education. Were that the.case I think we'd be seeing more ads and shows on the dangers of smoking and less on celebrating how sexy Nicole Kidman looks with a fag dangling from her mouth.

My ninety percent refers to the number of shows depicting such violence against women as opposed to those who don't. I was certainly not implying that ninety percent of crime as a whole is committed against women. 

I've read the.simpathy/vulnerable victims argument before. In which they want to elicit the.greatest amount of sympathy, for the greatest amount of satisfaction when the perpetrators get caught. I understand that. But I have a little issue with saying " I want to make you sad , but not too sad" .so we're not going to show children and animals. (Which btw, says.a lot when shows about rape are shown constantly, but a horse with a broken leg getting shot on tv, causes outrage).

You do bring up the argument of desensitization, in which its not that they are not showing the most horrific, but that they're not showing it yet. I remember when these shows started, they would use mannequins or people with ketchup on the face to represent victims. They don't any more. At least not here. 

Thinking about it that way, you may be right. I don't have an answer to that.  

I still think it's just porn, tho.

Thank you so much for writing Ms Hart. I appreciate the effort in trying to make me understand.

In Australia, we get a broad mix of TV from different countries around the world, British and American on the commercial stations, and European and Asian on SBS.

Only a small fraction of what we see is home grown. Apart from our famous soapies and a couple of crime dramas, it usually produces more art than money.

I forget which of the sexologists said it (maybe Shere Hite.) From tens of thousands of questionaires, she estimated that 5% of women and 10% of men are homosexual, while a further 30% are bisexual. If what you say is right about porn, then her statistic could explain your estimate of 90% female victims, if 90% of viewers are male and het. But I think the TV shows have both genders watching, so I'm not sure that the desire to watch is for titillation.

Psychologists reckon that rape crimes are not about sex alone, but about rage and revenge. I don't understand it, but there's evidence to support it. If, for some medical reason, a person lacks adrenaline, sexual drive drops to zero within two years. Mars was the god of sex and war. On Athenian vases, one sees images of warriors fighting naked with swords and shields - they have hard-ons and are ejaculating.

So if the porn idea is right, it suggests that a huge percentage of men carry feelings of rage towards women, and get vicarious pleasure from seeing them suffer. That's entirely possible. As a society, many of us have almost no skills in dealing constructively with conflict. That would mean many men are repressing their feelings only because of the law. But I doubt that this view is on target.

It's not quite consistent with the pattern of plot formulas.  We know the woman is about to die if we see her no more than twice (no time to become attached) and if her role is casual. We never get to know her or form an attachment to her character. The sight of the body is brief, barely a flash. It must be sufficient to show the heinous villainy, the psychotic depravity, but not enough to make us puke. Once in the morgue, she's reduced to the stuff of abattoirs, or a ghoulish grey corpse, which presumably arouses almost no one. When the killer is stalking we feel fear rather than lust, or certainly I do. When the attack comes we see the start of the strike and then it cuts to the aftermath. If it were porn, I think it would dwell in detail on the act.

But maybe it's a different kind of porn. Nothing to do with sex at all, but all to do with the sating of repressed rage.

However, my knowledge of the genre is limited. I stay away from the most gruesome shows like "Silent Witness" - one glimpse near the beginning is enough to make me feel sick. If something horrific occurs in a film, I close my eyes and block my ears until Ari taps me on the shoulder and says it's okay to come out now.

I confess I wasn't trying to "make" you understand, since I don't understand myself.

I was trying to explore the issue because I think it's an intelligent question that deserves attention.

Like the Romans in their colosseum, there is something profoundly sick in Western society. I believe we are a debauched civilization in the earliest stages of decay.

We are like rats over breeding in a behavioural sink.

Ah! Both genders watching. Hmm, great point. You know, not one time I thought of that. Not once. I wonder how that's going to change if any my opinion. Thank you. That's pretty good. It does certainly shakes my argument. I have to think about that one.

I don't think there is fault in trying to make the other understand something , by the way. I put no negative connotations on it. I do want to understand your point. And I appreciate you helping me understand it. It's alright. The response to this is below, I think I screwed off the order here somehow. Thank you Hart.

Many men are repressing their feelings because of the law. Absolutely!

I don't know what they show over there, but here, they do do a lot of dwelling.

If they do a lot of dwelling then it has to be  some sort of porn. it makes the fact of women watching

It makes the fact of women watching a mystery to me - unless they're somehow warping themselves in the process.

Australia has censorship which enables people to select ahead of time whether they wish to expose themselves to those levels. I have always avoided the worst.

What does this question have to do with fashion? Is there a hidden reason for posting a question of this sort in such a dubious category?

Dubious?