Chris Rock on Roman Polanski
It's awesome to see him not join the legion of celebrities who have defended Polanski.
Plus, Lauren has a must-read on this topic.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Chris Rock on Roman Polanski.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16353
What I like about Chris Rock is that he knows how to break a subject down & just make it real.
Agreed, I love the guy. He doesn't dance around things--he says what he means.
Loved the OJ reference.
Would you mind providing a YouTube link or transcript for those of us not located in the U.S.? Hulu's library doesn't stream for us...
Sorry, can't find this video on YouTube or a transcript anywhere. The embedded video is actually from New York magazine's website.
Maybe try this version from NBC?
There's finally a youtube version available (I'm outside the US as well):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3bnU4ZMsq8
I have avoided bringing up my own childhood rape on this topic because I've never wanted to be pitied or to be accused of referring to it too frequently. As for me, I know I was younger than 13 when the abuse occurred and I know a rough timeline of when it started and when it likely stopped.
As minds are apt to do in times of trauma, I fortunately remember very little of what happened. I always say that I remember the burnt edges and the rest of it feels like a ghost story that happened to someone else besides me. I remember enough and enough is more than I like to contemplate.
When I read Lauren's column, I felt a sense of kinship with her experience. Years of therapy have made a difference for me but trust with other men (as I have mentioned here before) has been slow to develop. Sexual trauma affects men and women differently and in my case it made determining my true sexual orientation rather difficult. What I struggled with was determining what proportion of my attraction to men was my inherent bisexuality and what was some template left over from the rape itself. I'm still not totally sure.
As for Polanski, it would be interesting to see what his motives are and what life experiences shaped his desires. I suppose I've always taken an interest in men who molest or rape both in the hopes of finding a means of coming to terms with my past experience or maybe even stumbling across some truism through analysis that would explain what to me is still an incomprehensible, brutal, human response.
I would first like to say you are an incredibly strong woman. I am incredibly sorry and sympathize greatly for your experience, I believe rape is beyond any other crime and personally I believe we should deal with the tolerance of rapists more harshly. (My mother and I would LOVE to make a law that rapists should have their junk cut off. That is just a common sense thing to do for me. It and absolutely is not cruel unusual punishment)
I understand why rapists in the media interest you, as I am also appealed to it just to wrap my mind around the whole pyschological mind of a person that can do such a thing.
I also understand that you could be confused about you're sexual orientation. But I encourage you to not label yourself. A person loves whoever they love, man or woman. I myself am straight, but I have doubts do to my strong beef with men and their history.
I pray that you find solace and peace
if you honestly don't think being having your body parts cut off by the government (the same government that appears to have recently executed an innocent man and refuses to investigate) is cruel, i really think we need not share a society.
So when do we cut "the junk" away from the female offenders, and what does "junk" correspond to in a woman's body?
A penis is like a weapon in sexual offenders and rapists. Shouldnt they be disarmed? I once listened to a woman that had been raped by a family member and this is what she said she'd want. She got screwed in the justice end of things when her rapist only got community service and probation. So a little sensitivity could be in order.
So tell me why is sensitivity suddenly more important than equality - that is, equal treatment of each individual, regardless of the individual's sex? Am I not justified to demand, in the name of equality, that we should also mutilate women who commit similar crimes?
Her fingers?
Why not cutting off her genitals instead?
I think Kevin is male. Just pointing this out because rape survivors are so frequently assumed to be female. I know that the issue disproportionately effects women, but I have two male friends who have been raped, and I think the idea that men can't be raped has been damaging for them.
Thanks for sharing, Comrade Kevin.
One thing to consider about Polanksi is that he didn't have much of a childhood himself. His family was in Poland when it was invaded in WWII, and he "grew up" separated from his parents in the Krakow Ghetto. He was ten years old when he was rescued.
So... he had seen some horrific things by the time he was 10, and by 13 he was probably an old soul, you know? He wouldn't look at a 13 year old the way most people do.
I also would not be surprised to know that he had been molested or raped in Krakow. He may have seen it happening, or seen sex traded for protection. He might have grown up believing that sex is something that people in power do, and that people without power tolerate or trade upon for advancement. Do you know what I mean? A transactional view of sex takes the human factor out of the equation and turns sex into currency, where if you are in power and you want it you can just take it.
I am NOT being an apologist for Polanksi. There is no excuse for what he did. I have no idea if I'm right, but that's my theory.
Its quite possible that at 13 Polanski was ready to make adult decisions. And that would give me a lot of sympathy for him if this was a *statutory* rape case. Unfortunately, what he did to that girl would count as rape no matter how old she was, so I'm not willing to see that as any sort of excuse.
I wonder how Polanski would feel if the people who murdered his wife ran way and lived happily in some other country for 30 years and then everyone said oh, forget it, enough time has gone by, just leave them alone.
"I wonder how Polanski would feel if the people who murdered his wife ran way and lived happily in some other country for 30 years and then everyone said oh, forget it, enough time has gone by, just leave them alone. "
LOVE IT!!! EXACTLY.
When I was growing up in Queens, New York, my mom's best friend was a woman from Vienna, Austria. When she was 9, she saw the American and British air forces bomb her Nazi-occupied city day and night for the better part of a year. When she was 10, her city was stormed by the tanks of the Soviet Army.
She saw lots of horrible stuff during that hellish year.
But, so far as I know, my mom's friend never violently raped anybody.
In other words, I really don't care what kind of bad things Polanski saw in Nazi-occupied Poland as a kid that's not an excuse for him being a violent predatory child rapist!!!!!!!!
Lots of people survived WW II and the holocaust, and they never felt the need to drug and rape anybody!
Oh, I agree. I was responding to the substance of Comrade Kevin's post, where he said that he wondered about men like Polanksi and wanted to understand them as part of his own healing process.
So when do we cut "the junk" away from the female offenders, and what does "junk" correspond to in a woman's body?
Comrade Kevin is a guy.
Check out his funny shaving pick on his blog.
I would first like to say you are an incredibly strong woman. I am incredibly sorry and sympathize greatly for your experience, I believe rape is beyond any other crime and personally I believe we should deal with the tolerance of rapists more harshly. (My mother and I would LOVE to make a law that rapists should have their junk cut off. That is just a common sense thing to do for me. It and absolutely is not cruel unusual punishment)
I understand why rapists in the media interest you, as I am also appealed to it just to wrap my mind around the whole pyschological mind of a person that can do such a thing.
I also understand that you could be confused about you're sexual orientation. But I encourage you to not label yourself. A person loves whoever they love, man or woman. I myself am straight, but I have doubts do to my strong beef with men and their history.
I pray that you find solace and peace
Have you people heard about his new movie "Good Hair?" It's not some stupid sexist guy's take on women, Chris Rock takes a very neutral stance observing why black women and hair have become such a stigma within themselves (aka natural hair is "ghetto") and it's really a smart movie, something I didn't except from him. And I'm even more impressed he isn't backing up that rapist.
It just really suprises me a black man would even care to make a movie about women of his community instead of some dumb comedy, and he said it was inspired by his own daughter and how he doesnt want women to feel less beautiful because of their natural hair. Really awesome, cris rock!
Uh, what the fuck? Am I missing something here?
"It just really suprises me a black man would even care to make a movie about women of his community instead of some dumb comedy"
Seriously??? Can you explain why that would really surprise you? I'd appreciate some elaboration.
Yes, please elaborate. I am also a bit confused by that sentiment.
I was with you, until you said this "It just really suprises me a black man would even care to make a movie about women of his community instead of some dumb comedy,
Talk about damned with faint praise!
Could you try writing that "compliment" again - but without the Black male bashing and the racism?
I'm not saying I hope Polansky's cellmates are big guys with daughters. But I'd understand.
so you wouldn't mind him walking? i dont get ur comment
It's in reference to one of Chris Rock's bits where he talks about Nicole Brown Simpson's murder. After a bit about the circumstances between OJ and Nicole (a transcript of which is presently eluding my searching abilities), Rock says, "I'm not saying he should have killed her... but I understand."
Bless you.
I was on board until the Vick bullshit.
LOL Animal cruelty is so funny, isn't it, guys!?!
It's ok. Whoopie Golberg defended both an animal torturer/murderer AND a child rapist. What a classy lady.
How about we not treat our fellow living sentient beings like utter pieces of trash. Can we all get behind that w/o making apologies for class, culture, ethnic background, etc? Can we start with that?
The thing with Michael Vick is that a LOT of the shitheads defending Polanski's FORCIBLE ANAL RAPE of a 13 yar old wanted to KILL Michael Vick for the way his dogs were mistreated, abused and killed on his property in his absence. Roman Polanski was THERE when the 13 year old was raped and he was indeed the PERSON WHO RAPED HER yet everyone is calling it "sex" and giving him a pass becuase you know- he's soooo brilliant.
As in, dogs are held in higher esteem than 13 year old girls when it comes to Hollywood. If YOU agree with that sentiment then yeah I guess you didn't see the irony in what he said.
I hate that so many people seem to think it's one or the other.
When I was outraged that Vick got signed the responses were "why him and not XXX who hit his wife?" or something. My response? Now that I know XXX hit his wife, I think that XXX shouldn't be playing either. Why must I only be mad about one?
I want to see BOTH Polanski and Vick suffer intensely. Because BOTH crimes are horrific. In different ways.
I know! I don't get this. Apparently caring passionately about two crimes at once is just unheard of?
Phenicks, can you elaborate on this:
"The thing with Michael Vick is that a LOT of the shitheads defending Polanski's FORCIBLE ANAL RAPE of a 13 yar old wanted to KILL Michael Vick..."
Because if there really are people in the media that did this, I think I'm going to need to settle in for an afternoon of angry letter writing.
It doesn't have to be one or the other! My issue were with people who DEFENDED Polanski and literally tried to send lynch mobs after Vick. Both are wrong but when you forgive one and not the other you effectively put one crime and one victim over the other- in this instance hurting dogs over hurting girls. I have an issue with that.
My issue were with people who DEFENDED Polanski and literally tried to send lynch mobs after Vick
Who did that?
I get that you didn't. I was just bitching about people in general.
I agree - it's stupid when it IS one or the other.
I understand irony, thanks. I'm outraged over the fact that people are calling it "sex". I personally do not believe a 13 y.o can consent to sex with a 44 y.o., but even if she had, SHE SAID NO and he drugged her and sodomized her. That's pretty clear cut rape no matter what age she is.
I didn't say I agree with that sentiment (in your post), so don't even imply that I did. The petition to help Polanski may as well be called "I'm a fucking sick creep and I am a rape apologist. Here is my signature". One's creative endeavors aren't a free pass to degrade a human and then subject HER to media scrutiny for 30 years so that in the end she is just trying to move on. It's a further victimization.
I am just tired of the whole "Case A is terrible! See, this case (B) of women/black people/children/animals is so much "better" compared to case A! This is why I am mad about this!" Do YOU not get that the "lower" comparison has always been the one in need of defense as well? Are YOU lost on the fact that when you degrade one of us, you degrade all of us? They have always been "just" women, "just" people of color, "just" children, "just" animals.
I know Chris Rock is a comedian. I am a fan, actually. I am glad he is speaking out about this.
But this has nothing to do with Vick and I don't think that dogs that were electrocuted and strung up by their necks by some rich NFL player who did it for FUN need to be the punchline of every joke (this includes Bill Maher's jokes). TORTURING ANIMALS IS NOT FUNNY. Vick is a scum bag and just because he's not a rapist doesn't mean he's LESS of a scum bag. If he didn't have money, he would have received a much harsher sentence. He's back playing football and making more money.
We need to see this rape case for what it is and call out those who are defending Polanski. What he did is not acceptable and just because it happened a long time ago does not make it less reprehensible. However, I will not apologize for standing up for animals. There is not some limited well of compassion that we can draw from. It's not either/or.
who is this one of us. as a person of color i don't fancy the comparison to animals. do you really believe vick is as much as scumbag as a child rapist? why do you so easily mix women, animals, children and the so called people of color (a term i despise) together?
My comment was in reference to anyone not at the top of the power structure being degraded and viewed as less-than. This includes all women, non-white men, children, the poor, and yes- animals.
I am not the best author when I am upset about something, but I'd suggest reading "The Sexual Politics of Meat" and you can see how women and animals are compared as far as "consumption" and entitlement go, so the author of that book is more eloquent than I.
I do not separate different movements..the same type of people who were slavery abolitionists are the same type of people who were fighting for rights for women. They are also the same type of people (many times) who fight for the rights of animals. (Though we can't ignore the sexism/racism within a few organizations of the animal rights movement)
As far as "people of color" go..I am not too keen on the term either but I have noticed many people use it here only positively so it was intended to be respectful because some people are offended by "black/white" and I also wanted to include non-black people who are also non-white. (All people have some color to begin with and all of us trace our roots back to the same African ancestors). That is another discussion for another day. I guess I should have just shortened this to say that we do not have to limit who we fight for, or ignore atrocities of one group to highlight another.
I agree with the whole being disgusted by the petition thing. That upsets me almost as much as the rape-- perhaps more, since, it is so clearly the kind of thinking that contributes to rape culture in the first place. I'm actually starting a petition asking the signatories of that petition to rescind their names. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=167664386022&ref=mf . So sign it up, if you feel like it.
A better analogy:
Notice how Michael Jackson pleaded not guilt was found not guilty and was STILL highly stigmatized for being accused of molesting (inappropriate touching no penetration) young boys.
Roman Polanski plead guilty, runs from his sentence of UNDENIABLY FORCIBLY vaginally raping, anally raping and sodomizing a 13 year old AFTER giving her alcohol and drugs. Somehow his admission of guilt was not enough to have people pissed at him for his horrendous acts of cruelty against this young girl. Sickening.
Yeah, I had the same thought about Michael Jackson. I still think he did it, but there is still a tiny bit of doubt. With Roman Polanski there IS no doubt, but people are still acting like it's no big deal.
I agree with you, but feel we should be clearing up the facts of the case.
Polanski did not plead guilty to forcible rape, sodomy, or many of the other crimes he was charges with. Since it was a plea deal (and a shitty one at that) the big charges that carry big sentences were dropped and the only thing he actually admitted guilt for was "unlawful sex with a minor."
Now, I still believe that Polanski did everything that he was accused of doing, (the woman's grand jury testimony was very detailed and very clear.) I believe he did drug and rape her multiple times, but he has not admitted as much.
I made the exact same point three days ago: If Polanski's movies entitle him to a pass, so should O.J.'s football records.
Too bad Rock had to couch his correct assessment of the Polanski case in a trivialization of Michael Vick's crimes. The two are not related, and both crimes are hideous and deserving of punishment.
The youtube link for those not in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3bnU4ZMsq8
I'm actually going to go ahead and say that the Vick/Polanski/any-other-person-who's-committed-a-violent-crime-against-a-human-being comparison is one that we should be making. Of course what Michael Vick did was disgusting, and he deserves the criticism, but they were DOGS. The fact is that the media has completely flipped their shit about him and yet there's a discussion about whether what Polanski did was "rape-rape" (in the words of Whoopi Goldberg, whom I normally love), or whether he's "suffered enough," or just plain, "Hey, the victim's forgiven him! Anyway, it was 31 years ago, let's just let bygones be bygones."
To be fair, Goldberg also trivialized Michael Vick's crimes.
"You know from his background this is not an unusual thing for where he comes from...For a lot of people, dogs are sport."
Anyway, I hate both Vick and Polanski. I still think Vick did not serve enough time (yay shitty plea bargains again) and should not have been accepted by an NFL team, but at least he faced the music, unlike Polanski. I don't see these cases as different because one is about dogs and one is about a young girl, I see them as different because one offender ran and one accepted his punishment.
I didn't mean to specifically point to any individual as a hypocrite in the Vick vs. Polanski debate (or to trivialize what Vick did), but to point out the hypocrisy of our society. And actually, Goldberg's statement about Vick are a really good example of that societal hypocrisy: from what I've gathered, she got a lot more negative backlash for that comment in the mainstream media (ew, did I just use that phrase?) than she did for her statements about Polanski.
Oh, I knew you weren't attacking anyone here, I'm just not sure I see this playing out in quite the same way.
The thing is, I'm not sure the mainstream media IS giving Polanski a pass. Outside of those in Hollywood that signed the petition, Whoopi, and a few asshole bloggers, I don't see a whole lot of people rushing to the defense of Polanski. Maybe I'm just avoiding it, but whenever I turn on the news, all I see is others reacting with disbelief that there are some out there defending him.
"from what I've gathered, she got a lot more negative backlash for that comment in the mainstream media...than she did for her statements about Polanski."
I see the opposite happening, but maybe you're right. I'm really involved with pit bull stuff and didn't even know about Whoopi's thing for months afterward...whereas I heard about her "rape-rape" comment right away.
Yeah, I could totally be wrong about that. I've been kind of lax in my news reading/watching lately.
Unfortunately there will always be people who are more angry at the abuse of dogs than they are at the abuse of children.
Personally I consider neuturing and spaying to be abuse because no animal consents to being mutilated for the sake of its owner's pleasure or convenience.
My childhood dog died of a type of cancer we could have dramatically cut down the chances of his getting had we neutered. So thats one reason why all my pets are fixed.
Another is that I think taking away the LIVES of millions of dogs and cats every year due to overpopulation is much more cruel than taking away their ability to reproduce.
I think its outrageous and extremely callous to suggest that pet owners neuter their animals for pleasure. How the hell is that pleasurable?
Its not for the owners convenience. You might want to educate yourself in regards to going into 'heat.' My cat was in torture when she prematurely went into heat and we had to have an emergency spay session. Imagine being so irrationally horny that you cant even sleep. You might also want to check up how violent cat sex is. The cat penis has spikes on it for gawds sakes. If people didnt spay/neuter their cats/dogs then ther'd be alot of unwanted street animals around. Great for the sicko psycho's but not for those who love animals.
This is just a really ridiculous statement.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Most abusers were abused. This is why we talk about ending the cycle of abuse. It doesn't excuse anything, though it can help survivors understand a little better.
The greatest understanding for me came in a discussion about how in an abusive situation the child victim sees two options - to become the victim or the abuser.
If those were your only choices, what would you choose? It's important to realize that those aren't the only choices, and getting children the help they need is an important step.
“The crimes of adults are the outcome of broken children. Help the child and you’ve helped the adult.”
Forgive me, but Chris Rock always tends to offend me with his "white people" comments. I consider myself to be open minded, and I'd love for someone to translate what he means/why it's OK.
Other than that (and the trivialization of Vick's crimes, which is exactly that and has nothing to do with the argument how dogs
Why is no one talking about the fact that Rock says that it's not OK to rape a 13-year-old unless you're a heroic pilot? Or that he says he's seen some hot 16-year-olds that look 18, etc.? Not sure why the Michael Vick thing is brought up but not this. Kind of surprised to see this on Feministing (despite the O.J. punchline actually being funny).
Why is rape #2? I think its #1. Whats worse; to live and be tortured for the rest of your life by horrible abuse that happened to you (and in some cases like in Trouble with Spikol unleash genetic switches that turn on mental disorders) in the past or to not just exist anymore? Either way we shouldnt be comparing 'horrors.'
Also a little miffed that he said that the pilot could rape a 13 year old, but more offended by the #2 comment.
I'd rather keep my status as a rape survivor and be alive than be dead. Its kind of insulting to suggest that all rape victims will be "tortured for the rest of your life." I'm a stronger person because of what I have been though. I completely agree that its number 2, right next to torture.
I'm just saying that just because a person isnt dead that it isnt like pain for the rest of their life. Have you ever read the Trouble with Spikol blog? The woman got bipolar after being raped (the trauma mustve switched some sort of genetic switch) and has to deal with extreme mood agonies. Its not fair and absolutely fucked up. I took issue with the fact that Chris Rock was saying that rape is a #2. I think they are equal if not rape being worse. I'm certainly not suggesting that a person should rather die than be a rape survivior, just that it is still highly traumatic and could be a life long torture that they previously didnt have to deal with. Especially if they never got justice.
To those of you upset about Chris Rock's Vick comment, I'll refer you to this post by the Field Negro:
http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-wish-i-was-white-persons-pet.html
Can you see where he's coming from now?
I'm with borrow_tunnel. The comment about the pilot upset me more than anything.
Not at all.
All I saw there was a bunch of stereotyping, classist bull.
I agree, Kate. It's totally not acceptable to say these kinds of remarks (as a white person) about other races/cultures/genders, but when it's reversed, it's OK? It think instead of bridging the gaps, it just drives a wedge further.
I'm not even sure its the "white people are.." that bothered me. It was everything. The language was so divisive. White people are all wealthy, black people are all poor. Black people are all terrible pet owners, white people are all good pet owners, white people have pets, black people have guard dogs...blah blah blah
"...cause I bet white people spend more on their pet's health care than us black folks spend on our own kids."
WTF? Such us vs. them language and mentality.
I don't understand why we have to create such a divide in this way. The author uses the example of the likelihood of an outcry if 10 dogs were shot in Philly, as opposed to the silence when 10 people were shot..does it have to be that way? Can't we condemn violence against fellow humans at the same time we are condemning violence against animals?
I've read "Heartbreakers" at Feminidte, and I am shocked as Jill is!!! Memo to
Pedro, Natalie, and Peg, What the F#$$%!!!
I think it's really fucked up that some people here are excusing animal cruelty by saying "it's just a dog." Yeah, and I'm "just a woman." That's the excuse men have use for decades to put down people of my sex.
Dogs suffer physically and (believe it or not) psychologically from abuse, and the only reason people think it's ok to marginalize that is because they can't communicate their pain to us (though I think the screams and whimpers of a dog or any other animal should be enough).
I would argue that in a way animals suffer more from abuse and neglect, since they are unable to rationalize it, and therefore come to terms with it.
I would strongly reiterate the opinion that we DO NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE between defending the woman who was raped and defending Michael Vick's dogs (or any other abused animals, including those in the factory farms).
And frankly, it's disgustingly hypocritical for anyone to claim they care about suffering, and then excuse it when it's not popular or convenient for them to rail against it.
Finally I'll add that Michael Vick's crime has been racialized by the media and has revealed how selective our indignation about animal cruelty is. Rush Limbaugh actually made a plug for the Humane Society, citing the atrocity of dog fighting. YES, it is VERY SUSPECT that he points to the cruelty that is more prominent among low income people. And NO he would never find fault with rich meat and dairy industry executives, who commit these atrocities on a much larger scale.
I totally agree. We don't have to be less outraged at Vick's actions if we are more outraged that Polanski is a disgusting child rapist. (Also mad ANYONE could defend his actions). I think there is a problem when feminists don't see animal rights issues as valid. I don't ask that someone have the same views as I do on animals, but the mass, complete dismissal of them is embarrassing to thinking, compassionate people. Does it not have a familiar ring? Maybe it is because it makes people uncomfortable. But it's always been "just" ____ (insert group here). I guess it's an out of sight/out of mind issue. Animal industries are very good at keeping their abuses out of the public eye. But I guess even hanging, electrocuting, and constant abuse and torture of feeling, sentient animals isn't enough to make the heartless care.
Regarding Limbaugh- I was glad he did the ad (possibly the only good thing he's ever done) but now I do see it more as a political move. The man's called for racially segregated buses, did he not? After that kid got beat up? I should have been less naive, I guess. I always try to give people chances and think that they aren't totally awful. Seeing your comment in that context, it does seem pretty obvious now that it could be racially motivated (big bad black guy is hurting these animals!) but yeah, the largest animal abusers in the US get government subsidies to do what they do. I feel find of embarrassed even talking about Rush because he also said that healthy people are the reason health care is so expensive, referring to the fact that active people are breaking bones doing dangerous things and being sedentary is more healthy. haha. What a nutcase. Rationalizing the tripe he spouts is like trying to argue with a chair.
Thanks for the vid I needed a good (and thoughtful)laugh to start my day. My mind was reeling at people I respected defending this man.
I really don't think I'll be able to respect Chris Rock at this point, but I suppose I'm glad there's someone who doesn't support Polanski.