A Request:

25 thoughts on A Request:

1. Under the circumstances (public figure, widely remarked upon no show at the Grammies) I’m not sure it was going to be possible to follow the general policy of not revealing the victim’s identity in this case.

2. This story has been infuriating me all morning. The L.A. Times claims since it’s not a case of rape it’s “fair game” and if you want to save yourself a stroke don’t read the comments to that LAT article! But my favorite headline had to be from the AP saying “Chris Brown’s squeaky clean image falters”. And they go on to lament how it would be beter for him to get caught with a bong. Who the hell writes this crap, are they actually comparing the two?? And the whole crux of the article is lamenting his downfall “if its true”. Gee, maybe the focus should be on protection for the woman he assaulted. But according to the same “experts” this will help her career, “because she’s being viewed as a victim”. Ahh, lucky girl! So the moral to the story is the assaulted woman should be grateful, and those meanie cops should think of this poor boy’s career. Stories like this make me so deflated, I just don’t know how you fight this kind of culture when its everywhere you look.

3. Agreed, Billy, that it wouldn’t have been possible to keep her identity secret for long. But it would have been nice to see them at least make an effort, you know?

4. Is anyone else squicked by the use of the phrase “R&B Princess”? I mean, I know it’s the NY Daily News and the more objectionable part is their description of the abuse, but that just irks me. She’s an R&B musician who has sold millions of albums, not a “princess,” which feels to me like a dismissive or even subtly demeaning term.

5. Ugggh. I’ve heard people try to justify the attack by claiming out of the blue that he attacked her because she gave him an STD. OF COURSE it’s her fault because she tainted him by being a dirty dirty slut. It makes me sick.

6. The LA Times article says this:

   A witness called 911, but Brown was gone when officers arrived at the scene. The woman suffered visible injuries and identified Brown as her attacker, according to police.

   Since Rhianna’s name is mentioned elsewhere in the article, does that mean “the woman” refers to the witness, and Brown attacked her too?

   if you want to save yourself a stroke don’t read the comments to that LAT article!

   One of these days I’m going to take that advice and save myself some nausea.

   The NY Daily article has this at the end:

   On the surface, the dreamy couple looked happy when they appeared together at music mogul Clive Davis’ pre-Grammys bash Saturday night.

   But eagle-eyed observers noticed something wasn’t right as Brown carefully watched Rihanna dancing with other guys. “Both of them are young and prone to jealousy,” the pal said.

   Both prone? That’s as maybe, but only one of them is beaten up right now. I realise the paper’s quoting someone, but was it really necessary to end on a “share the blame” note?

7. I think “beaten up” most often connotes domination after mutual combat, whereas “smacked around” connotes excessive violence directed at a helpless or unwilling combatant.

   Neither is precise, without a detailed account of the events at issue, but between the two I’d side with “smacked around” given the little that we know of the events. Perhaps “beating” and/or “battery” of an intimate is most appropriate.

8. People’s reactions to this are starting to really annoy me.

   One friend posted news of this as an FB status message (weird enough), and a friend of his/hers said something to the effect of “I can’t believe Chris Brown would do that, there must be something else going on. But you know what they say, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

   I’m baffled by this comment.

   1) Unless somebody personally knows Chris Brown, what on earth kind of reaction is that?! He wouldn’t do something like that… why? B/c he’s a singer??
   2) There’s no smoke here, only fire. Whatever “fire” we’re waiting for has already been set. There is a woman who has bruises, cuts, etc., a witness, charges filed for abuse, and a man who turned himself in to the police.

   If I hear one more person talk about needing the whole story before determining if she was abused, I’m going to lose it. I don’t think we could have a more clear-cut, unambiguous example of domestic abuse than we do right now.

9. What about all those quotes from the news media that say ‘i can’t believe anyone would hit her – she’s so beautiful,’ as if beating a less attractive woman would be less abhorrent.

   Also, speaking of euphemisms, one of my so-called Facebook friends made their status yesterday something to the effect of “I can’t believe Chris Brown is hard on his ladies.” Um, WTF? Seriously.

10. one of the news stories i read yesterday said that rihanna isn’t pressing charges. i really hope that’s not true, and i really hope that chris brown is done after this.

    i heard though, and someone feel free to correct me if i’m wrong, that charges do not need to pressed in domestic abuse cases and that with this case, since there are witnesses and physical damage they can pursue the case.

    is that true? if so, it’d be great.

11. On the matter of pressing charges, it’s difficult to really say anything definitive from this perspective — what kind of evidence there is, what level of charge would stick, what he might plead to, etc. My advice to Rihanna would be:

    1. DTMFA
    2. if you’d feel better with a restraining order in place, do that
    3. talk to the DA, see what they think.

12. Goddamnit, I read the comments section in the Superficial Guy link. Why did I do it? Why?

13. Isn’t there a bit of a feminist dilemma here? You can have victim anonymity or you have a crime that depends upon the relationship between the victim and the offender, but you can’t have both. There’s no way to report the bare facts – Chris Brown has been charged with felony domestic assault – while preserving victim anonymity. He couldn’t have committed that crime if she wasn’t who she is.

14. It’s a fair point on “smacked around” and “raucous argument;” they’ve trivialized a serious assault.

    But the identity business seems a bit baroque and victorian to me. It seems, to me, that this is the only case where we’d even consider not mentioning the involvement of a celebrity like Rihanna in newspaper reports of an incident of violence. If it had been Naomi Campbell viciously beating Rihanna, you can bet both their names would’ve been printed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the idea seems to be that chivalric civic institutions ought to be in the business of setting special rules for when a man hits a woman . . . rules that don’t apply to other victims of violence. Why should that be? Do we still believe that what happened was a private matter best handled by the parties involved in their domestic seclusion? Or was it a serious crime that the community has a legitimate concern in seeing justly resolved?

15. Hmm. When I saw the coverage of Rihanna’s skipping the Grammies, her identity as the victim was kept out of it. They said she was skipping it because her boyfriend was in jail after being arrested for attacking “a woman”. I admit I wondered at the time, because the article said he followed and attacked “the woman” after she got out of his car, and, well, she did skip the Grammies.

    But those early reports didn’t identify her at all. Maybe someone confirmed it later on?

16. Jill,

    I believe to a Britisher, that sentence construction isn’t offensive, but descriptive. Writers in UK use English, but words often carry different weight and meaning than they would in American English.

    *

17. In addition to the appalling reaction toward Rhianna & victim blaming, I am also saddened that so many people are so ill-informed about Herpes.

    1. Most people have it.
    2. It’s possible to have it for a long time before symptoms occur. Although it’s rare, it can be a year or more.

    Q: How common is herpes?

    A: Most Americans have herpes, either as genital herpes, or as cold sores, the main difference is site of preference and social acceptance. Experts estimate that 60 million Americans have the virus that causes the genital form of herpes. In a recent study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and The American Social Health Association, there are more than 15 million new cases of sexually transmitted infections each year. That’s 41,095 people, newly infected, every day!

    Up to 80 percent of Americans have the most common form of herpes (HSV-1) at some time. It usually appears as oral herpes and is most often spread without sexual contact.

    Q: What are the symptoms of Oral Herpes?

    A: “Cold sores” or “fever blisters” usually show up on the lips or inside the mouth. They are common in young children. Brief, direct contact is all that’s needed to pass the virus. Cold sores are annoying but harmless in children and adults. But cold sores are very harmful to a newborn. Oral herpes in adults is usually a “flare-up” of a childhood infection.

    Q: What are the symptoms of Genital Herpes?

    A: Very often there are none. The most common symptom is a cluster of blistery sores — usually but not always on the vagina, vulva, cervix, penis, buttocks, or anus. Symptoms may last several weeks and go away. They may return in weeks, months, or years.

    The first episode of symptoms of a genital herpes infection is called “primary herpes.”

    Symptoms may include:

    • blisters
    • open sores
    • pain in the infected area
    • itching
    • burning feelings if urine flows over sores
    • inability to urinate if severe swelling of sores blocks the urethra

    Very severe first episodes may have symptoms that include:

    • swollen, tender lymph glands in the groin, throat, and under the arms
    • fever
    • chills
    • headache
    • general run-down feelings
    • achy, flu-like feelings

    The symptoms of later episodes are usually less severe than the first.

    Many people carry the virus in their bodies but do not have their first episode of symptoms until they are infected another time.

    Q: Can I spread Herpes even when I am not having an outbreak?

    A: Yes. The genital herpes virus can still be spread through the skin although there are no visible signs of an outbreak. This is called asymptomatic viral shedding. Up to 70% of people catch genital herpes from an infected partner who has no signs or symptoms. And since the symptoms are not always obvious, nine out of ten people who have genital herpes don’t even know they’re having an outbreak.

    Q: How can my partner find out if he or she has genital herpes?

    A: You should be open to the possibility that your partner may also have Genital Herpes. Nearly 85% of people who are infected with HSV-2 are unaware, because symptoms can be so subtle. Try to encourage your partner to speak to his or her healthcare provider. It’s far better to know what you’re dealing with so you can reduce the risk of spreading the herpes virus to others.

    Q: What could happen if I have genital herpes and don’t know it?

    A: You could pass it on to a partner. Or, if your partner has herpes and doesn’t know it, he or she could pass it to you. You could also spread herpes to another part of your body, like your mouth or your finger.

    Q: How long does it take for sores to appear after infection?

    A: In most “textbook” cases, primary herpes usually begins from two to three weeks after the virus enters the body. In some cases it has taken only a couple of days, while in others it can take much longer.

18. I think it’s pretty obvious from the reports of Brown being angry about her dancing with other guys that he’s internalised white patriarchal fantasies about ‘owning’ women, particularly WOC, and that he assumes(possibly correctly) that such behaviour will never be brought to trial, or if it is, will never be punished by the industry or wider culture.

    Also, does anyone else find it weird that the term ‘lady’ (in the context of Sarah @ post 9) has moved from being asexual (in a sense) to ‘hyper-sexual’?

19. James asks:

    Isn’t there a bit of a feminist dilemma here? You can have victim anonymity or you have a crime that depends upon the relationship between the victim and the offender, but you can’t have both. There’s no way to report the bare facts – Chris Brown has been charged with felony domestic assault – while preserving victim anonymity. He couldn’t have committed that crime if she wasn’t who she is.

    I am not familiar with the California statutes, but generally I don’t think the crime of assault ever “depends upon the relationship between the victim and the offender.” Assault is assault. The problem in the past was that people (including the authorities) often didn’t view intimate partner violence as assault. They viewed it as some special category of behavior that was not as serious or as needing of police intervention as the REAL crime of assault. The feminist contribution was not the creation of some special new crime, but rather the recognition that a man’s beating of a wife or girlfriend IS assault, a crime that needs to be taken seriously.

    But then, you ask, why the need for a special rule of anonymity for victims of domestic violence? First, I should note that that is a different than the issue of how the police should charge or respond to domestic violence. Second, and more importantly, however, I think this is a function of the fact that so many people STILL view domestic violence as different in kind than regular old violence. It is a gendered issue and, as such, people are inclined to blame and shame the victim. One solution is not to reveal the victim’s identity.

    This isn’t some paradox. Feminist work in this area has had to respond to the culture as it exists.

20. James,

    I just looked at the California statutes, and there is in fact a category of assault specific to domestic partners.

    That having been acknowledged, I still don’t see the paradox or dilemma you posit. I see feminists responding in various ways to the historic way in which domestic violence has been treated differently.

    The real issue, as others have pointed out already on this thread, is celebrity. Yeah, when someone famous like Chris Brown is said to have assaulted a woman in his apartment or to have been specifically charged with femony domestic violence, a lot of people will infer that the victim was Rihanna. As Jill said, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the press should confirm that assumption.

21. Laurie, I’m with you. Not that the mainstream media typically treats female assault victims all that well, but there does seem to be an extra edge of callousness in the set of standards & treatment here–as if because Rihanna’s a celebrity, a public figure, she has somehow ceded the scant rights to privacy and legal protection accorded women already.

    As we all well know, when a woman willingly enters the public sphere, any mistreatment she incurs is her own damn fault. It’s exactly the message being sent with terminology like “fair game,” which, as Liss at Shakesville pointed out yesterday, derives from hunting, i.e., given her celebrity status, we, as journalists, are allowed to hunt and prey upon this woman.

    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/02/fair-game.html
    (Near computer-illiterate that I am, I don’t know how to embed links…)

22. Did anyone see Terrence Howard’s comment on this situation???

    “It’s just life man,” Howard said of the situation. “Chris is a great guy. He’ll be all right. Rihanna knows he loves her. They’ll be alright. Everyone has just got to get out of their way.” Link

    Jesus. If the baby wipes interview didn’t confirm it, now I firmly believe Terrence Howard is f’ed in the head. I almost think there’s more hope for Chris Brown than this guy. I mean if Brown did this, you could at least argue that he came out of an abusive childhood and is still young enough to break the cycle (although I am NOT saying that gets him off the hook). What is Terrence Howard’s excuse for rationalizing DV in the cold light of day?

    By contrast I thought Kanye West gave the best reaction that I’ve heard so far – totally condemning the violence without calling for Chris Brown’s head on a pike. Which I think is appropriate given how few facts in the situation are fully confirmed.

23. how bout this photoshopped pic of what riri’s bruises “might have” looked like?

    http://stlamerican.com/articles/2009/02/11/entertainment/living_it/livingit000000000000001.txt

    yeah….

24. “I believe to a Britisher, that sentence construction isn’t offensive, but descriptive. Writers in UK use English, but words often carry different weight and meaning than they would in American English.”

    First of all, we’re ‘Brits’ or ‘British’ not ‘Britisher’ (does that mean ‘more British’?)

    Second, well spotted, we BRITISH writers do indeed use English.

25. Pingback: Step back from the whole Rihanna thing « Dating Jesus

Comments are currently closed.