I really wish I hadn't seen the pictures that were leaked of Rihanna after the supposed assault by boyfriend Chris Brown. I am not going to post them here, because I think they are too triggering. Needless to say, they show someone who was brutally attacked.
As I said the last time I wrote about this, it is rare that the media gives light to violence against women of color. From the jump, this story hinged from an angle of victim-blaming, from blaming Rihanna for "giving Brown herpes" to "cheating on him with Jay-Z." The narrative was clear; sometimes it is OK to beat a woman.
In releasing the pictures two things have happened. First, Rihanna's privacy has been violated in a very harmful way. We have no business seeing the extent of the harm done to her and this is a serious issue, not something we should be laughing at and making spectacle of. The video of her picture is in the top ten most watched videos on youtube. Our culture of voyeurism and the desire to be in people's lives never lets us down.
Secondly, releasing her pictures gave a validity to her story that she didn't have the right to prior to belief that she deserved to get hit. The picture has sent shockwaves around the internet and people changed their tune, some calling for Chris Brown to go to jail for a long time. What is unfortunate is that it took a picture that violated Rihanna's rights for the greater public to believe the perpetrator should be locked up. It is a sad world that we live in, when a woman is not taken at face value. And then her body must be consumed for the world to see in order to believe her story. The message is clear, women and especially black women, have no right to privacy, their image is for our consumption and story-telling.
In writing this, I actually didn't read what other people are saying, so please feel free to leave other links in comments. I am so deeply disturbed by this story and concerned for the impact it will have on not only what we consider the rights of women that have been victims of violence, but also the culture of victim-blaming. Can't we show our young women a better world than that?
Update: Don't forget to check out Jessica's quick video on why it is bullshit that TMZ published the picture and Jay Smooth's interview with Elizabeth Mendez.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Black women's bodies, voyeurism and Rihanna.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12118
Here are my thoughts...my opinion.
I don't think its voyeurism to want to see what was done to her. No one is "getting off" on the pics. Pictures are worth a 1000 words, and in this case, they are all you need to understand what was perpetrated. I think people are far more likely to relate to the pic, than any story that might be told.
That said, I've only seen the picture of her face, so if there are more pics that are far more sexually explicit and damaging, I might change my mind...
And fwiw, I don't think there are racial undertones to it either. Violence against women is a universal tragedy.
I'm not sure how anyone could think there aren't racial undertones to it. First, the news coverage on violence against black women is generally so, so different from coverage of violence against white women. Second, the fact that it took shocking images to shift the coverage and comments from a "what did she do to make him hit her?" tone to a "she couldn't have deserved that" tone is very significant. The cultural image of black women includes being "mouthy" and "uppity," thus deserving to get slapped around a little. It's hard to imagine a white female celebrity being assaulted like this without a huge immediate outcry without the questions about her culpability.
Off the top of my head, when thinking about white celebrities who were victims of DV, I think of Mindy McCready and the terrible abuse that she went through. And, in line with your comment, I don't remember anyone wondering what she did to make her boyfriend choke her until she nearly died. I could be wrong, or not have explored the internet enough (I wasn't reading many blogs then), but I think it was generally accepted that the (presumably white) boyfriend was an abusive douchebag.
I totally agree. For some sick reason black women are seen as being more culpable in assault than women of other ethnicities, and I would also say that black men are seen as less culpable because it's more "expected" that they will be physically violent. It's racist and disgusting.
I disagree. Lots. I think there was an immediate outcry in support of her..albeit it was split by people who had a firm image of Chris Brown as well. If Angelina Jolie, or even Jennifer Aniston, complained of being hit by Brad Pitt, do you think 100% of the media would flock to her side? Or might a lot of Pitt's fans say, "I want to see some evidence first."
Sean Connery has a documented if poorly publicized track record of domestic battery. Certainly OJ did also with respect to Nicole and yet it wasn't generally believed. As a black person I don't see a lot of racial differences in media portrayals of domestic battery. It all tends to be under reported.
The sad thing about famous people and assault is that if the victim was not famous, the celebrity will invariably still have public support. I think you would see a different side of things if there was a white couple involved in this type of situation with both members equally as famous as Chris and Rihanna.
I remember my parents (both of them) talking about white male actors whom they boycotted for beating their white wives. I don't remember the specific names, but the fact is that it's long been established that white women who suffer physical abuse on a public stage are victims, while black women who suffer physical abuse on a public stage are utterly ignored.
In Rihanna's case, it was worse; people were saying, "Chris Brown is such a nice guy", the implication being that she was lying or, at best, that she was such a nagging bitch that he just had to slam her face into the dashboard to get her to shut up. (Which, of course, is an example of sexist discourse; men are allowed to talk a lot more than women are before they're considered annoying or naggy, not to mention that male victims of violence are generally not disbelieved.)
It's true that the pictures have been helpful in convicting that scumbag Brown in the court of public opinion, but it's disgusting that her image had to be sullied for it to happen. We would NEVER demand such a thing of a male violence victim. If Chris Brown got in an argument with a competitor in the music business or something, and got his face slammed into a dashboard, got punched, whatever, we wouldn't say, "But T.I. is such a nice guy." We would believe him automatically. We wouldn't demand photographic evidence of his beaten-up face. And we would consider such photographs disgusting, even pornographically violent.
Think of all the male celebrities who have ever been physically attacked in some way. Have we ever seen the pictures of those guys in the aftermath? Have we ever doubted that they were victims up until the release of photographic evidence?
Black women apparently are subject to totally different expectations of privacy. That's disturbing. It should shake us to our core.
I don't see a lot of racial differences in media portrayals of domestic battery. It all tends to be under reported.
And yet if a black woman or girl goes missing or is murdered there is hardly any, and mostly only local, news coverage. When a white woman or girl goes missing or is found dead there's generally a huge national media circus. If you generalized from news coverage alone, you would believe that white women are three times more likely to be killed or abused by their partners, when in fact, black women are 35% more likely to be abused, and the leading cause of death for black women between the ages of 15 and 45 is intimate partner homicide. Seems like a problem to me.
But these pictures were released without her consent! It IS fucking voyeurism to have her picture released and spread around by media outlets. And you know what? A lot of the response to the picture has been "That doesn't look so bad." Or "Wow, I didn't think Brown had hurt her so bad."
People don't understand that that picture represents and as a survivor of DV it is horribly triggering. DV isn't just bruises and cuts, it's emotional manipulation and sexual violence as well.
This picture serves nothing but as a way the media is sensationalizing a black woman's story without even discussing the horrible nature of DV and its impact on people.
I understand voyeurism to be an erotic need to see others naked, without the subject being aware of it. Are we all voyeurs now, merely by looking at it? And yea, some jackasses are saying its "not that bad", but many many many more are saying that its really bad; far more than just a story alone would have garnered.
Triggering? I'm a sex assault victim, and yet I don't go around proclaiming everything that I see related to it is triggering. Its as bad as me proclaiming that since I was attacked in a bar bathroom, every time I see one (or use one)I'm triggered. Yes, you might be triggered, and if thats the case, YOU should avoid those things that are triggers.
Triggering? I'm a sex assault victim, and yet I don't go around proclaiming everything that I see related to it is triggering. Its as bad as me proclaiming that since I was attacked in a bar bathroom, every time I see one (or use one)I'm triggered. Yes, you might be triggered, and if thats the case, YOU should avoid those things that are triggers."
I said that this ONE picture was triggering and you're lecturing me about how I'm going around "proclaiming" that everything I see is triggering?
What's more triggering is people telling me how I should react to a leaked picture of a victim of DV. One of the things about triggers is that they don't make any sense.
Voyeurism is not simply an erotic/sexual act. It is watching something we're not supposed to be seeing. As Samhita said, "Our culture of voyeurism and the desire to be in people's lives never lets us down."
"And yea, some jackasses are saying its "not that bad", but many many many more are saying that its really bad; far more than just a story alone would have garnered."
Who cares? Unless those people are on the jury, these people aren't owed access to the evidence in the case. They certainly shouldn't be owed proof that Rhianna didn't provoke him or that her injuries "weren't really that bad." This just lends credibility to the idea that it's ok to assume women are responsible for violence against them or lighter abuse can be justified unless the victim has severe bruising or broken bones (and of course, publicly displays them).
Mhh...the triggering comment sounded rather harsh.
What I mean is that I can't expect society to edit everything I see or hear so that I'm not triggered. Its up to me to know the things that make me susceptible to flashbacks, and to mitigate them by changing what I'm doing. Bar bathrooms aren't bad in and of themselves; but being in one by myself is, so I don't go by myself anymore.
I'm afraid of heights. Should I not allow others to view and enjoy high places because I am?
For what it's worth, I actually agree with you about psychological triggers. I don't think that the fact that this photo might be triggering is a good argument for not publishing it (although I think there are plenty of reasons not to). I have a lot of sympathy for people who have experienced trauma and have to relive the terror when something reminds them of that event. But if Rhianna (or another victim of abuse) had consented to having those pictures released as a way of standing against abuse or opening up a dialogue, I would have supported them being on the front page of every paper. Unfortunately, the most general triggers are often related to subjects that should not be hidden from public view (sexual assault, various forms of abuse, and military horrors). It's not fair for victims to have to relive those experiences, but unfortunately it's impossible to put a warning label on every depiction of these things without decreasing awareness. And, as you said, a lot of triggers are merely some piece of sensory data that is harmless in and of itself. If I were raped by someone wearing lavender scented lotion, I couldn't really expect society to protect me from the scent of lavender. It's sad, but there is really no way to completely insulate someone from a triggering experience.
voy·eur (voi-yûr).n.
1. A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point.
2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects.
"And fwiw, I don't think there are racial undertones to it either. Violence against women is a universal tragedy. "
Yes, domestic violence occurs in communities of all colors, faiths, and classes. But, as with all forms of gender-based oppression, DV manifests itself differently on the basis of any number of aspects of the target's identity (see Rachel-in-WY's comment about stereotypes of black women). And the wider society's response to DV will also vary.
Hence, outsiders have justified the abuse with claims characterizing Island women as "out of control" and light-skinned women as "uppity." Such characterizations would obviously not be invoked in a discussion of, say, a white woman's abuse. Meaninggg...racial "undertones" are undeniably an aspect of this and all instances of DV.
I completely agree, but have to say that I am not surprised. I am surprised that the media cares at all about this. I was shocked to read about it on Perezhilton and TheSuperficial (both awful celebrity gossip blogs). Part of me is relieved that there is such a public disgust around this, since most of the time we almost never see domestic violence in the news, and especially not in celebrity news. I am extremely disturbed at all of the male celebrities who have come out in defense of Chris Brown, and am curious how anyone can say that this isn't about race, since almost all of the celebrities who I have seen interviewed about this are people of color. To me, there is no way this isn't a racial issue. Look at the comments left on the celebrity blogs and look at the people the media are interviewing and you will see that there is level of acceptance around women of color and abuse in the world.
Perhaps we read entirely different news sources and hear different radio stations, but I never heard the theories about herpes or Jay-Z until right now reading your blog entry. The main thing I heard (and I actively sought out information, so I don't think I am just under-informed) was discussion about whether Chris Brown's career was over. I certainly agree that the photos shouldn't have been released, but I think you are needlessly looking for problematic societal attitudes toward domestic violence victims that perhaps don't exist (or at least are not as mainstream as you suggest).
"but I think you are needlessly looking for problematic societal attitudes toward domestic violence victims that perhaps don't exist (or at least are not as mainstream as you suggest)."
Ignorance is bliss, huh? You want to hear the dirty laundry list I've heard of what people say about me and my sisters and brothers who have survived situations of DV/intimate partner violence?
Samhita isn't needlessly looking for anything. The attitudes are out there and I hear them all the time. This Rihanna situation has not only been horribly stressful for her, but all victims of DV who have to listen to the same old tripe being said again about how "We deserved it" or "Why didn't we leave?" etc etc. Rinse, repeat. Same old. Same old.
"I think you are needlessly looking for problematic societal attitudes toward domestic violence victims that perhaps don't exist (or at least are not as mainstream as you suggest)."
I'm very surprised to see a comment like this posted on this forum. The discussion that has surrounded Brown's abuse of Rihanna, not just in comment sections of entertainment blogs but throughout mainstream news media sources, has shown an extreme and widespread lack of education about the dynamics of domestic violence. And that's the thing...it's not just assholes or internet trolls that are trying to say something ugly -- these ignorant, insensitive, woman-blaming, quick-to-defend-the-man comments are coming from a majority of regular people who have never been informed or informed themselves about the reality of domestic violence.
I first heard the allegation that Rihanna gave Brown herpes when my mother, a college professor, mentioned that her students were discussing it before class. They said that they heard he hit her, then they "found out that it was because she gave him herpes." The reaction? "I was like, right on!" I've since seen that allegation repeated as fact in pretty much every comment section I've read.
A friend of mine was listening to satellite radio the other day, and was outraged to hear the DJs stating that maybe if Rihanna "takes some responsibility for what happened" she and Chris can get back together, but not if she comes out and says (in mocking falsetto) "I was abuuuuuused!"
The statement that "we don't know the circumstances," "we don't have all the facts," "relationships are complicated," is also EVERYWHERE. Which flat-out implies that there are some circumstances in which his beating her would be understandable. And yet again, gives the benefit of the doubt to the abuser rather than the victim. Because you know, women are crazy, and violent and shrewish and violence-provoking, and will lie with the sole intent of ruining men's lives.
I've been depressed by how mainstream the dismissal of (and woman-blaming in) domestic violence apparently is.
Some comments from YouTube:
He had a roid rage! This is sooo cool!
that nigga isnt goin to jail .
What a crock of shit. I bet its all amke up and photoshop...
roid rage? he wieghs like a buck ten... typical jungle bunny
It was prolly just rough sex.
chris brown ftw!
i knew he was gay
i think it was photo shop....honestly i think she is trying to frame him sopositly he is making more money then she is...and if he saw his mom being smacked around till he was 13 i dont think he would go and beat her....plus that pictures looks fake
well, if we dont even know who leaked it then they COULD have been photoshopped or anything...its not like they are offical police pictures...they could be fake or tweaked
so fucking tired of seeing this stupid shit all over youtube, who gives a fuck about these two fucktards, theres more important shit going on right now
....thats eye shadow......look, you can see its shiny, its make up!!!! im not defending chris brown AT ALL...but those are not bruises on her eyes...thats a lie...
she must have done something terribly wrong to him .
well maybe if she didnt give him herpes...
Haha shame.
thats not dry blood!
thats fuckin herp's!
all these peeps fuckin sayin poor girl.
theres no way he did that shit outta the blue
females provok shit and dont shut up.
im sry im not trying to offend any 1 im jus
saying that when the wrong stuff is said and u should jus keep quite......u keep talking
and whooop. looks like chris wasnt havin it.
she shoulda kept quite.
Chris Brown Needs His Ass Wooped..You never assault a woman..
i'm not defending him but i'm sorry either the picture was altered or she did something to provoke him cause ain't no way he just hit on her cause she said somethin out da way and we would've been seen a side of his temper.!
soo hard to believe.!
you know in the 1800's and early 1900's it was perfectly acceptable to slap a ho. lets face it peeps...every once in a while they need a slap dont they? but sometimes doods need a beatdown toobut for Jay-Z to get involved and say watch his back he should get a Chris Brown beat down special lol ...mind your own buisness flat nose...as for provoking and pushing buttons its all true the world is not a pretty place by any means.... BTW plx dont reply saying we R not in the 1800,1900's i know that..
Instead of just walking away and finishing with her he hits her T_T now everyone is on her side even though she did give him supposed STD's :/
on this woman's left shoulder next to the neck is a tattoo of some roman numerals. Looks like XI and VI. If these are not the tattoos on rihanna, the case is solved, but if they are, LAPD be in trouble too.
LEAVE CHRIS BROWN ALONE
Arnt her lips and nose always that puffy anyway?
í d?nt gív? ? shít wh? h? ???t.......th?t ?ítch ís s???!!! s? wh?t íf h? h?s ?ng?r pr??l?ms... just ??c?us? h?'s f?m?us d?n't m??n h? h?s t? ?? p?rf?ct!
that shit fake as hell
Let this be a lesson to all you young girls out there: Listen to your boyfriends.
chris ur fucked up.. i cant believe u actually did what all men want to do.. opps i didnt mean to say that!!!
nobody ever deserves being beaten.
Like hell they dont! Some people deserve worst. They stone people to death for less offenses in other countries. If she was in Saudia Arabis she would heve been beheaded. Fuck the bullshit, some people deserve what they get!
Wow, those are awful.
Who reads Youtube comments as a source of news? Can someone please show me a mainstream news source, such as CNN or Fox or anything similar that has shown this attitude toward domestic violence victims? There will always be dumb people making offensive (anonymous!) comments on gossip blogs and whatnot. I don't think it's fair (or helpful) to infer that those comments are representative of the vast majority of society.
You said:
I think you are needlessly looking for problematic societal attitudes toward domestic violence victims that perhaps don't exist
It seems pretty obvious to me that these attitudes exist, even if some people are afraid to voice their opinions except when they're anonymous.
CNN also doesn't trot out intentionally racist language, that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people out in the world who are racist. Social prejudices and problems are not always reflected in news articles. I was searching for something about this case and came across an MTV article that was released AFTER the pictures came out. Many of these comments are spelled out nicely and seem to be phrased thoughtfully. Most importantly, they are presumably coming from real young people... That's what really interested me. Every three comments or so would be a suggestion that Rihanna brought it on herself. If you want to write these off because the same sentiment isn't expressed on mainstream news sites, then go for it. But I happen to think it's important to examine what average, everyday people are saying.
Some examples:
my opinion is Both parties were at fault for it going as far as it did, reports say the fight started at the party she didn’t have to go with him, she could have stayed there. He stormed out as she followed yelling was what I read. But there both young and I bet money she hit him first and didn’t expect him to hit her back because of who she is!
I have seen couple's especially young and immature couples or young girl/older man pervert couple's play fight in public places like the mall or in parks. They play fight where the girl starts by hitting him first or punching him then he grabs her and they start kissing. At times the PDA gets intense to where you are disgusted and you're like get a room. It seems that both parties danced and got burned. It's sad for both of them. They probably play fighted like these couples mentioned and when it got serious in the car that night. Rihanna may have hit him first and he retaliated and hit her and couldn't stop.
None of us were there to see what happened. So we can't say who even started the issue. Rihanna could be the meanest most aggressive woman if she gets mad.
I really hate how everyone is hatin' on chris when they don't know what sparked it off. how do we know she didn't come at him all aggressive first and he had to defend himself.
I'm a woman too and by no mean and i condoning assault against woman. But we have to be realistic and pragmatical here.. The world don't know what transpired at all and don't forget even though they are celebrities they still are regular ppl just with exceptional jobs or careers.So with that said i do believe every actions leads to a reaction..
These were just the comments on the first page, I was too disgusted to read further.
No, a lot of the comments sections in online articles about this, are just awful. A lot of excusing of Brown and claims that "everyone knows" Rihanna is jealous and a bitch, and a lot of other awful stuff.
I was so depressed reading it. Mostly because i fear this is coming from our youth. I personally believe that the rap culture has done wonders in our youth so far as race relations go. In fact, I would go so far as to say that racism is going to be obliterated by this newest generation.
But sexism? Oh madone. We're all bitches and hos now.
"In fact, I would go so far as to say that racism is going to be obliterated by this newest generation."
Ha!
I respectfully disagree with the first commenter's position that this has no racial under/overtones to it. In general, minority women are cast aside in the great majority's quest to preserve the purity of the white women (the historical background for this is astonishing and horrifying). The fact that the public at-large could believe that Rihanna "deserved it" only proves my point. Think what people would say if Miley Cyrus was abused by a boyfriend. There would be a much greater outcry against the boyfriend, no matter the circumstance!
But people, minorities included, look at men and women of color and think that a different moral code rules their relationships.
So, is violence against women a universal tragedy? Absolutely. But does this violence play in the same way for white women and women of color? Sadly no.
This. Good comment.
Seconded.
Very well put. Might you or someone else elaborate on your statement, "In general, minority women are cast aside in the great majority's quest to preserve the purity of the white women (the historical background for this is astonishing and horrifying)"?
I immediately agreed with the idea, but when I tried to think of specific instances and examples, I drew a blank (maybe my brain function's set on low, been up all night), so I wonder if someone could please explain to what this commenter is referring specifically (or what you think he or she could be alluding to)? Thank you.
Well, first and foremost, the case that was raised in my mind was the Scottsboro trial, the case where two white women accused (and by accusing, effectively convicted) nine black men of rape.
However, in doing the very scant research to answer this question, I found lots of people who discussed this division of moral codes that control white women vs. women of color.
1) Richard Delgado in his book, Critical Race Theory: "During slavery, the rape of a black woman by any man, white or black, was simply not a crime. Even after the Civil War, rape laws were seldom used to protect black women against either white or black men, since black women were considered promiscuous by nature."
2) Ida B. Wells, writing around the turn of the 20th Century, said: "White women were pure, virginal, and uninterested in sexual pleasure. They needed and deserved protection. African American women were wanton, licentious, promiscuous […] African American men were lustful beasts who could not be trusted in the company of ‘good’ women, white women."
3) And a more current example of this need to protect white women? See website: http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-truth-of-interracial-rape-in-the-united-states_2111.html
This discussion borders on the "women as markers of nationality" conversation, which upholds a certain color, class, or other classification of woman as the marker of a state's nationality, and therefore the most revered and purified type of women within that state. (Think about the Middle East's control over women.)
Hope this helps!
Thanks so much for your reply. I apologize if my comment sounded ignorant, but I will check out the sources you suggest. Thanks again.
Might I suggest you check out the book "Ida: A Sword Among Lions" by Paula Giddings? It's a biography of Ida B. Wells-Barnett, a social activist, feminist, journalist, and anti-lynching advocate who, during the late 19th and early 20th century, investigated thousands of incidents of lynching throughout the United States. The book is so long that I can safely call it at "tome", but it'll definitely provide you with the background you seek.
Or, to put it plainly: think of the untold thousands of black men who were lynched in the late 19th-early 20th Century because of rape allegations levied by white women, and then remember that while white men routinely raped and assaulted black women, black women, white men never *ever* endured the same sort of punishment.
Thanks so much for your reply. I appreciate you helping me reduce my ignorance and will be looking it the source you suggested. Thanks for taking the time to help me.
Yes, to add to the above, the common trope in U.S. lynchings of black men is the oversexualized barbaric black man who raped (or even attempted to woo in any way) an unsuspecting innocent white woman. In other words, white women were used as pawns to justify racial violence. In addition to Scottsboro, I know this was the case in a 1920 lynching in Duluth, MN, near where I live now, as well as the lynching of Emmett Till.
The assumption is of course that white women and black men cannot have consensual sex, or that a white woman cannot possibly want to have sex with a black man, or that a white woman simply *cannot give* consent to have sex with a black man.
Not to mention the historical erasure of how black women were raped during the lynching of black men; when black men were lynched, any women in the house (their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters) were often gang raped by the lynch mob, in front of their eyes, before they were killed. A white woman accused a black man of rape, and a black woman was raped for it. To add insult to injury this is too often not talked about when the history of white supremacy and lynching is discussed. I can't give you the reference I read this in because I don't remember! It's hard to find info.
Right. Definitely. I apologize for my omission, seeing as how we're talking here about the omission of women of color. I don't want perpetuate that.
The outcries about "rape" always focused on sullied white women, though no doubt black women were rape victims as frequently or more frequently than white women. The rape of black women was historically not even a "problem" - unless, occasionally, there were questions over illegitimate children.
I think there's a dominant level of discourse in our society which perpetuates the absurd notion that only black men could be interested in black women. (nevermind women being interested in black women, that's a topic for another day!) Whenever the topic of racial aspects of rape and kidnapping come up, that element seems to come into play. I have no citation for this, because it's just something I've picked up on, right or wrong.
So I think there's an assumption that only black men would want to have sex (consensual or not) with black women, and I think this, among other things, leads to the minimization of the problem of rape of black women, because it's thought of as a problem that only involves a small percentage of the population.
Does that make sense? Am I seeing a real phenomenon here or am I off my rocker? What do you all think?
I think you're right, with the exception of black prostitutes.
Not to mention the historical erasure of how black women were raped during the lynching of black men; when black men were lynched, any women in the house (their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters) were often gang raped by the lynch mob, in front of their eyes, before they were killed. A white woman accused a black man of rape, and a black woman was raped for it. To add insult to injury this is too often not talked about when the history of white supremacy and lynching is discussed.
I completely agree that there is a racial undertone; you cannot examine sexism without also looking at intersecting oppressions. However, this occurred to me when I was reading your comment:
Instead of Miley Cyrus insert "Brittany Spears." Or "Lindsey Lohan." Their past issues would be seen as a cause of intimate partner violence against them, regardless of the immediate situation. (Also, I think I spelled their names wrong. Sorry.)
I think that most, if not all, battered women face the provocation accusations, the disdain for staying with an abusive partner, and the disbelief that their partners are capable of abuse in the first place. Most of these judgements, however, do not happen on a national level, but on a personal one. They come from friends and family rather than 14 year olds sitting in Indiana saying, "I just don't think Chris Brown would DO that."
It depends. I am thinking back to Cyndy Garvey, who was beaten by her hero-husband, Steve Garvey, telling of the time she ran into Nicole Simpson in a grocery store.
They discussed being married to sports heroes who beat them. No one would ever believe them they said. Nicole told Garvey that someday, OJ would kill her, and he would get off.
And look too, at the girl that Chambers killed in central park, and then claimed it was rough sex. His defense attorney leaked her diary. She wasn't a virgin! This proves she deserved it!
She was white. I definitely agree that thanks to the myth of the plantation whore who seduced her moral white slaveowner into sex he really didn't want (in other words, he routinely raped her), women of color have it worse. And I'm not claiming otherwise.
But we live in a sexist world, and we're all on the receiving end of it. If only all of us knew this, and by this I refer to the anti-feminists, we might be able to reverse this course much faster.
The "public at large" hardly thought Rihanna deserved it. Some knuckleheads, hoodlums, thugs, and small dicked men perhaps thought it was justified but please don't lump me & everyone I know in with the people who think Rihanna 'deserved' it. The comments section of youtube always brings out the fucktards. that hardly makes them representative of the country, or even young people.
But the fact that for the first few days there was so much talk of what she must have said or done to have caused the "incident" is terrifically depressing. I don't think anyone's trying to claim that you personally took this attitude, or that every individual did. But the fact that such a majority of voices did initially really is something we should pay attention to.
Rihanna was violated and victimized when she was beaten. She was violated and victimized again (in a different way) when the photos were released.
However, I don't see why people taking the allegations more seriously upon seeing the photos makes these people bad or wrong.
Visual evidence of an event is evidence that it occured. And it makes the event more real. The Rihanna photos SHOULD sway people who were on the fence.
The thing about the justice system is that it requires victims to tell and re-tell their story and requires them to go public, go on the record. It wouldn't be justice if they didn't--it'd just be vengence or a kangaroo court. All we can do is minimize the pain for the victim within that context (which, incidentally, is part of WHY we try to protect the privacy of domestic violence and rape victims).
I think, though, that the appropriate thing to say when you hear about any man hitting his significant other is, "That's just not acceptable."
Hell, forget gendered pronouns, anyone hitting anyone else they're in a relationship with should receive a, "That's just not acceptable."
(I say this because of cringey comments made by men after a news report about a former Bachelor contestant and his girlfriend - she punched him in the face, and some men were leaving comments on the article saying that she must be doing kinky things in bed and that would be worth it to put up with being punched - how about NOT??)
It shouldn't take a picture for someone to not go into a whole hand wringing, "Oh, but maybe she was nagging him, maybe she deserved it, etc. etc." Hitting should be condemned no matter what.
(I mean, hell, if she did nag him or cheat on him, hitting still isn't acceptable. What kind of world do we live in where we think that violence is an acceptable response to having your feelings hurt? Just fucking walk away from the situation!)
Jehmu Greene has a good article on Huffington Post about violence in the black community, comparing reaction to Rihanna & Chris versus reaction to the New York Post cartoon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jehmu-greene/brown-v-monkey_b_169312.html
Very thought-provoking...
I agree with what she says about the silence within the black activist community about the Rihanna assault, however, there was zero need for her to exhonerate the racist and violent cartoon those idiots at the Post published.
You know, there can be two assholes in this world. You don't have exhonerate one of them. Both Chris Brown and Rupert Murdoch are assholes.
Yeah, that's what was giving me pause. But I totally agree with her that the silence surrounding black women and the violence they experience is deeply, deeply problematic.
"I think you are needlessly looking for problematic societal attitudes toward domestic violence victims that perhaps don't exist (or at least are not as mainstream as you suggest)."
I'm very surprised to see a comment like this posted on this forum. The discussion that has surrounded Brown's abuse of Rihanna, not just in comment sections of entertainment blogs but throughout mainstream news media sources, has shown an extreme and widespread lack of education about the dynamics of domestic violence. And that's the thing...it's not just assholes or internet trolls that are trying to say something ugly -- these ignorant, insensitive, woman-blaming, quick-to-defend-the-man comments are coming from a majority of regular people who have never been informed or informed themselves about the reality of domestic violence.
oops, this is a reply to Elizabeth-Ann...i will repost it up there.
This story disturbs me deeply as well, for all the reasons you mentioned here.
I've also noticed a disturbing level of anger/disgust at Rihanna because she is wealthy. I've heard many people wondering why they should care about some rich girl who got beat up. The suggestion is that it's wrong for women in general to be assaulted, but if the woman happens to be rich and famous, she is less deserving of our sympathy and support (and more deserving of being violated). It is so disturbing.
It is vital that we recognize and respond to the needs of the many women all over the world who are victims of violence. Rihanna is one of those women. It frustrates me to hear people acknowledge the injustice of intimate partner violence on the one hand, but place Rihanna in some separate category of women who we shouldn't care about because they are rich and famous.
So I totally agree with you Samhita. Rihanna's fame and wealth do not make it okay for her to be abused or to have her privacy violated. Her choice to work as an entertainer (and the publicity and money that come with it) does not mean that she has forfeited her basic rights as a human being.
I suppose I shouldn't be restarting the long debate that finally got buried in the last post about this. But I will say one thing to those who still think it was right to release the photo. Yes, the pictures may have changed some people's tune and shut them up if they were trying to downplay the severity of the attack. But why does it matter? The prosecutor, judge, and/or jury can convict him without swaying the court of public opinion. There is no right for the general public to have access to all the evidence, particularly when it comes at the cost of someone's privacy. And why, at a time of trauma and vulnerability, should her privacy be violated just to convince those (who again, have no say in the actual court case) who would downplay domestic violence or try to find excuses for it. Those are the last people that are "owed" anything.
Showing the picture doesn't change anything about a culture that tries to excuse the abuse of women (particularly women of color). Sure, this time some of the people who had originally tried to suggest she provoked him or that it was much lighter abuser were swayed by the photo. But what if her bruises hadn't been so visible or the next DV victim they encounter is not a international star with tabloids dishing out thousands to plaster her picture everywhere? Maybe Rhianna's pictures may have qualified her injuries as "bad enough" but those same people still believe lesser forms of abuse could be justified. We need to change a culture that is willing to excuse men or assign blame to women who are abused unless publicly display broken noses or black eyes.
Those are the last people that are "owed" anything.
Exactly. And these are the people who no doubt think that if the abuse had just been "proportionate" to whatever she did or said then everything would have been fine...
On a less serious note, I just realized that through various posts I've been misspelling Rihanna's name. Damn you Firefox spellcheck for misleading me.
What really bothers me is that people keep justifying the situation by claiming that the release of the photo will completely destroy Brown's career. While I do think it brings some much-needed attention to domestic violence (not that I condone the photo being released in *any* way), I really doubt it will amount to anything a year or two from now. As multiple people brought up in the Oscar post, Sean Penn has a history of domestic violence and yet we're still praising him for his acting. His actions have had no affect on his career, in long run. Hell, I didn't even know about his history of DV before Rihanna's abuse came to light and people started discussing other stars with similar pasts. Not only is the public not owed anything, but the public isn't owed a sensational and voyeuristic picture that they will, by and large, forget about in a few months, while Rihanna will remember this violation of her privacy for the rest of her life.
What really pisses me off is the current cover of some tabloid - I can't remember which one; they're so stupid I don't allow myself to pay close enough attention - that says something like, "BUT I STILL LOVE HIM!", labeling their relationship a "fatal attraction" on Rihanna's part. It's just so typical for women to be blamed for staying with abusive partners. You hear it all the time. "Why didn't she just leave? Why would you STAY with somebody who hurt you?" Oh, because that's just what silly emotional women do! We like to get beat up on! Women are eternally forgiving angels toward those who hurt them.
How the hell could they ever say at this point that she "still loves him"? Does she have no right to some time to herself? (Judging from the pictures, apparently not.) Does she have no right to be unsure?
The media also seems to be playing on Brown's previous good-boy image and acting like this was just some total mishap and accident. The fact is, many, probably most, abusers have patterns of abusive behavior.
And why is some other publication calling this "Rihanna's Nightmare"? Is it NOT a nightmare for Brown, too? Is everything by him A-OK? I'm overwhelmed by the total stupidity of the coverage.
Thank you for writing about this Samhita. I too wish I hadn't seen the photo and think publishing it was the wrong thing to do. I don't believe that domestic violence needs to be "proved" to doubters by showing a survivors photo all over the place without her permission. I do do lots of blog perusing and found many, many instances of sexist and racist comments. I also found some that were speaking up and out against violence.
I wrote my thoughts on the subject here: http://aspenbaker.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/rhianna-privacy-denied/
i posted this before but please take a minute to read what some awesome young people at the org i work at (women and girls collective action network in chicago) wrote about this whole situation. it is on the chicago tribune blog:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/race/
yay Fatima! I quote this statement in my post! Good work.
It is a sad world that we live in, when a woman is not taken at face value
Yup. And it's everywhere. A woman says she was raped, don't believe her. A woman says she needs an abortion, don't believe her. A woman says she was beaten, don't believe her. A woman says she's being harrassed at work, don't believe her. A woman says she's in pain, don't believe her, etc., ad nauseum.
I think you're missing a HUGE piece of this puzzle. She's a celebrity. We live in a culture that has to know every single detail about celebrity's lives and the juicier the story the better. That's why those pictures were leaked.
Plus, I'm kind of shocked people said this wouldn't happen if it happened to a white woman. Do you really think that the media wouldn't assume that Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and numerous other celebrity women didn't do something to deserve it and plaster their pictures all over newstands?
Nobody here is arguing that her celebrity has nothing to do with it. But if you honestly think that white and black victims of DV are treated the same, then you're missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle. You're probably not aware that there are at least as many (more, depending on what what of the country you're in) black women and girls as white women who go missing or are victims of violent crimes. Why wouldn't you be aware of this? Because there's virtually no media coverage of violence against black women and girls. However, when a white woman or girl is the victim, there's a national media circus surrounding the situation that lasts for months, if not years.
And I think you'll find a lot of difference in the way white female celebrities who are victims of DV have been treated, as mentioned above. The overwhelming reaction to this story before the photos came out was to speculate on what Rihanna had said or done that prompted this attack. The assumption that she egged him on is a direct result of the cultural image of black women as angry, loud, and confrontational. White women are simply not constructed that way in our culture.
I realize that it's easy to not be aware of the differential way that our culture constructs white and black femininity, especially if you've always lived in white neighborhoods and been fairly protected. This is not a topic that's generally discussed in pop culture, so you have to move beyond that to become critically aware of it.
This strain--and it was just a strain--that the media picked up on speculating that Rihanna did something to set him off primarily originated in the black community, and was primarily generated by teens and young adults within that community. This "she did something to set him off" was not even the dominant theme. there's an interesting story in yesterday's Chi Trib about how a surprisingly significant percentage of young blacks view DV as ok (http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-teen-domestic-violence-20-feb20,0,1424689.story)
More often than not the press presented the story pretty evenhandedly because there wasn't much to report until the pictures came out. Until then they presented it more as a 'he said/she said' case. Maybe the blogosphere was rife with other stuff (I don't know Feministing is about the only blog I read) but the mainstream press played this one pretty straight until the pics hit.
On other blogs and comment boards the "she must have said something really bad to provoke him" theme was in the overwhelming majority. And I don't think this attitude was limited to online interactions. During the break in the freshman critical thinking course I teach there was a lot of discussion of this, and many of the students wondered what she had said or done and speculated about how she had cheated on him.
wow... really? I believe that you just put words in my mouth. Did I say that all white victims were on equal footing as black victims? No. I realize we live in a white-dominated society. You do too considering you just assumed that I "always lived in white neighborhoods and been fairly protected." You just assumed my race was white & grew up only around white people because that's what society assumes. I'm just saying that if it happened to a white celebrity then there would still be a media circus. It seemed like the assumption was there wouldn't be. If I'm wrong let me know, but I read these comments a couple times over and that's what I got from it all.
As for the celebrity thing, no one mentioned it so I did. Tone down the mockery by imitating my post, please. I don't really appreciate it when I'm just trying to give my two cents like the rest of us. I appreciate civility. Thank you.
I apologize for making those assumptions about you, but generally when someone is really naive about this stuff, that is their background. It's the only generous way to explain it.
And I interpreted your lecture about how we don't realize that she's a celebrity and we're therefore missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle as being quite condescending. Since we all seem to know who Rihanna is, it's reasonable to assume that we know we're discussing a celebrity. But even with celebrities, the news coverage of white vs. black victims is different. That's evidence of racism.
Absolutely, white women are often (I would even say usually) blamed for DV on some level. But take a look at the examples you picked. All three of those women are regarded as, well, 'sluts' by popular standards. Their sexuality would likely be a key point in blaming them for DV. Rihanna, on the other hand, is something of a 'good girl.' That indicates, to me, that the issue is not just one of gender and sexuality, but also one of race.
Those were three women I just named off of the top of my head. That kind of treatment did happen to Pamela Anderson when she filed charges against Tommy Lee.
As far as this case goes, I never said it was not race related. I don't know where you guys got that from. I was simply saying that the same thing happens to women of every color. I just didn't get the sense that that's what some people here felt so I put in my two cents.
But I think conductress' point applies to Pamela Anderson as well. I'm pretty sure she's not viewed as a good girl.
I had not really been following the Rihanna/Chris issue, but somehow I came across the "leaked" photo of her on TMZ... What really struck me while reading the comments was that a large number of the responses said something like "this shouldn't happen to someone so beautiful" or "she was so beautiful and look what he did to her" etc.
So... if she wasn't "beautiful" would it be less horrific that she had been brutalized like this? I mean, wtf?
Wow, that is idiotic.
Its an old truism: "Pictures are worth a thousand words." Just like with police brutality, until we see the video of Rodney King we have trouble contemplating just how wrong the police could be. Chris Brown had a 'boy next door' image & absent the picture it was hard for many to imagine he would be capable of such a thing.
We thought we had Bobby Darin & we really had Ike Turner. The pictures have served a useful purpose.
It's too bad this came at such a terrible, terrible cost to Rihanna, who has now been victimized twice. Maybe the end does justify the means in this case, but I doubt it.
Here is a blog with an interesting point of view. I think Rihanna is creating her own reality. Check it out: http://jujumama.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/rihanna-a-quantum-view-no-victims-no-villains/
I wonder if Rihanna went to the same piercer as Cassie lol !