Charlie Sheen is currently the highest paid actor on television. With performances in movies like “Platoon”, “Wall Street” and “Cadence”, Sheen has long since established himself as an A-list actor. His role as a so-called loveable bad boy on “Two and a half Men,” apparently largely based on his persona, has garnered him several award nominations. Audiences adore Sheen’s work as a fictional scoundrel, but the mirror image in real life is hardly entertaining.
On Christmas day, Sheen was arrested in his Colorado home after a 911 call from his wife, Brooke Mueller Sheen. According to MSNBC the police document accused Charlie Sheen of stating:
“You better be in fear. If you tell anybody, I’ll kill you.”
“I have ex-police I can hire who know how to get the job done and they won’t leave any trace.”
This was apparently said while he was allegedly straddling his wife and choking her on a bed, all while holding a knife to her throat.
If Mrs. Sheen’s allegations are correct, Charlie may be a bad boy but he is far from loveable. This incident is only one of many that involve the mistreatment of women by Charlie Sheen.
* In 1990 Sheen accidentally shot his then fiancée Kelly Preston in the arm.
* In 1995 he was sued by a UCLA student who claimed he struck her in the head back in 1994 after she refused him sex. The case was settled out of court.
* In 1995 Sheen admitted to utilizing the services of the famed madam Heidi Fleiss, for the purposes of procuring call girls.
* In 1997 Sheen plead no contest to battery charges brought by former girlfriend, model-actress Brittany Ashland, who claimed that Sheen threw her onto his kitchen floor and split her lip.
Sheen is a man with a history of violence and drug abuse, yet he has not suffered any noticeable setbacks professionally. It is interesting to note that recently, Tiger Woods admitted to engaging in extra marital affairs which involved no violence, and yet he was dropped by sponsors and became the standing punchline of comedy routines. The fact that Tiger Woods is seen as Black, while Sheen as White (Sheen has Latino heritage, of course, but he is mostly understood as being just one of the white guys), might have a little something to do with the disparity with which these two men have been treated.
White guys like Sheen have the ability to act with impunity, because socially, they are still on top. This in combination with Sheen’s personal wealth ensures there is little beyond personal morality to act as a stop gap against acts of anti-social behaviour and violence.
This is why the rogue that Sheen plays on “Two and a half Men” is so “charming.” The character acts like a misogynist and has a history of using women like disposable sex toys. He is the latest modern incarnation of the playboy. All he is missing is a mirror on his ceiling. In fact, upon “Two and Half Men”‘s first airing since the arrest, the show garnered 11.1 million viewers. By now, there is more than the supposed female fascination with the bad boy, it is representative of cultural acceptance of violence against women.
When Janice Min, the former editor of US Weekly, was asked on television, if Sheen will get a pass, she responded:
“Absolutely, women for better or worse often forgive these bad boys. The fact that you are showing the Ferris Bueller clip now; for a lot of women this is the kind of bad boy that they like and remember.”
Women don’t control the media and they certainly do not control the justice system, and therefore, the very suggestion that we are enabling Sheen’s behaviour is stupid. The majority of writers for situational comedies are men to begin with, yet it is still women who get the blame for buying into the bad boy persona, which is ridiculous.
Here’s a newsflash: no woman enjoys being battered by her lover or spouse. There is also a difference between liking aggression or toughness in a man and actually approving of violence. Sheen’s behaviour continues to be ignored, but not because of his prowess as an actor, or his ability to sexually stimulate women; it continues to be ignored, because it supports the supremacy of sexist White guys in our society.
When feminists speak out about the misogyny aimed at women in the media, they are been ridiculed and silenced. Yet when television programs repeatedly show women as disposable, is it really surprising that the violence of someone like Charlie Sheen is pretty much given the go-ahead by society at large?
It is up to the state of Colorado to decide whether it has a vested interest in adjudicating this case. If they decide to proceed, Mr. Sheen is most certainly facing jail time. According to People magazine, the Sheens are about to commence couples counselling, with Charlie participating in anger management classes. For the sake of their twin sons, the Sheens must find a way to interact with each other, but what is most important is that Charlie learns how to control his temper and interact with women. His previous history reveals a man that has no problem resorting to violence to obtain whatever it is he wants. Couples counselling will not force him to admit his undeserved privilege or the damage he has done in the name of it.
From Teddy Kennedy to Charlie Sheen, men with race and class privilege are enabled and protected. We must begin to dismantle what it is that makes them so “special,” if we are to end the systemic inequality that often leads to violence and even death. Out-of-control “bad boys” aren’t so “lovable” after all, and it is about time that we stopped discovering this the hard way.
In 1995 Sheen admitted to utilizing the services of the famed madam Heidi Fleiss, for the purposes of procuring call girls
And your point is?
On the job, scanning comments and responding, are we not?
Let me help you out:
You “admit” past occasions of shame, like:
‘(I) admit working my way through stripper school as a lawyer”
Sheen, as I recollect, stood up for Heidi when she was down, and commented positively about her business
You got a problem with that?
How do you like this:
“Jollyroger admitted being a member of the NAACP, and passing (falsely) as 1/8 black while a student at Brown”
Get my drift?
Nat, what is this crap? Do you know this woman?
“Lovable Bad boy” ??? His women hating attitude is most definitely ‘not lovable’
lol
If you took the time to read the actual article, you’d discover that this is exactly the same thing the author says.
Er, Renee is one of our columnists, I know her pretty well. 🙂
JR: Her point is that if you are a high and mighty celebrity, you could get away with murdering a woman, and this is not a good thing.
I don’t hold with the antics of both Tiger and Charlie Sheen. Both are male hoes, but this article should be the starting and ending point of anyone thinking that there’s no difference how their being treated.
And yeah, Anthony Quinn and Fernando Lamas (for starters) got honorary white status, too, but they were Latinos who had to hide their brown heritage to keep working. Snotty Charlie thinks and acts like a white guy; Tiger wanted to and got away with it until just recently. He’ll never have that white status again.
While I cannot recall Lamas or Richardo Montalban or even someone like Antonio Banderas getting violent with women, Anthony Quinn was notorious up to the day of his death for having women, and betraying and manhandling women.
These guys hate women standing up to them or defending themselves, so they threaten to take their lives in retaliation and to get them to submit. Anything to get them to stay in the marriage/relationship, right?
I never really liked Two and a Half Men all that much because of Charlie Sheen’s character. His tubby nephew on the show is almost acting just like him, and the brother is just pathetic and wimpy against Charlie’s “manliness.” I cannot see why people still reward this kind of behavior and attitude. By now, I have grown sick of it.
Sheen and his wife both have substance abuse problems and need help, but they are enabling the very worst in themselves. At least, they need to be separated so that they are not acting out their drama in front of their children so that they could repeat the cycle.
Which makes me wonder a lot about Martin Sheen’s contribution to his sons’ upbringing.
Misognyn and contempt isn’t loveable – and it’s grossly sad that it is treated as such – that it is regarded as forgiveable and it doesn’t make even the slightest dent on your career.
His actions are beyond reprehensible – and it’s extremely damaghing to women that they’re not treated as such
Well, Nat, do YOU think that being a customer of Heidi Fleiss deserves to be included in a list of otherwise despicable acts of violence against women?
I have to say that the rejoinders above are remarkably obtuse.
You used to have a better class of reader, intellectually speaking.
(Better class of poster, too…)
Other than that, Hi & Happy New Year, (whatever calendar you follow…)
The name of this magazine isn’t What Nat Thinks On Any Given Topic. Renee is free to express her views.
free to express her views.
To be sure–but she is, evidently, too busy to drop by and defend them.
I will extend myself to register at her site, so as to promote dialog.
That is to say, I will call her out. Hi jinks, no doubt, to follow.
I don’t think colour had to be drawn into this debate, this is about a wealthy person thinking they can get away with it… a wealthy person that can’t control himself. A dangerous mix. Two And A Half Men is an awful programme. That it has actually won awards in America and celebrated as good television speaks volumes about their society…
@JR you presume that I feel that your objections are worth noting. Please stop my WM where I will be happy to continue to ignore you.
I think the disparity in the way Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods are being criticized has to do with many factors, not just race. In fact, I would argue that race plays a pretty small role in the debate of “why we hate Tiger and tolerate Sheen.”
First of all, Tiger Woods is Tiger Woods. He is the first, last, and only Tiger Woods to exist, and for better or worse, that makes understanding his actions and the public’s reaction to them completely unique. Tiger is one of the best players to ever play golf, the best currently living, and made it to this status by playing public courses (in the ’90s this was still pretty rare) at a (then) astoundingly young age. His blackness also affected our perception of his talent, of course, but only in as much as we see him as having broken the race barrier in golf. Because he is so unique in the field in which he is famous he is (fairly or not) held to exceedingly high standards, all of which except for succeeding at his profession, he fell short of. We put him on the pedestal, he fell.
On the other end, Charlie Sheen has done well, but the general consensus of his talent, level of fame, and notoriety is probably somewhere between “average” and “below average.” In fact, his “bad boy” reputation HAS hurt him, and has done so quite a bit. In the early ’80s he was offered huge projects, films of substance and cultural impact. “Two and a Half Men” while popular, has all the cultural import and gravitas as a Tamagachi pet does in 2010.
Also, it should be mentioned that barring a very few exceptions, actors (no matter how famous) are rarely seen as “role-models” in the strict sense. Tiger’s offenses hurt him because there was a segment of the population actively encouraging their children to be like Tiger (just as I was encouraged to be like Mike, who, unsurprisingly, also turned out to be a massive tool). And outside of people actively trying to emulate (or encourage emulation) sports stars, again, fairly or not, inspire admiration in skill and in what humans can accomplish. Actors do not. If there are any parents out there encouraging their kids to be like Charlie Sheen, then they have a lot of problems worse than what Charlie himself might do next.
Perhaps the biggest difference between Woods and Sheen is what we expect. We expect a certain percentage of famous actors to behave appallingly. It’s factored in, the cost of doing business. Now that opinion has helped people like Charlie Sheen survive, and is a genuine problem with our cultural morality, but it’s got nothing to do with race. Charlie’s been doing it for years, and even if he weren’t, we, as a society, wouldn’t be terribly surprised to hear about what he does. We will be shocked because it is horrible, but that lack of surprise also means that we won’t feel as “betrayed” by his actions, or as arrested in forming our opinion of him.
Finally, perhaps the most disturbing difference between these two cases is that our society is, in general, more tolerant of spousal abuse – by celebrities or otherwise – than of extra-marital affairs. That is a truly sad and dangerous state of ethics for a country to have, but it’s what we have. As long as our country remains fundamentally puritanical, chauvinist, and based on (usually very sexist) Judeo-Christian values – specifically gender roles – people are going to be more angry about a guy stepping out 30 times than a guy hitting 5 women. Is that terrible? Of course. It’s reprehensible, but, sadly, I don’t see it changing any time soon. For Charlie, a lot of people will just say, “boys will be boys,” and that’s shameful, but it isn’t because he’s mostly white, it’s because we’re all completely fucked up.