Rihanna Round-up

I still feel uncomfortable addressing that Chris Brown attack on Rihanna, despite its instructive aspects. It still has that aura of pure voyeurism, that tabloid-y will-she, won't-she take him back thing.

That said, over the past few day, a few related items hit my screen so I thought I should share.

First up, this video, a supposed verbatim reenactment according to police reports, which puts what happened into a very real context. It's by DoSomething.org which, among its many campaigns aimed at getting kids to advocate for causes they care about, runs its 1 in 3 Dating Abuse program.

Some people may be upset by this, so be warned:

Is the video exploitative of Rihanna's celebrity? Does it violate her privacy? Yes. It makes her the unwilling poster child for an all-too-common problem. But, at this point, with her situation splashed all over the place for nearly two months now, something good might as well come of it.

Trouble is, as Salon's Broadsheet notes: 

Most importantly, though, the video is quite disturbing; just imagine the leverage this campaign could have with teens, especially those excusing the R&B star's behavior.

Only, if the photo of Rihanna's battered face didn't convert Brown's apologizers, why would this?

Indeed, why is Chris Brown still scoring?

Second, and also drawn from Broadsheet, is this, on a screed by National Review Online's resident self-hating woman Kathryn Jean Lopez who blames feminism for Brown's beating on Rihanna.

You see, feminists have beaten to death "natural gender roles" and "remade woman in man's image," thereby confusing "everyone," she argues. It's at this point that Lopez takes a detour down Crazy Lane and argues that feminism has led to a rise in lesbianism, because men have been so emasculated that women are now desperately searching for masculinity "anywhere they can get it, even if that's in the arms of another woman."  (Her evidence: A recent O Magazine feature about women leaving men for other women.) This faux-lesbianism reveals the essential truth that "femininity and masculinity mix well together," that "there is an attraction to, if not a need for, some hierarchy" and that there is "good in nature and tradition," she says.

We've lost the expectation that men will "protect women" and that "women [will] expect some level of physical protection," Lopez explains, by breaking from gendered tradition and doing away with the sexual hierarchy. (Yeah, 'cuz that's totally taken care of.)  Here's where she connects back up with the traditionalist thoroughfare (and drives me over the edge): Teens blame Rihanna, she says, because they see her as Brown's equal. Put another way, we feminists have effectively excused violence against women by revoking women's special status and men's identity as protectors of the weaker sex.

So, if women return to their weak, dependent state, they'll be safer from men? If Rihanna weren't so big a star, as big if not bigger than Brown, she'd get more sympathy? If women hadn't gone off in search of equal rights, O Magazine would have to find something else to write about, like casserole recipes, or tips on how to make hubby more relaxed at the end of the his day?

Hey, I am old enough to remember when that's what most lady mags were about.

Finally, and on a much lighter but just-as-serious note, these comic strips, stolen directly from Mad Magazine. Here's one. 

Click here for the rest:

Comments

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"Indeed, why is Chris Brown still scoring?"

OK. This is something that needs to be aired. It's a long time ago now, but why do teenage girls often seem to be attracted by the bad, violent types? And the number of times you hear "you're a nice guy, but ..."? What message is that sending to teenage boys?

I'm afraid the attitudes of teenage girls ARE part of the problem.

(should have put that statement under the Gloria Steinem thread, come to think of it.)

[hysperia]

I feel as though I have to take my brain out, shake it a bit, take the wrinkles out and put it back in before I will understand Lopez' thinking. Don't think I'll do that.

[Paul]

"So, if women return to their weak, dependent state, they'll be safer from men?"

No, Lopez here is overthinking herself into a logical pretzel twist.

The more direct line is that feminism's mollycoddling (ie. they'll always have your back, no matter the context or circumstance), has ended up portraying women as weak and dependent. Thus feminism's excusing of Rihanna's moral failing in *first* attacking and battering Brown is causing a disconnect among women who come with the assumption that Rihanna is an equal. Most women, and most men would not pick that fight. Most women don't think it's ok to be physical in a confrontation with a man, and feminism's excusing of her actions in this case, don't add up to their notion of equality. So when feminism tries to portray Rihanna as a victim here, or as the sole victim --it's a disconnection.

The rejection of feminism comes from the notion that increasingly, the issue of "violence against women", is becoming discredited in favour of a wider view of the subject, one that doesn't pre-suppose the victim and the antagonist by gender within an abusive relationship - one that instead treats the whole patient - both partners, attacker behavior and victim behavior. And it's about time - because the sooner we dump that fiction, the faster well get towards more effective advocacy.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul, I know we have been through this before, but doesn't the inherent physical inequality in a man vs woman bust up have some significance? Isn't there a responsibility of the more [powerful]? This is not just something to consider RE "domestic violence" but also system discrimination and issues of class.

[Paul]

Not in gay relationships, male or female, it doesn't --no. And they batter each other at an equal rate to men and women, so this isn't a man/woman issue.

Among men and women, it is most significant in the outcomes of lower levels of violence - basic battery - where women who are smaller tend to be disadvantaged once the fight begins, as long as it doesn't escalate to weapons (which women tend to use more than men). Victimology (the flipside of criminology) shows that in many cases the victim presses the fight heedless of the damage they will take (this is not exclusive to women). These are rarely isolated incidents - and everyone has their breaking point. Men, especially men with children, have comparatively few options in situations with female abusers - since leaving the household would put the abuser in charge of the kids - which means they can be effectively unable to leave an abusive situation over time. Just because a person is smaller than you, doesn't mean they can't land punch. Over time, everyone has a breaking point where they would be compelled to hit back (though a third of abuse cases involve both participants engaged in violence equally). And when you do, if you are bigger, you have a greater likelihood of causing more significant damage.

At the higher levels of violence - lethal - this is very rare on both sides of the card (which is why advocates usually switch to comparative percentages and rates rather than using real numbers). Fewer men and women die in these cases than die of the flu. It's relatively even here, because women are more likely to use a weapon, or in 1st degree murder (again, rare), to contract out the killing (it gets reported as male on male violence). Again, at this scale, we are talking fringe elements.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul, that is exactly my point.

There is a huge difference between male-female domestic violence and what may exist in gay relationships, as there is a 90% chance that there is significant body-mass difference that is going to make the male partner more dangerous to the female. This creates a horrifying imbalance - the man can serious hurt the woman using only his body, while the woman would have to resort to using a real weapon (a gun or knife, as using a commonplace object like an ashtray still requires brute force). And, once a weapon is used, the argument of premeditation can be made. So the man who suddenly gets in a temper and beats his lady is likely to be charged with battery, while the woman who effectively attacks her husband by using a weapon(in either self-defense, or as a form of abuse) will face a much more serious charge.

As for your argument that there can always be a body-mass different between two people, yes, that is true. But it is more likely with a male-female face off. To take the argument further, would you say that the term "child abuse" is not legitimate? After all, children are just little people, and if someone assaults an adult little person, he is not going to be charged with child abuse.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Two points to append to my last argument:

Many an abusive man has beaten his female partner to death. In these cases it is manslaughter at most, because it is not seen as premeditated - the killing is believed accidental.

If an abused woman does lash out in self-defense during a beating and serious injures the man, she is faced with two choices - leave it at that, and face a more severe beating in retaliation when he recovers, or end it by killing the man and face being convicted of murder. No manslaughter conviction, or less, for her.

[Paul]

Sebastian, your argument portrays "big vs small" as if it is "man vs woman". My point in bringing in the gay abuse stats was specifically to illustrate how the removal of the gender issue does not affect the rate of abuse or injury - which discredits your thesis. There's more at play here than physical size.

That said, I already ceded the point that at lower levels of violence (non lethal, no weapons) women get tend to get injured more than men for the same level of escalation, regardless of who started or continued pressing the fight. There's no need to continue trying to sell that point to me - it's already sold.

The question I raise, pertains to the feminist charge of a greater *moral* failing on the part of men in abuse (as in "Why do men abuse?" and the White Ribbon campaign), when in fact, the difference is is a result of size - not behavior. Those women are are aiming to hurt their partners too- they are just less successful at it without a weapon.

As a gentleman, you feel that men should indeed be held to a higher standard of behaviour than the women, and you tolerate lapses in this regard for women more easily. This is chivalry, the more positive side of chauvanism. Implicit in that thinking is a form of condescension for women, that they should not be expected to comply with their own prescription for men - that we should shoulder that burden, as we would with children.

It's perfect that your analogy used a comparison to children, because that's where I was going with this anyway. Yes, there is a difference in a child's potential to hurt someone bigger (though it is a much bigger difference - my two year old girl weighs in much lighter than my wife, who's in better shape than me), but there also is a difference in our expectation of maturity and restraint from children than from grown adults. *Or there should be* if one thinks of women as different from children.

In most of the bar fights I saw in my twenties that involved a woman (usually they were drunk - and that too is often a factor in DV) - I often observed the man (male bouncer, or male target) take an enormous punishment before finally responding with physical measures. All I'm saying here is the black eye photo doesn't necessarily tell the whole story, and it's ok to reserve judgment.

[Sebastian Stoker]

No Paul, I disagree with your assessment of my stand. My point is that one should be careful not to exploit an imbalance of power, whether this is a man physically confronting a woman, or, say, a WASP male dealing with a visible minority in the work place.

These situations you describe, where the apparently disadvantaged person lashes out and manages to gain an advantage, are more than likely the result of an adrenalin rush caused by fear, or instinctive acts of desperation.

This supports my argument about not exploiting an imbalance of power - the disadvantaged person can take it to the next level, and the conflict can escalate into tragedy. The last twenty years of school shootings (most often done by tormented and harassed "geeks" who have had enough) should have taught us this.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul,

You assert that children are generally less mature and restrained than adults. You have assigned group characteristics to children and accept that there should be consideration of children because of these. Yet, it seems, you want to argue that there are no assignable group characteristics to women - such as less body-mass and muscle compared to men - that should cause special consideration of women by men. And in citing specific cases, you seems to argue that a few exceptions (women beating up men) smash the rule (that men are generally stronger). Well, I have met many children who were more mature and restrained than the adults in their lives. I was one. Since I did not exhibit those Child group characteristics that guaranteed special consideration, would an adult punching me out then not have been child abuse? Is there not a moral issue with my abusing another adult, verbally or physically, who has a key characteristic of "childishness"?

[Paul]

"My point is that one should be careful not to exploit an imbalance of power, whether this is a man physically confronting a woman, or, say, a WASP male dealing with a visible minority in the work place."
-----------
Sebastian, this is the kind of stealth racism and sexism that I often experienced in Women's Studies - the defacto assumption of the power dynamic between a WASP and a visible minority in the workplace - for example. What if that "minority" is my boss?

I'll clarify something - I'm not talking about situations where a man is provoking a physical confrontation with a woman, "exploiting" whatever advantage he has. I'm talking about situations where the woman is fighting a man, where she is bringing the fight to him - which occurs in 1/3 of the abuse cases (on par with both partners initiating equally, and the man initiating 1/3 each). As such, there are two options:
1. Get away, if this is practical
2. If it is not practical, then end the assault by whatever means are necessary - reasonable means. Unfortunately, in an assault situation where there is less of a size differential, this means you must *win* the fight by exerting enough force to dissuade the other person from continuing their assault. It often would mean you need to exert more force than they are exerting.

Your script on how and why women fight was long ago debunked in multiple violence, criminology, and victimology studies -- some of which were even launched by feminist advocacy organizations themselves. The chauvanistic notion that women only fight when attacked, or out of fear, is simply a sexist myth that does no service to abused women or men. When your arguments begin with these assumptions, we are going to talk past each other.

[Paul]

“You have assigned group characteristics to children and accept that there should be consideration of children because of these. Yet, it seems, you want to argue that there are no assignable group characteristics to women”
--------------------
Impulse control and emotional maturity are more closely correlated with age than gender, yes. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to suggest that more effective behaviours are learned through experience, and that the people who have quantifiably the least experience – children – are, by and large, going to have less control and maturity than adults. This is why, in our country, we don't often try kindergartners for murder. And since they are generally smaller than grown women, we take the lumps. We can also prescribe punitive measures to a child that are likely to be heeded. Most people can't send their partner to the "naughty corner" - though I've been in the doghouse from time to time for less serious offences.

The rest of your argument mistakenly conflates the notion of “success” at battery, with the provocation or initiation of it. As the data indicate, looking at the rates of violence among gays and hetero pairings, corroborated by the rates of initiating violence among hetero pairs (meaning one partner physically attacks another – either once or over a prolonged period), the male bodymass generally gives the edge in both attacking and in responding to low levels of violence. So male self-defence situations (a full third of the cases) will tend to end with more damage done to the female aggressor. There’s little correlation between the bodymass and the tendency to initiate violence though.

If all you are saying is that women get beaten up because men tend to be stronger, then this really isn’t exactly a revelation. But your feminist argument goes beyond that – claiming a moral failure among men, an expectation of a higher degree of restraint in physical confrontations (something that is likely happening anyway, given cultural taboos against hitting women). The problem is that in an assault situation – “restraint” is not actually going to end the battering, and when your drunken wife or partner is in the midst of clubbing you or your children in the face with a telephone or some such item, the precise calculations of how much force you can reasonably apply will likely take back seat to a “better safe than sorry” approach to ending the fight quickly, especially when your superior bodymass gives you the means to do so.