Rihanna, Sasha and Malia
by Guest Contributor M.Dot, originally published at Model Minority
A couple of weeks ago, 50 Cent conceded that Rihanna getting beat by Chris Brown wasn’t real to him. James Montgomery of MTV News writes,
“After I saw the photograph, that wasn’t funny anymore,” 50 said. “I didn’t have any information on it. You’re just going on what the public actually had. It shifts the whole thing. Even if you’re saying you’re in a dysfunctional relationship, I understand that. There’s a point when you’re already past a woman fighting you back. You look at [the picture], and it’s obviously past that point. There’s some issues there that definitely gotta be addressed. Not to take any shots at Chris or Rihanna or take sides in any way, [but] it’s really not cool. It’s not funny anymore, so there will definitely be no more reference to that from me in any way.”
Why is a picture needed in order to convey the seriousness of the topic?
In many ways, I think that it wasn’t real for many people.
According to The Domestic Violence Institute, Black women comprise 8% of the U.S. population but in 2005 accounted for 22% of the intimate partner homicide victims and 42% of all female victims of intimate partner homicide.
African Americans account for a disproportionate number of intimate partner homicides. In 2005, African Americans accounted for almost 1/3 of the intimate partner homicides in this country.
According to a survey conducted by Tufts University,
- Approximately 40% of Black women report coercive contact of a sexual nature by age 18.
- The number one killer of African-American women ages 15 to 34 is homicide at the hands of a current or former intimate partner
- In a study of African-American sexual assault survivors, only 17% reported the assault to police
Last weekend, I was discussing my idea for this post with Birkhold. I mentioned that, what if, instead of Rihanna it were Sasha or Malia Obama who was assaulted by their boyfriend? Malia is 11, and in 8 years she could be college student who is dating an R & B star.
I chose Sasha and Malia, because collectively, the Obama girls tend to elicit a kind of respect for Black femininity that I think that all Black women deserve.
Unfortunately, we have a tendency to organize the respectability of Black women into a hierarchy. “Hoe’s on the bottom. Triflin’ baby momma’s in the middle, wifey at the top.” All of us are human, all of us deserve to be respected.
I was discussing this post with Birkhold. I asked “What if it were Malia. What if Malia was 19 and a at Harvard, Howard or Spellman and was assaulted by her boyfriend. Would we have to see proof in order to believe that something happened or at least to not make a joke of it?” He responded, “That it wouldn’t make a difference to many people because, in American culture, there is a strong tendency to explain men beating women as boys will be boys behavior.”
I have also been thinking about of Real Housewives of Atlanta. Last fall I remember seeing one of the first episodes, and all I could think is that “Why is a shallow portrayal of women as gold diggers being presented to us as entertainment?”
As I watched the show I became far more interested in their background narratives, I felt myself wanting to hear them discuss the abuse that they suffered that has caused them to try and pursue healing through obtaining material items.
Material and or human beings can’t fill God sized holes.
I got my answer. In this month’s Essence, Denene Millner interviews Nene Leakes and Lisa Wu-Hartwell of The Real Housewives of Atlanta. Millner writes,
Leakes recalls the first time she spent the night at the man’s house, just a short time into their relationship. “When we got ready to go to bed, he took out a gun and laid it on the nightstand,” she says. “I’d never been around a gun before. It really freaked me out. My thoughts were, Okay, I need to do what he says. I need to be really nice tonight. That should have been my warning.” But Leakes failed to heed her own intuition.
This reminded me of Rihanna and her intuition.
I told Birkhold that if a dude put a gat on my dresser, the countdown would be on for me to figure out how to get out of that bedroom alive.
We began to discuss the different ways that women assess danger. He pointed out that the way my intuition works isn’t necessarily the way intuition works for other women. His explanation was that if I came up with a brother, father or boyfriend, who carried a gun, and if when he had that gun I felt protected while I was out in the street, then it may not be that odd, to me, for a man that I am dating to take a gun out and set it on the dresser the first night I stayed over.
I was floored. I never thought about it that way.
We talked about how when a woman decides to leave an abusive relationship, that it isn’t black and white. That women attempt passive resistance, they attempt to leave and that many feel compelled to stay because they may have children.
All I could think was, I hope Chris doesn’t have to kill her in order for more of us to start taking this issue seriously.
Black women are killed by their partners at a disproportionate rate.
Do you think it would be different if it were Malia?
What has to happen for us to change our boys will be boys thinking?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Just A Thought wrote:
I believe the only reason that it would be different if Malia would be assaulted is because the black community has a disgusting tendency to select those who are worthy of respect and protection. Unfortunately, even women relegated to that realm can sometimes have that protection unceremoniously removed. All of R. Kelly’s teenage victims were tarnished by the black community. Halle Berry, considered one of the most beautiful black women alive, was called crazy and “unable to keep a man” when she revealed she’d been assaulted by former lovers. Even if everyday interactions between black men and black women, I’m sure the average person can count the indignities that black women suffer at the hands of their own communities. I’ve heard so many of my black male friends and associates b#tch and moan about how they never get credit for ways in which they avoid perpetuating stereotypical black male behavior, but act mild versions of those behaviors out on myself and other black women around them. Black women are not widely valued by black people – else those who raise protest of the issues harming black women would not be so quickly silenced, accused of “bringing a brother down.” It took a picture because black people have widely internalized the negative view of black woman as unwomanly, sexually loose, and incapable of being violated. Before the picture came out, many black people were wondering what she had done to provoke him.
I could go on forever, as this issue both saddens and enrages me, but I really don’t want to just spout words that do nothing to change the issue. And yet I feel like it is a hopeless situation.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 9:47 am ¶
Monie wrote:
“What has to happen for us to change our boys will be boys thinking?”
Well for one they would have to stop listening to hip hop. If ever there was an art form built upon a misogynist foundation it’s hip hop.
Hip hop has infected this society with its misogyny. Words such as b*tch and h*e have made their way into the mainstream because of hip hop.
This hatred of women has I think been internalized by millions of young women, especially women of color.
I think that explains so many women making excuses for Chris Brown and attacking Rihanna.
Regarding Malia; nope, I don’t think it would be different. I would expect the same things to be said about Malia that were said about Rihanna.
The only reason Sasha and Malia are idealized is because they are kids. They second they reach 18 all bets are off.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 9:48 am ¶
malfeasanceses wrote:
All I could think was, I hope Chris doesn’t have to kill her in order for more of us to start taking this issue seriously.
I hope so too.
The thing about Sasha and Malia is, I’m terrified about how easily public opinion could turn on them as they grow up, especially when they can’t fit the “innocent children” role. (Not that even that protected Chelsea Clinton from Limbaugh.) We are so judgmental about young black women.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 9:51 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:
“What has to happen for us to change our boys will be boys thinking?”
1.) The intellectual component: Critically analyze the toxic aspects of notions of masculinity in communities of color.
2.) The emotional/spiritual component: Make “being a man” less about one’s ability to express two socially-acceptable emotions – lust and rage – and more about respecting the dignity and humanity of EVERY human being.
3.) Finally, the “Fiqah is TOO through” component: Stop giving motherfuckers a pass because they have a penis, when said pass comes at the expense of the souls and lives of women and children.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 10:01 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Monie,
Really? Misogyny didn’t hit the planet until the 1970s? Do tell.
The language in hip-hop may be coarser than what was previously considered acceptable, but the themes have stayed the same.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 10:20 am ¶
Monie wrote:
“The language in hip-hop may be coarser than what was previously considered acceptable, but the themes have stayed the same.”
@Latoya
Isn’t that the point; hip hop has allowed misogyny to be more acceptable. That’s the problem. When Snoop Dog walks the runway with women on leashes or when rap lyrics talk about “Supermanning that hoe” I definitely think hip hop advocates for misogyny in a way that mainstream art has never done before.
Of course hip hop didn’t invent hatred of women but it has advanced it by leaps and bounds. Then factor in the exposure of hip hop and compare that to misogyny in the mass media prior to the 1970’s and hip hop’s impact is even greater.
I really don’t get why people defend hip hop when it’s so obvious that modern day attitudes toward Black women are so heavily influenced by it. And when you are talking about people under 25 the influence is even greater.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 10:41 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:
I don’t think this has to do with race, but more of a classist issue. I don’t think the public would care that much about a poor white woman who was beaten by her boyfriend.
But if a rich white woman was beaten by her husband or BF, she would priobably get more media attention than a rich black woman (unless she’s Sasha or Malia Obama, the daughter of an American president).
Just my opinion.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 10:50 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Monie –
Hip-hop didn’t advance shit. It made things that were previously more covert, overt.
Let’s say hip-hop completely vanished tomorrow. Done, done, done. It’s completely off the map, all history with it.
Then what?
Black women would go back to being treated like queens, when we never were in the first place?
Women would go back to enjoying rock, alternative, and country, because obviously, those art forms have NO ISSUES with misogyny or sexism in lyrics?
Yesterday, I finished reading a long piece in Adbusters bemoaning the rise of pornography in our culture – particularly violent pornography – and mentioned that this contributes to the decline of meaningful relationships between men and women. No mention of hip-hop. Not even a mention of Snoops foray into porn. Nope, they just seemed so concerned with how porn impacts the minds of young men. I’ll make sure to write that guy and tell him he needs to focus on hip-hop.
While watching VH1’s Tough Love , the host told a white woman if she didn’t stop acting the way she did “she might find herself raped.” Now, homegirl was ridiculously over the top in her behavior, but that shit was uncalled for. Women are raped if they are in the presence of a rapist. But other people bought into that idea, that pathology that you ask for it, in some way you deserve it, what have you. Hip-hop didn’t factor into this conversation one bit. If I write a piece protesting the acceptance of a rape culture narrative, I’ll make sure to find a way to tie that one back into hip hop too.
What I hate about arguments like yours, Monie, is that it’s one of those tactics used to dumb down an issue. Sure, make hip-hop your scapegoat. So where does that get you? You’re trying to patch up the symptoms without addressing the root cause, getting mad at your fever when your body is trying to warn you of pneumonia.
I identify as a hip-hop feminist. I could hit you with arguments all day every day about the objectification of the black female body, the Hos are Hos manifestation of hip-hop’s Madonna/Whore complex, the use of possessive language in hip-hop lyrics, the normalization of dysfunctional family systems, the role of rage and resistance in the popularity of hip-hop. Whatever.
But here’s the thing. Despite all the whining and complaining, hip-hop – and let me emphasize here, mainstream mass marketed misogynistic hip-hop is popular.
And it is popular because people like it.
And why do people like it? Because on some level, they believe it.
They respond to the beat but they buy into the misogyny. On various levels.
So if it makes you feel better, blame hip-hop. But that’s a lazy argument, blaming an art form for the actions of its practitioners and a market based economy known to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 11:02 am ¶
Kavita wrote:
cosign @Fiqah!!
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 11:23 am ¶
Eva wrote:
Hip hop didn’t cause misogyny, all hip hop did was make what already existed come to the forefront.
As for a man taking a gun out? Now that wouldn’t bother me, because my step dad always took his gun off when he came into the house (he was a police officer).
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 11:41 am ¶
Marcus Kwame wrote:
Very well put, Latoya.
I was holding my sleeping baby daughter as I read this post, and every day the world reminds me of the dangers she will face. I can’t comprehend the prevalence of violent attitudes towards women in our country and in our communities. It scares the shit out of me. It’s bigger than hip-hop, Chris, Rianna, etc. Misogyny permeates the very fiber of America, and stopping it is a job that can’t be done without the full cooperation of men. I have been shocked by the casual attitudes of quite a few brothers I know and love towards domestic violence. We must all challenge these notions. Silence makes us accomplices.
I don’t want to catch a case one day because some dude puts his hand on my daughter.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 11:48 am ¶
ceecee wrote:
I just want to point out that there are exceptions to the rule for ex: Al Sharpton defending the NCCU college student & part-time dancer from the Duke University Lacrosse Team rape scandal
What if were Malia at 18?
I hate to say this, but I have a feeling some people would still joke about it. Rihanna was well liked, a lot of girls looked up to her as a fashion icon and she was well respected as a talented artist. Which is why to me it was shocking that people tried to explain it away.
Conversely, you have to look at the popularity contest angle. If the guy Malia’s dating someone who is not famous, I do believe that there will be outrage about it on her behalf just because she is famous. If it were Prince Prince William or someone as famous, then it would be a big fight just like Chris/Rihanna
What has to happen for us to change our boys will be boys thinking?
I wish I knew the answer to this one, it totally floors me when this explanation is given in conversations I’ve had about this situation.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 11:52 am ¶
I'veHadEnough!!! wrote:
“Malia is 11, and in 8 years she could be college student who is dating an R & B star”
…ummm….WHAT!?
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 11:52 am ¶
Slush wrote:
People defend hip hop because it is equally misogynist as as Muslims are terrorists. That is, a particular portion of a large and diverse group is glorified by the media and comes to represent a thing which is much larger and much different.
I agree with you that quite a bit of hip hop – especially the biggest, most mainstream hip hop – is frequently grotesque and offends just about every sensibility I have, and I don’t give the artists a pass on that, ever. I pretty much detest them and their imagery and their irresponsibility. But nor do I give a pass to the enormous audience driving that demand, an audience that is already misogynist and therefore enjoys and supports what gets dished out.
Sorry, that’s all somewhat off-track from the DV discussion. I think the problem is that abuse of women is not a problem that we as a nation really want to solve. I learned recently that the Department of Justice funds all kinds of state and local organizations with grants to do different work, such as develop criminal investigation technology or do gang prevention work. Of all these, the smallest program by a wide margin, in terms of money and number of grant applications, is the VAWA grants for all kinds of programs related to domestic abuse, stalking, rape, etc. I don’t know anything about gangs, but it strikes me that domestic violence affects a whole lot more people than gangs do, just across the board.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 11:57 am ¶
Monie wrote:
@Latoya
And am I dumbing down the conversation? Really? Wow, that says a lot. Here I thought I was stating my opinion and what I was really doing was dumbing down the conversation.
You’re obviously a hip hop apologist. So nothing I say is going to change that. If you want to ignore how hip hop has advanced misogyny in American culture so be it, but I won’t.
And I really don’t get why you’re being so hostile. If we disagree we disagree but you seem angry, which I don’t get.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 12:11 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Monie –
I’m not angry, I’m just bored. Your argument is weak.
And now I’m wondering how much you actually read this site, because of all the things I’ve posted/commissioned about hip- hop, attitudes and misogyny, I have no idea where you got that idea that I’m an apologist.
Try revisiting my posts on Snoop Dogg’s Doggystyle cover art, my two-part interview with Tricia Rose, and M.Dot’s post on Mobb Deep and the Patriarchy before you try throwing that stone.
Just like I called Elle the Elephant out on his promotion of Female Chauvanist Pigs on the Ciara thread, I called you out here too. Your argument is too basic. Upgrade it.
Besides that, M. Dot didn’t mention hip-hop in this post. She mentioned the normalization of violent behavior, our willingness to place women into categories along a spectrum of respectability, and resistance to the realities of domestic violence. Try engaging with that, instead of scapegoating.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 12:20 pm ¶
I'veHadEnough!!! wrote:
to be absolutely honest with you, I don’t see the Obama’s letting their daughters TOUCH those types of men. I just don’t. Even when they become adults. It would be a joke in political circles. And I resent having Children represent the type of respect for black femininity. I wondered if one of them will reach physical maturity while dad’s in office. What I do wonder is if the same situation that befell Sec. Of State Clinton when she was First Lady may befall First Lady Obama, and what she would have to do. To stay or go? What about the influence? What if it was worse? President Obama is a stand up man, but politics is RIFE with womanizers.
~ Anyway, back to the point~
I have always been an advocate of women learning how to fight ( physically). I have always been an advocate of “no tolerance policy” when it comes to domestic abuse and putting oneself first (Flight attendants instruct you must put on your oxygen mask BEFORE you put on anyone else’s, even children. YOU are no use to anyone if your asphyxiated). Demanding safe sex ALWAYS, even with a serious commitment.
With that being said, a gun on the table. I just dunno. And I know millions of women have faced similar charges. There is really no way to “prepare” for something like that. You can’t ever really leave ( mentally) something like that.
Living in a cynical time, I am aware that MANY ppl fantasize about or use guns. For some ppl, its like nothing. Like Leakes, I had never been around guns ( heck, I wasn’t allowed a water gun when I was a child). I don’t know. They are everywhere.
The only way to get around it is to teach that Violence is not okay. Society has to choose what is best for everyone’s safety, not just someone’s individual needs.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 12:22 pm ¶
[dave] wrote:
@the hip hop = misogyny declaration: whoa.
@LDP: thanks for that response.
I think that the prevalence of misogynistic lyrics in a lot of popular mainstream hip hop are the symptom not the disease, and there’s plenty of voices of opposition within hip hop as well. But that’s also worth considering separately from the sexualization of hip hop. As the post about Ciara the other day showed very well, its important to look at individual agency and power when we’re looking at sexualization in media.
And I’d like to say again, as I have a few places here, that DV occurs just as often in LGBT relationships as straight ones. Not talking about those relationships in discussions about DV renders LGBT victims/survivors invisible both to society and often to themselves, and that is an increased barrier to seeking services or self-identifying as being in an abusive relationship.
Not using inclusive language increasingly marginalizes already marginalized groups. People of colour, people with disabilities, trans folks ….
For more info on LGBT partner abuse check here:
http://www.thenetworklared.org/partnerabuse.htm
OR
http://www.gmdvp.org/
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 12:23 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@dave –
No, thanks for your response.
I promise to stop being lazy and post that really great segment on abusive dynamics in lesbian relationships that I read in Homegirls Make Some Noise. I’ve been meaning to type it out to put it up here for months now, and never make time to do it.
I don’t mean to ignore GLBTQ peeps in all these discussions. Thank you for the reminder.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 12:26 pm ¶
Solange wrote:
Latoya I could not have said it better myself. Stop blaming hip hop other forms of music in our society has the same ills. Our society simply values men more than women.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 12:31 pm ¶
J.A. wrote:
I have nothing to add but just wanted to say that this was a good article, as these are some of the things that I have been thinking about lately.
@ceecee: I don’t think that your Rev. Al example was a good one, as I think that had more to do with the fact that the accused were all white and she was black. If that had been a black basketball team accused of raping a black girl, I don’t think it would have played out the same.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 12:39 pm ¶
Monie wrote:
@Latoya
Sorry to bore you. Lol I’ll do that reading you suggest and I will try to make sure my comments are more in line with the way you think in the future since disagreeing with you means I’m dumbing down the conversation and that my argument is weak, etc.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 12:45 pm ¶
Lola wrote:
I agree with Monie, not only is mainstream hip hop a symptom of the problem but it serves to normalize the misogynistic behavior. In any situation where a group is hated or ostracized there were previous tensions but once they start being advertised and broadcast it feeds the hatred and makes it acceptable to express/act out on in public. Hip hop is art form but at the end of the day I’m more interested in protecting women than I am in protecting art. Is hip hop the only problem when it comes to violence against women, no. But it is part of the problem. There seems to be a shutting down of the discussion here by saying hip hop is off limits. I’m sure my comments will solicit the same condescending replies as Monie’s.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 12:58 pm ¶
syeda wrote:
this is really interesting, thank you for posting this..it really opened my mind. i never had the perception that black women were disrespected in this way because i’ve always thought that black women are generally perceived as extremely strong within the black community (when compared to other races, like south or east asians). this also serves as another example of how marginalized women truly are…or perhaps, how ridiculously acceptable violence is.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 1:03 pm ¶
Just A Thought wrote:
Just another two cents:
I have never grown up around guns, and it would have freaked me out to have a man put his gun on the nightstand (as opposed to in the closet, in a small safe, or even in the nightstand drawer). That being said, as having escaped an emotionally abuseive relationship that was quickly headed toward being a physically abusive relationship, there are other indicators of violence and abuse that have nothing to do with guns. Talking down to a woman, belittling words nad behavior, extreme possessiveness, negative attitudes toward woman, extremely archaic and vocal views about “a woman’s place,” sexual selfishness/disrespect, sexual coercion (sp?), unfaithfulness, financial control (even if you don’t live together), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde behavior (more charming to outsiders than he is to you, not necessarily a severe or violent change), and the list goes on. Sometimes that uber-alpha male is not a manly-man, he’s an abuser, and you need to get out. It doesn’t take a gun to signal a dangerous situation.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 1:12 pm ¶
Kavita wrote:
@ I’veHadEnough!!! –I’m confused about what you mean by “those type of men.” Just like victims of DV, perpetrators of it come from all walks of life. I know many women who think it could never happen to them. I was one of them, until it did. Sure, there are often warning signs, but for many of us, they are hard to see until the damage is done. Unfortunately, Sasha and Malia are just as at risk as any of us, Mom and Pops notwithstanding.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 1:16 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
“To be absolutely honest with you, I don’t see the Obama’s letting their daughters TOUCH those types of men.”
But I am sure this is what many/most parents think about their daughters. Of course they won’t let them be with the ‘wrong type’ of person. The funny thing is, that type of person seems to be awfully common, because a LOT of women are abused. And in many many DV situations, violence enters the relationship much later, after many happy months or even years. It’s unfortunately not just a question of adequate precaution.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 1:18 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Monie –
I don’t care if you agree or disagree, I care that you make an intelligent argument.
@Lola –
No one argued that hip-hop doesn’t help to normalize certain behaviors. But telling boys to stop listening to hip-hop is not going to stop domestic violence. That’s like trying to make someone stop peeing in your bushes by reducing their water intake. Yes, it will make it a bit harder for them to pee, but at the end of the day, they are pissing on your bushes because they don’t respect your property.
Hip-hop didn’t start domestic violence, and it won’t end it. Frank discussions will. Modeling good behavior will. Increasing the self-esteem of people so they believe they are worthy and deserving of love that doesn’t hurt will. Deconstructing concepts of love based on dominance will. Providing support systems for people involved in DV will. The list goes on and on, but trying to scapegoat hip hop is dodging the problem.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 1:21 pm ¶
Lola wrote:
I’m sorry but I fail to see where I or Monie said hip hop started DV. Clearly there is no room for discussion on this topic.
Mod Note – Complain all you want, virtual door is to the left. – LDP
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 1:25 pm ¶
Penni Brown wrote:
Great post! I’ve noticed that when the victim is considered beautiful, people say that her beating must’ve been a result of her being crazy.
I wonder what would happen if the victim is NOT considered a beauty or even attractive… Do we even get tohear about those stories?
All of it is just a way for men to put her in her place and keep her there.
@JA – I agree completely on your point about Rev Al.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 1:28 pm ¶
Ejunco wrote:
Hip-hop is a culture that consists of rapping,graffiti,break dancing, & Dj
Rapping is what a couple of you guys have a problem with not all rap is women-hating. Don’t blame rap for all the problems but blame movies,games etc. that portray women in a negative light . Taking out rap will not solve everything.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 1:40 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
Okay, the obstinant cycling-back to the “hip-hop-is-the-root-of-Black-misogyny” meme has GOT to stop. I was so baffled at how the thread kept being pulled back to hip-hop that I checked out the article on M.Dot’s site and did a search for the term hip-hop.
Nothing. Nada. Zilch. So, what the hell, y’all?
Look, I’m all for discussing the tangents when they’re relevant. But like the Editrix, dave and I think Solange said, misogyny predates hip-hop. Also, Chris Brown/Rihanna are NOT hip-hop artists. They are pop musicians. As in, popular culture. How what happened between them, and the community reaction, is related to hip-hop specifically has yet to be made clear here. Certain popular forms of reggae, like dancehall, are RIFE with misogyny and homophobia. Would two dancehall artists in a similar situation be labelled casualties of violence in hip-hop? I mean, do we just yell “HIP-HOP!” all knee-jerk-like when the folks in question are Black?
SIGH. Guess now the only thing to do is sit and wait for a poster to come on riffin’ about how this article – somehow – Villifies and Castigates the Black Man…
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 1:58 pm ¶
ceecee wrote:
@JA & Penni Brown I agree with you it was more fueled by the racial aspect, but I was looking at it from the gender standpoint. There are so many holes with that scandal but that’s the only one off the top of my head where a black woman was publicly defended.
…And she was a Hoe (taking this from M.Dot’s hierarchy illustration)
Double Cosign with #25 “Just A Thought” about the indicators, I’m so glad that the discussion about DV is increasing, people need to made more aware of these indicators.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 2:06 pm ¶
Beth wrote:
I’m glad other people have made the point about “those types of men” already. Abusers are abusers, regardless of class or race. One of my friends summed up the class differences between his childhood and another friend’s as, “the bottles flying at my head were full of *really expensive* alcohol.”
There are huge pressures, socially, economically and emotionally, for women to stay. And worse, to take responsibility (see the link this week about the woman blamed when her husband killed their children. ) Women are made responsible for their partner’s behavior, and then deprived of any agency they may have had to influence it.
What will it take to change that? It will take men being held responsible for their actions, across society. No excuses, justifications, forgiveness or absolution. You may behave differently in the future, but that does not excuse what you have done in the past. The most reprehensible abuse of power, in my mind, is the ability to not bear the consequences of your actions.
Of course, as the saying may suggest, the lack of culpability begins in childhood, and not until we hold young boys to higher standards of behavior while protecting them from the vicious violence of American masculinity will any lasting change occur.
The other problem is that whenever this topic comes up, “society” (the media, commentators, many individuals) seem to hold the men least privileged responsible, and continue to excuse those who were most likely to go unquestioned in the first place. Just look at the conservative impulse to blame problems with loan repayment on the borrowers, instead of the deceptive, putative and sometimes outright illegal lending practices involved in writing those loans (to pull one example out of many from the current situation.)
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 2:10 pm ¶
PPR_Scribe wrote:
I don’t think that your Rev. Al example was a good one, as I think that had more to do with the fact that the accused were all white and she was black. If that had been a black basketball team accused of raping a black girl, I don’t think it would have played out the same.
Agree. Look at his response to the Dunbar Village case. And I must have missed his response to the R. Kelly case.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 2:13 pm ¶
fruitoftheloon wrote:
Unfortunately, we have a very binary way of thinking about violence in our society. The thinking goes: Hitting partner = evil. Evil = no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Chris Brown has redeeming qualities, therefore Chris Brown cannot be evil, therefore there’s no way he would ever hit his partner. We have so many ingrained ideas about the ‘type’ of person who uses violence that it was hard to believe a clean-cut R&B artist could do anything like that. I’m sure people would have needed much less proof if he’d been a rapper famous for songs about drugs and guns, for example.
Finally, there are stereotypes about black women which play into the US’s messed up perceptions of abuse. The stereotype is that black women are more likely to scream at or hit their partner, and that non-white couples in general are more likely to have a loud, possibly violent argument. (I’m remembering the scene in Two Can Play That Game when Vivica Fox’s character jokes about an argument between a black couple disturbing the peace in a mostly-white building). White people can just shrug their shoulders and say ‘that’s minorities for you,’ while ignoring the gender issues at work, since it’s not ‘their’ problem. There’s a sentiment in our society that if a woman gets too loud or aggressive with her man, she’s ‘asking’ to get that same aggressiveness in return. As much as we like to think we’ve gotten to the point where women are considered equal to men, I think there are still leftover attitudes about how much deference women should give their boyfriends or husbands, and that if you cross that line you deserve to be punished. So it becomes a thought process where people say ‘well, she was giving her man attitude, so of course he’s going to give her some back.’
Sorry for the long rambling response, but there are so many issues of gender and class and race that it’s hard to be brief.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 2:15 pm ¶
Zahra wrote:
Dear Latoya,
Thanks much for your response to Dave. Count me as another who cares a great deal about abuse in all of the LGBTQ communities, and would love to see the conversation broadened.
But your phrase “abusive dynamics in lesbian relationships” pings some warning bells for me. There is a strain in conversations about DV that talks about “dynamics” (sometimes using “relationship” as a code word). The idea is that the problem is in the mutual interactions of two people, and that both are creating the abuse.
But that’s not what abuse is. It’s one person exerting their will on the other. Most batterers are serial abusers who accumulate victims over their lifetime, and many, many victims have no prior history of abuse. In my experience, talk about “dynamics” often shifts quickly to victim-blaming.
This may not at all be what you meant, and I don’t mean to get jargony. But I mention this because it’s a huge problem for all DV victims & survivors, and has a particular stamp for ones in same-sex relationships in particular. Because onlookers can’t just tell by looking who’s the victim & the perpetrator, they often assume that somehow the blame needs to be assigned to both parties. (To say nothing of how often trans or non-gender-conforming victims are blamed for their partners’ crimes.)
The implications of this are awful. In many US states LGBTQ victims who call the cops are served with mutual restraining orders, a terrible idea. (One person violates the order, & they both get criminal records.) I could go on…
I think you just meant “abuse in same-sex relationships between women.” But I had to throw this out there. Looking forward to your future post on the topic!
As for the poster’s original question, I think hearing survivors’ stories & perspectives, and sometimes seeing their faces, are part of changing the conversation. It’s not real to many people because victims–especially when they are black women–aren’t seen as real, live human beings. We need to get those stories out there, and pay attention to what they tell us.
Mod Note – Yes. Thanks for the quick break down on the term dynamics – that wasn’t how I intended it. The piece is called Sister Outsider and the writer talks about how the DV and sexual assault in the GLBTQ communities she knows were mimicking the structures of the larger society, right down to the terminology used (the example she gave was “run a train on that bitch”), but is often ignored because GLBTQ relationships are considered somehow immune from social programming from society. Anyway, I’ll try to post it soon. -LDP
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 2:18 pm ¶
Xay wrote:
Misogyny and domestic violence have a long history in the black community and it runs a lot deeper than hip hop. I am 30 years old and I grew up in a community where domestic violence was quietly tolerated. Women who were beaten were at fault for not being good women and spouses. When they left their abusive spouses there was no support for them in the community, while the abusive spouse was seen as desirable and to be pitied for being pushed to those lengths.
We have to teach our young men and women to value each other, love each other and disagree with each other without violence. We need to teach our your men that violence and dominating a woman is not what makes you a strong man. And we have to teach our young men and women that it is ok to walk away and it is ok to ask for help and commit to providing that help and support.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 2:20 pm ¶
Beth wrote:
@ fruitoftheloon “As much as we like to think we’ve gotten to the point where women are considered equal to men,” is as true as that we live in a post-racial society.
I realized that the link I was referring to was actually posted on feministlawprofessors.com. The link is, http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/may-i-have-little-victim-blaming-with.html and talks about the headlines that blame a wife who was (it turns out) only considering leaving her abusive husband for him shooting their four children. Some of the headlines don’t even mention him, the killer, at all: “Police: Kids Killed Because Mom Left”
I’ve never seen any article when a mother killed her child even asking about the father’s behavior.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 2:27 pm ¶
Jamerican Muslimah wrote:
@ Just A Thought
You are my new hero. I couldn’t have said it better myself. *clapping*
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 2:28 pm ¶
PPR_Scribe wrote:
Malia is 11, and in 8 years she could be college student who is dating an R & B star.
Or, she could be a college student dating…an abusive college student.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 2:34 pm ¶
elle the elephant wrote:
@Latoya Peterson:
I never promoted Female Chauvinist Pigs, just mentioned it as an after thought.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 3:33 pm ¶
spacedcowgirl wrote:
It’s just sort of upsetting that 50 Cent can acknowledge in a roundabout way that the photograph shows something beyond self-defense, and then still fall all over himself not wanting to “take sides.” Like, the part where he is a decent stand-up guy extends only to refraining from making JOKES about a woman being severely beaten by her partner. Wow, don’t strain yourself with all that nobility.
I wish we lived in a world where that photographic evidence wasn’t required in the first place… much less a world where women were actually believed and not blamed when they speak up about abuse.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 3:58 pm ¶
bertie wrote:
I don’t think the negative response to Rihiana in this dispute is a good example of the “boys will be boys” mentality. The fact is, women are not the only ones placed in a hierarchy; men are too. Part of the disbelief on the Chris/Rihiana situation is that Brown was believed to be a squeaky clean pop/R&B kid–and not one of those iky thug type rappers monie complains about. He’s young, good-looking, making money, no criminal record, no thuglife back story, no babymama drama—just good clean all american pop fun with an R&B twist. So he was high up on the male hierarchy like the type of guys Malia would meet at Harvard or Morehouse. How could the sweetfaced boy on the doublemint gum commercial hit a girl. The self-professed good girl gone bad must gone really bad and started lying on folks..right?
I wonder how different the publics response would have been if instead of Chris Brown the accussed abuser was a Bobby Brown or K-CI type. Nobody seemed to have a problem condemning (rightly so) those two fools for their behavior towards Whitney and Mary J. I can’t remember Bobby getting the “boys will be boys” pass.
And lastly, I don’t think organizing women into hoes or housewives is a uniquely black thing.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 3:59 pm ¶
Bagelsan wrote:
I don’t think this has to do with race, but more of a classist issue. I don’t think the public would care that much about a poor white woman who was beaten by her boyfriend.
Not to be all “but teh whites!” but is there a breakdown of DV/murders by class along with race? ‘Cause I was wondering how much of those (horrifying) numbers was accounted for by income, etc. and how much could *only* be accounted for by race.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 4:11 pm ¶
bertie wrote:
spacedcowgirl: umm..I’m not trying to an @sshole or snarky but…why should anyone male or female be believed on accusation alone and without evidence. Today, here in Texas, a guy’s rape sentence is being commutted 10 years AFTER his death in jail because DNA evidence exonerated him. The victim testified against the guy—but she made a mistaken identification (in part because the police told her that he was the rapist before she made the id.) Clearly this case is not exactly analogous to the Brown/Rihanna case but it does point out that EVIDENCE is key. I think it’s healthy to be somewhat skeptical about accusations until actual facts backed up by evidence come out. Perhaps before the picture came out, 50 had nothing to go on but unsubstantiated press reports.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 4:43 pm ¶
Embarcadero13 wrote:
I can’t be hard on 50 Cent for this… First off, bear in mind that he’s not the most eloquent rhetoritician, and so it may be necessary to read between the lines a bit. To me, it looks like he was saying that the photo made it real- it jolted him–as it should. Maybe it’s a good thing that the photo shocked him. It showed that he wasn’t accustomed to being around physically abused women.
I had the same reaction. I didn’t grow up around violence and I was raised by my single mother to have a No Tolerance policy. My older brother (a Black man) also does not engage in this behavior.
But I take domestic violence seriously because I know it is pervasive, and that most women are killed at the hands of their abusor. It is necessary to raise awareness of this in the Black community. It’s also necessary to raise our young boys into better men, and our girls into strong, self-sufficient, independant, confident women who are not too proud to seek help when they need it.
I do wish that both the R&B and hip hop communities would take this oppportunity to raise awareness and reach out to communities of color on this issue. So far, I feel that there has been a hush around it, when there should be a scream. I’m guessing its because they don’t want to ruin Chris Brown’s career. It might also be the whole “remnants of an emasculated male population” discussion that we’ve all had a billion times, but don’t seem to get anywhere with it.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 4:44 pm ¶
Winn wrote:
@Fiqah and Latoya,
Cosign, cosign, and cosign again. I am so tired of people unable to distinguish between causation and correlation, between symptomology and origins. Hip hop reflects the misogyny inherent in American culture, just as other forms of music do. Fiqah mentioned the misogyny and homophobia in dancehall. But if we want to take it out of the realm of music primarily associated with artists of color, how about heavy metal, espeically death metal and black metal, or noise music? Google lyrics for the band Whitehouse and tell me any hip hop artist that measures up to the hatred, bile, violence, woman-hating putridness of that mess; it’s so bad you wonder if maybe it’s a joke! Noise music may be a fringe musical genre with nothing approaching the exposure, accessibility or popularity of hip hop. But its purveyors and fans are often dismissive and contemptuous of rap and hip hop, and not likely consumers of that form of music. So where does their hatred and woman-focused violence emerge from?
Those of us immersed in the world of pop culture can become myopic, and are often convinced that the media we consume and which interests us so greatly has a reach and influence out of proportion with reality. For example, despite the seeming ubiquity of the Internet, 75%-80% of the world population is not online or does not have Internet access at all. I don’t care how omnipresent hip hop appears, there are huge swathes of humanity that are not regularly exposed to it and the misogyny and violence against women that does manifest in all cultures cannot be blamed on its influence. Latoya listed a number of substantive, empirically supported methods to address the issue of domestic violence, and there are many more that can and should be more culturally specific, and can certainly address the problematic aspects of hip hop and rap as genres and subcultures with a great deal of influence on certain segments of young men and women. But this “hip hop bad” meme is tired, reductive, and limited, and fails to get to the root issues.
Let’s face it: this is a violent culture, of which domestic violence is only one outgrowth. And to argue that domestic violence is more publically acceptable or normalized that it was in previous decades is to ignore or distort history. Read “What Trouble I Have Seen: A History of Violence Against Wives” by David Peterson del Mar, “Domestic Tyranny: The Making of American Social Policy against Family Violence from Colonial Times to the Present” by Elizabeth Pleck, or “A Brief History of Misogyny” by Jack Holland. Some historical, anthropological perspective would not go amiss.
This is not about shutting down conversation with those who disagree. It is about actually engaging with the issues presented, not throwing up diversions that have nothing to do with the central discussion but represent your own personal hobby horse. And a petulant complaint that because someone demands more out of your argument that means they are mean and trying to stifle discussion is hardly going to advance your cause.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 5:05 pm ¶
nicole wrote:
I don’t like the way this article brings Sasha and Malia Obama into this discussion. I think it’s a cheap tactic and disrespectful to the Obama family.
Malia and Sasha are innocent little girls; don’t trot them out as examples of the race to pin your theories on. You are calling hypothetical violence down on them for no reason, and it sounds like half-assed writing that can’t come up with better reasons or analogies for why the Rihanna situation sucks than “but what if it was a little giiirl who we all respeeect??!!11!!”
What happened to Rihanna is bad in and of itself; your writerly POV should be able to make that clear for what it is, instead of hypothetically pulling children into a case of domestic/sexual assault to try to prove something. Not cool.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 5:22 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
Latoya-
“She mentioned the normalization of violent behavior, our willingness to place women into categories along a spectrum of respectability, and resistance to the realities of domestic violence.” To be fair, wasn’t Monie pointing out how Hip-Hop has helped lead to the normalization of violent behavior? Obviously it is not the sole cause, the first cause, or the primary cause, but it certainly is A cause. Monie may have simplified the argument, but I do not know that she dumbed it down anymore than anyone else who offered a single suggestion for the prevailing attitudes related to these issues.
To the larger topic, I think it has as much to do with the perpetrator in these situations as the victim. Someone mentioned how a rich white woman would garner a different reaction than a poor woman of color. But would that REALLY be true if the rich white woman’s abuser was a powerful, white male? Do you think 50-cent would have reacted as he did if it was some guy from the ‘hood’ instead of Chris Brown? It seems like the reaction to these incidents is as much about our comfort/reluctance to believe the accused is guilty as it is to identify with the experience of the victim. Obviously, who the victim is plays a large part in this, but I think who the perpetrator is plays just as large a role.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 5:34 pm ¶
Renina wrote:
I read every SINGLE one of your comments.
Thank you for engaging me and thinking, reading and writing.
Sincerely,
Renina (m.dot)
@Marcus,
I was holding my sleeping baby daughter as I read this post, and every day the world reminds me of the dangers she will face. I can’t comprehend the prevalence of violent attitudes towards women in our country and in our communities. It scares the shit out of me.
This is the reason I write.
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist!
=====
My thinking, rests within intersectionality.
Meaning that, I do not seperate, class from gender from race because they are mutually reinforcing systems within a White Supremecist Patriarchal Capitalist society.
However, thank you for pointing out the low income White women, and for that matter Latina, Asian and Indian women face the same limited options when dealing with violence from their intimate partners.
@syeda
it really opened my mind. i never had the perception that black women were disrespected in this way because i’ve always thought that black women are generally perceived as extremely strong within the black community
===========
Thank you. This is why I write.
@Spacedcowgirl.
.it really opened my mind. i never had the perception that black women were disrespected in this way because i’ve always thought that black women are generally perceived as extremely strong within the black community
=======
Me fucking TOO.
We have a lot of work to do there. Its possible, just hard.
@ Latoya,
I am working on a piece on patriarchy, lesbian relationships and domestic violence. You interested?
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 5:58 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
***MOD NOTE****
Done. This post is not the place for whatever personal axes people are grinding against hip-hop, nor is it the place for a general discussion about hip hop and “the white man.” Further comments in this vein will be deleted. If you’re asking questions about *why* this post is not the place for this discussion I suggest you run a search on this site for hip-hop, or click the hip-hop tag and read from there. We’ve already covered the topic. We’re not rehashing it endlessly. – LDP
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 6:37 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
LTP-
What’s up with the, “It’s my ball, I’m taking it home” philosophy lately?
Mod Note – One, my middle initial is D. And two, as I stated on the other thread, I’m sick of having the same conversations over and over again. Maybe this line of argument is brand new to you. But it’s not to us and the days have a dizzying sameness sometimes, especially when talking about hip-hop, dating, anything relating to Jews/Israel Palestine/Muslims and sex. If you have an issue with how I moderate, you are free to go elsewhere. – LDP
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 6:47 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@M. Dot –
Always interested.
@BSK –
Do me a favor and back up your argument. Hip-hop normalizes a culture of violence…towards what segment of the population? What’s mainly promoted in hip-hop videos is the subjugation of women *with money* not with violence. You could make a compelling argument that hip-hop promotes violence against other men, hip-hop promotes violence against the state.
Does hip-hop promote *sexual* violence against women? That could be argued, taking in consideration the language and tone of sexual interactions on hip-hop tracks, and you could use Beyond Beats and Rhymes to bolster your case, particularly their segment on sexual assault.
But these things are different than domestic violence. We briefly probed the hip-hop + domestic violence angle in our original thread on Chris Brown and Rihanna, citing Elizabeth Mendez Berry’s 2005 article on domestic violence in the hip-hop community. But those rappers implicated in Berry’s piece weren’t rapping about harming women – again, the theme of the rap people are protesting is generally the subjugation through money. Those rappers did what they did because of notions of masculine superiority and/or learned behavior from parents and friends. Cuban Link stood by while Big Pun went at his wife with an iron pipe. He didn’t cut a track about it later – it was part of the strangling silence that is complicit in domestic violence.
[There is also the concept of sexual violence against a woman as *payback* for something another man has done - DMX fell back on that one a while ago. But that is still separate from domestic violence.]
Interestingly enough, one of the initial comments on the CB/RF situation implored us *not* to look at the hip-hop angle because we risked labeling this as a “black issue” which meant it would no longer get the attention it deserves in the media. And while I disagree with that assessment, I also disagree that hip-hop is some special snowflake manifestation of misogyny, so much worse than before.
Rape culture runs hip-hop. A culture of masculinity expressed through aggression runs hip hop. A culture of victim blaming and silence runs hip hop. It’s not the other way around.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 6:55 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
LDP-
First, my apologies on the name mixup. I didn’t look closely on the the LT was for LaToya. My bad.
Secondly, I understand not wanting to rehash only arguments. But doesn’t that assume that everyone here has been reading since the beginning? Not all of us HAVE read all of the old conversations. And even if we have read them after-the-fact (I have scanned the archives), we have not gotten to participate in the conversations, so when a seemingly new opportunity to discuss something in connection to a new post happens, I don’t think it’s fair to say, “That conversation has been had. You missed the boat.”
Regarding hip-hop, I was referring to your response to Monie. I quoted you specifically simply commenting on the thread of the post relating to the normalizing of violence; you did not specify that it was domestic violence alone that was the conversation. I think to make domestic violence completely disjointed from “regular” violence is off-base. It is certainly a different form, but there are ways in which normalized “regular” violence can lead to the normalization of domestic violence. But more to my initial point, I was not necessarily defending the “blame hip-hop” meme. Rather, I was trying to demonstrate that Monie’s argument was not out of left field and should not have been shot down as it seemed to be.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 7:17 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@BSK –
1. I always point people to where they can read to catch up. It’s a part of backing up your argument.
2. When you create your own blog, you can run it by whatever rules you wish and decide for yourself whatever you think is fair or unfair. I’m not having this conversation with you again.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 7:30 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
With regards to your last point, how can you say that those things run hip-hop but deny the way in which they can then be expressed through hip-hop and promoted? Do young kids who listen to hip-hop already belong to a culture of rape? If you do acknowledge the presence of these ideas BEHIND hip-hop, how can you not acknowledge the cyclical way in which these ideas are promoted outwards into the people who will be behind hip-hop in the future? I don’t get that at all.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 7:31 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
Fine. Don’t make posts asking if this is a safe place to talk and then make it decidedly unsafe for people who run up against you. I like the work you do here, but you have turned the comments section from a fruitful dialogue into an agenda-driven, one-sided rant. Peace.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 7:48 pm ¶
pointofagreement wrote:
And now, the point.
How LIKELY is it that either of the daughters of the first African American President of the Unites States will EVER end up with someone like Chris Brown: an erratic youngster whose primary skill set chiefly consists of his ability to cart a couple of octaves?
Not very.
May I make the point that so desperately needs to be made in this conversation? Those two little girls have a model for manhood that too few black women have. Hell, that too few women in general have. Their father gets out of bed every morning, works like hell, and comes home to the same woman–their mother–every night.
Oh, and one more thing: their father CLEARLY adores their mother, and has for years. THAT’s the model by which their potential suitors will be measured, not some discount version of Sam Cooke pushing his knuckles into her lips when she dares to raise her voice.
What hasn’t come to the fore in the Rihanna/Chris Brown conversation is whether her father was the sort that didn’t spare the rod.
Was he?
And is THAT the reason why a daughter might grow up and simply assume that it’s commonplace for someone who claims to love her to also feel at liberty to strike her?
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 8:31 pm ¶
crazybones wrote:
” That women attempt passive resistance, they attempt to leave and that many feel compelled to stay because they may have children…Black women are killed by their partners at a disproportionate rate.”
It’s important to note that the idea of victim’s rights is pretty new. The idea that a victim has legal recourse for protection isn’t something with a long history.
And when you think of what it takes to actually leave: not just emotionally, but the tangible things, like a safe place to go, an income, a vehicle or access to your workplace — it makes it very difficult for someone to have the personal resources to actually leave.
I think it’s even more evident with the intangible things, like self-esteem or reputation: if “good” people aren’t abusers or victims, then it’s difficult for the victim to advocate for themselves — there’s a potential loss of the social network that really influences a person’s life.
Leaving is a huge disruption, and if violence is a part of your life (either from your childhood, or because your partner has habituated you to it) then it can take something Really Big to get you to try and leave. But even if you try, it doesn’t mean you have the resources to be able to do it. Money is a resource, but it’s not going to do the job alone. And even if you have the resources, a person committed to harming you will still be a threat: the most dangerous time is when a person is leaving.
I think that the normalization of violence is probably a little less now: we see it all the time for entertainment, but it’s scripted, sanitized and make-believe. But it wasn’t long ago that violence used for entertainment was actually real violence. Things that people used to do for sport, say animal fighting, or street fighting is now against the law.
So I don’t know that the incidence of DV is higher now, but it’s that now, DV is actually illegal. It wasn’t illegal before. Killing someone has always been illegal, but spousal (or partner) rape wasn’t illegal until the 70’s, and stuff like beating, stalking wasn’t codified into federal law until the mid 90’s. There’s a ton of shame, generally, for crimes where one person overtakes the body of another (beating, rape): the idea of the sanctity of the body is pretty fundamental, and society tends to blame the victim when overpowering happens. That’s not to imply that these violent acts were never wrong, but if there’s no institutional backup that they’re wrong, then it’s difficult for a person to garner the support they need, or to even ask for support.
And also, laws for mandatory child support are also not that old. So a person wanting to leave and take the kids with them historically has had a hard time doing so. And I think that, if historically, people just weren’t able to do something (enforcable) then it creates an environment where not doing something is the norm. Which makes it a lot harder to leave, and this was already hard to begin with.
And if you are in a group that characteristically has fewer resources, of income, job mobility, ability to pack up and move, the support (or even presence) of local authorities, a social network that validates the fact that you’re leaving, then you’re even more vulnerable, because you’ve just got less fuel to power a move.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 8:42 pm ¶
Arabi wrote:
“Rape culture runs hip-hop. A culture of masculinity expressed through aggression runs hip hop. A culture of victim blaming and silence runs hip hop. It’s not the other way around.”
@Latoya Peterson:
I understand you said that you wanted no more conversations about the subject of hip hops relationship to domestic violence but your ruling that Hip Hop does not cause domestic violence is grounded on a problematic assumption that is embodied by the above statement.
I think this is worth exploring because the assumption that “culture” informs the art form presumes that the art form is distinct from the “culture”.
Further, even if there was so sharp a distinction, one would also have to presume that the art form has no causal efficacy within the culture.
To be honest, I think both assumptions have no grounding.
When we talk about modeling behaviour, and Cultural Codes, one cannot preclude the dominate art form from being a significant source of disposition formulating schemas.
One cannot simply pull form from content and determine that there is a simple one-way causal relationship.
It is rather dynamic and amorphous, meaning being generated from the oscillations between the two.
In other words, hip hop is not simple the glove that covers the pummeling fist.
It gives cues that make the pummeling itself permissible. It is not simply the ring that fighters battle in, it is the context wherein fighters know that fighting is to commence here.
Misogyny is everywhere, but to pretend that it is equally distributed is dishonest.
Be real, this article was about the black community as the numbers stated referred directly to black women and how they are disproportionately victims of domestic violence. We can safely assume that the race of most of those men abusing and killing them are black. Talking about misogyny in other parts of American society is just a way to defer and disperse the problem. Do not we hate it when white folks bring up their racial “grievances” when the topic of race comes up?
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 8:46 pm ¶
RJG wrote:
M.Dot: “Why is a picture needed in order to convey the seriousness of the topic?”
I think part of it is that when people just think of a concept and go “yeah that’s bad”, it just remains as a concept.
I see this in a similar vein of how, until very recently, the press was just 100% not allowed to take photos of coffins containing [US] troops with the flags on top as they were packed, in, and unpacked from the planes for transport, and etc etc etc. Just flat out not allowed to take any photos. Period.
Why? Because while sure people know that troops are dying, but when you see the coffin most people tend to _process_ it just a bit more instead of just muse or joke or discuss it as an amorphous matter. It stops being this theoretical/philosophical “let’s discuss if people dying is a good/bad thing or how the ends justify the means or whatever” and enters the realm of “oh, _fuck_, dead person” instead.
I think part of the problem when it comes to tackling things like DV, especially something as personalized as DV, is that no one really wants to flash some actual pictures with big bold letters flashing “THIS IS THE FUCKING RESULT PEOPLE”, because a lot of people aren’t comfortable with exposing people, especially those who are still impressionable like kids, to that kind of visceral reaction they would probably get when shown what happens when shit in society goes wrong.
Many of the PSAs that attempt to touch on exactly how bad DV is tend to be banned from television for [ironically?] being too violent/upsetting and so on. I think of the old Homefront Calgary ads, but then again most of the youtube uploads of those ads talk about how it’s absolutely hilarious so who the fuck knows if that even works anymore unless people are well aware it’s not staged and it’s an actual real person who is injured from DV.
In the end, I think it’s terrible that people need to literally be shown why something is bad before understanding it’s a bad thing, but if that’s what it takes to shock people into understanding a situation, I’m glad that they at least reassess what they believe and how they act after seeing what that kind of mindset can result in. Hopefully, it will encourage them to do what they can do so another generation doesn’t have to actually be exposed to something as terrible as that in order to process why it’s bad.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 9:10 pm ¶
crazybones wrote:
Oh — and I forgot to say that since DV wasn’t considered illegal (and there were laws enforced that penalized the victim for leaving**) then there’s a strong chance that children raised in those environments will continue the cycle of abuse. So for populations with few resources to stop abuse, and overarching power structures to slow them from stopping it, and the inability for it to just die out, there’s stronger likelihood that the population will have disproportionate occurrences or that they’ll be hard to reverse.
Also, it reinforces the mindset that DV isn’t an issue that provokes community outrage and support (not emotional support, but the concerted work of a community.) So people can care as individuals, but that’s not the same as the ability/likelihood for consolidation of power to evoke change.
**examples: preventing battered spouses from receiving welfare benefits when they go, because the abusing spouse’s income was recorded as being an available asset. Or having an “at fault” divorce, in an area where DV wasn’t illegal…so you can’t use it as terms to void the marriage contract, or insurers being able to refuse coverage for spousal abuse.
(here is a timeline link about DV laws:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html)
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 9:27 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
I don’t think it’s helpful to emphasize or seek evidence that lower income or minority women are greater victims of domestic violence. It may or may not be statistically supported, but I think it perpetuates negative stereotypes of race and class. Meanwhile, as a galvanizer for action or attention, why does it need to be more prevalent in one community than others for it to be important to that group? DV seems like a great rallying point for women (other than the fact that it’s negative) because it can and does affect everyone. If I were Queen of POC Feminists, I wouldn’t want DV to be the feminist issue where finally POC get attention, because it’s not a racial issue in the way that media imagery of women is a race and gender issue.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 10:09 pm ¶
Embarcadero113 wrote:
@pointofagreement: I feel what you’re saying but at the same time, a good FEMALE rolemodel does the same job. Most women I know don’t enter or remain in abusive relationships. Most of those women come from Black single family homes. A whole bunch of them worked their way through undergrad and professional schools, toting babies, loans, crazy home situations and all those difficulties that could bring other women down. We made it because of our mothers.
Posted 10 Apr 2009 at 12:31 am ¶
Taryn wrote:
to Winn: Hell yeah and cosign.Yes, We live in an institutionalized sexist society. *sigh*
Posted 10 Apr 2009 at 12:42 am ¶
RJG wrote:
@Slush
I don’t think demographics should be ignored just because a racist or a classist could use it as a weapon against that group. It’s important to examine all possible root causes of a problem.
===MADE UP EXAMPLE===
Let’s say there is some research done that shows DV is more likely to happen when a family faces economic hardships because that can lead to conflicts in families which can escalate to DV (I don’t know if this is true or not — once again this is just my made up example), should that be ignored? After all, that could imply that a low-income family might be more likely to trigger that cause of a DV situation, because they’re more likely to face economic hardships since they’re less likely to have as big of a financial safety net.
But, at the same time, what if that shows DV can be reduced by helping the people maintain stable finances and offering support when they do face a financial crisis (on top of general more universal ways that help educate people in order to reduce DV). Should that route be ignored because it shows that one of the causes of DV is something that is less likely in someone who is rich and less likely to face foreclosure or something?
===END FAKE EXAMPLE===
What’s important is to recognize that there is no ONE true root cause of DV, and that by acknowledging a cause we are not justifying it (eg: “oh they’re poor”) nor are we excusing it as a way to way to blame the victim (eg: “of course she’d gets hit she needs to manage her money better!”).
I think it’s a disservice to those in need to go “well, we could try to do *this* to help reduce DV situations, but then Bill O’Reilly will blame poor people for everything again and we don’t want to give him fodder.”
Posted 10 Apr 2009 at 2:20 am ¶
crazybones wrote:
@ Slush – I see your point, but I think it’s very important to emphasize that groups (for whatever reason) are more or less affected, because it targets exactly what’s needed to make change across the board.
Money is kind of hard to pinpoint, because it’s not just the quantity of $$ overall, but the ability of the battered partner to access it when in need: this knowledge helped fuel reforms for (mainly women) to own property, have credit/accounts in their own name, seek spousal aid and benefits — even the ability to walk out with a suitcase of your own clothes. Without that, people weren’t in a position to leave. And it’s also how the money was spent: a very wealthy society with no programs to help a battered victims should see more abuse than a cash-poor community with strong practices against DV.
And it can also be what was a person’s economic status during the abusive relationship vs. what it is when they are leaving. Regardless of your economic status, people tend not to want to lose everything they’ve got, and that can happen when a person leaves an abusive relationship. The need to just physically get away separates you from your most familiar resources. If you’ve been conditioned to accept abuse (you are habituated to it) then leaving everything can feel a lot more dangerous that continuing a situation you’re already familiar with.
So it’s relevant to talk about a community’s ability to make a program that makes people feel safe when they’re doing something scary to them (and realistically, leaving is an incredibly dangerous time.) This community could be a church, a family, a neighborhood, or a state/nation.
A community with low resources across the board puts the issue into starker contrast: there are less buffers to mask the programs/tools that actually have to be there. This goes beyond the resource of cash: it could be money, job mobility, places to stay, or it could be societal acceptance (referencing why there are fewer programs for GLBT, straight male victims, or verbal abuse instead of physical abuse.)
If lack of a particular resource is an indicator that a person is more affected by an issue, then it means that the resource is needed to stop the event. People shouldn’t correlate poverty or color with value or morality, but if you can think of resources like a set of tools, then it’s important to know if you’ve got the right equipment for the job. So noting that the poor, or minorities are disproportionately affected doesn’t mean that they are bad. But we can characterize the -situation- of both groups: people with having low individual/family income, probable low job prospects (common to poor) or less protected by laws, social programs, social acceptance (common to minorities). And so looking at these groups can help explain the scope of the problem (and how to allocate your resources) because the things common these groups are factors that make it harder for anyone in a similar position to leave or avoid a bad situation.
It’s definitely a problem when people think that the issue is held in a person’s classification. but the response of a similarly situated group can explain the response to a bigger population. So being poor isn’t bad, but when being poor means that there no shelters in your area, then understanding the meaning behind the term “poor” can direct people to a specific type of action. So the first question is , “who’s affected by this situation” then “what are the non-superficial things these people have in common” and then we can better say what needs to be done to fix things.
Posted 10 Apr 2009 at 2:28 am ¶
Slush wrote:
Right, but identifying DV as a problem in particular communities does not require the problem to be bigger in that community than a different one. Yes, as you say the problem may actually be bigger and harder to address and need more resources, always. But acknowledging it as an issue to be addressed doesn’t depend on the DV rate in your community being worse than in the next town over.
Meanwhile it plays into pretty serious stereotypes about the violent nature of black men, and lower income folks as well. Stereotypes which have been raised “those types of men” in this exact discussion.
So yeah, I agree that demographics and statistics shouldn’t be ignored or denied, I’m just pointing out that they aren’t always the best tool for a cause. I think your hypothetical is pretty apt, RJG, because prevention is what we want, I just wanted to point out how it might be at cross purposes with other things we believe in.
Posted 10 Apr 2009 at 10:48 am ¶
[dave] wrote:
@point of agreement: I just want to say that often folks who find themselves in abusive relationships are exactly the people that would have said to themselves that they knew better, that they’d been raised with strong role models. I think M. Dot’s intent in using Sasha and Malia was that more people might feel like they knew where they’d come from, that neither was the daughter of a derelict island man like Rihanna (folks use that a lot to explain how she might be sucked into an abusive relationship), so if Sasha or Malia can end up in an abusive relationship, then maybe its a problem in society and not a problem in the family upbringing that an abused person had. Does that make sense? I’ll try again if it doesn’t, I’m not sure how well I’ve presented it. I
@crazybones: I like your response to Slush.
@Slush: I think I like specific numbers in these cases because we can target additional resources towards folks who are facing additional barriers. For instance, less than 2% (two per cent!) of (LGB and straight) men and trans folks think of the police as a resource when dealing with DV according to one survey (raw data, not super rigorous, but still). People of colour are more likely to not think of police as a resource as well. So identities can stack up along with barriers.
Posted 10 Apr 2009 at 11:13 am ¶
RJG wrote:
@Slush
I think I better understand what you’re getting at this time around. I absolutely agree that if we examine cases of DV regardless of where it takes place, we can prevent it being seen as something along the lines of “oh, they’re investigating some stuff _those people_ have been up to again.”
But, in the back of my mind, part of me feels that if something _does_ happen more in area X than area Y, I would rather see it as a higher priority in area X, even though I fully recognize how problematic that can be and I don’t exactly know how to get around that.
I would want the what I assume are finite resources that could combat DV be present in areas where that help is needed the most. Not to enter analogy-land, but I would want to see more fire trucks at a 5 alarm fire than I would at a 2 alarm fire.
I 100% recognize the problems you’re bringing up, and I agree that it could/would clash with other things that we also would want to stop, but at the same time I’m wondering what can be done to put more resources into stopping the 5 alarm fire versus the 2 alarm fire without coming off as unfairly biased to the former fire or tossing yet another stereotype reinforcement on it. Is it just a matter of acknowledging that it isn’t a problem limited to one community, or does more need to be done?
Posted 10 Apr 2009 at 11:16 am ¶