I was stuck in traffic today and while flipping through the radio stations I happened upon a newly released song by Chris Brown. For anyone who may not know of whom I speak, Chris Brown is a young R&B artist known for a few musical hits as well as a few bodily hits he laid on his then girlfriend, the Barbadian born beauty known professionally as Rihanna. In 2009, the two were in a car together in Los Angeles when, according to reports, Rihanna began looking through Brown's phone where she found some text messages from other women. When she confronted him, he beat her mercilessly, giving her multiple bruises, a black eye, facial lacerations, and a sprained wrist. She was a mere twenty-one years of age at the time, Brown was twenty.
A media blitz ensued. Brown was arrested and charged with assault. It became public knowledge that the two had a history of domestic violence issues. Ultimately, Chris Brown pled guilty and is currently serving five years probation. Today Rihanna's career is stronger than ever, she has had multiple songs atop the charts and has appeared in various films as well.
When I realized that the song I was about to hear was by Chris Brown, it gave me pause. I mean, I guess I knew that he still had a career. I knew that there had been some publicity stunt where he had guested on one of Rihanna's songs, a swollen-tongue-in-bruised-cheek reconciliation of sorts, I suppose. A pathetic one, at that. I knew that he was still hanging around the music industry. But I never really stopped and thought about what that actually means. About the message it sends regarding that ugly secret known as domestic violence, which rips millions of homes apart, sends women to the hospital in shame (and often in pieces) and sets the lowest possible standards of conduct for any child who bears witness to it. Here is a guy who beat one of the most famous women in the world IN HER FACE. Her money maker. He blackened her eye. He split her lip. He cussed her out and degraded her. Why? Ostensibly because he didn't want to have to answer for his infidelity. No doubt there are deeper reasons why a man would do this to any woman, let alone a woman he claims to love. But I actually don't care that much what his reasons are. I will leave that to the professionals. What I care about is that the entertainment industry is so bereft of any shred of dignity or interest in promoting positive female images, that they have to recycle this marginally talented neanderthal (and exploit his victim in the process) rather than simply finding one of thousands of talented young singers out there who DOES NOT beat women, to take his place.
Of course this public redemption is just one of many examples of acceptable misogyny that exists in American life. Women are beaten and abused daily, their children used as hostages by men who are so desperate for control and power that when they have no other way to get what they want, they use brute force. As I thought about this problem, the main thing that struck me (no pun intended) was the very use of the term "domestic violence."
Domestic violence.
Not the more old school "wife beating", nor the more general term "battery" (which sounds extra painful) But, instead, a very detached and unemotional term. It almost sounds clinical. Or like some kind of disease. "So sad about Nancy. She was suffering from domestic violence." It sounds like something that just "happens" to a person, instead of something for which another person is responsible. It also sounds like something which has shared culpability.
A domestic violence situation.
As if the victim was somehow a party to the event. And while I realize that there is a need for this kind of sterile language in the legal world, I am somewhat confounded that in this age of nearly constant journalistic sensationalism, people in the media don't just call it what it is. A beating. It is a beating. He beat her. Repeatedly. And apparently, this behavior is not only not bad enough to warrant actual jail time, it is also not bad enough to warrant any kind of public exile.
Contrast this scenario with another notorious case of the past decade, that of Michael Vick. Vick was one of the most talented and successful quarterbacks in the NFL in 2007 when it became public that he was operating an illegal dog fighting ring on property he owned in Georgia. Vick was responsible for the abuse and killing of countless dogs as well as the illegal gambling that was underpinning the enterprise. He initially lied to authorities about his involvement, perhaps realizing for one lucid moment how awful what he had done actually was. Or perhaps to avoid getting in trouble. Only he knows for sure. The details were horrifying. Animals being born and bred to fight. Then starved and sicked on each other to fight to the eventual death of one of the poor souls. This is depraved behavior. For his part in this operation, Vick was sentenced to 23 months in federal prison, fined $5000 and suspended from his incredibly lucrative job as a professional football player, costing him an estimated $171 million in revenue.
Ok. Let's be clear. Vick went to jail. He paid a fine. He lost his job. Sounds like a good punishment. But you know what?
They were dogs. And the gambling was money. Dogs and money.
Rihanna is a person.
Of course I understand legal jurisdiction and sentencing guidelines, these crimes are not identical and the punishments would never be commensurate. Vick broke federal laws by operating an illegal interstate operation. He also lied to federal authorities. Brown did not. Because hitting a woman under these circumstances isn't against any federal laws. So he wasn't even interrogated by federal authorities. Brown did not cross state lines with intent to harm Rihanna. And it isn't technically a hate crime to just snap and violently beat a woman in this context. A straight man hitting a homosexual man because the latter is gay is a hate crime. A Hispanic woman slapping an Asian woman because they are of different races is a hate crime. But a man hitting a woman because she is a woman, is not a hate crime. In fact, it's hardly a crime at all in this case! No jail time. No job loss. Nothing! Business as usual.
Therein lies the problem.
As a Libertarian, I have mixed feelings about the use of the federal government in the prosecution of what are essentially crimes that should fall under more local jurisdictions. But that is a topic for another post. At this point in time, today, a federal hate crime law exists and is used to both deter people from targeting minority groups as well as to punish them by meting out sentences that are not subject to parole. Originally, the idea was to extend added protection to citizens who were targets of crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin. The act brought the weight of the federal government into situations where states would not prosecute known criminals because they were pressured by existing local bias. In 2009, the federal hate crimes statute was expanded to include gender. It is of note, however, that the genesis of this act, (also known as the "Matthew Shepard Act") was NOT to give women, as a class of citizens, access to federal protection. No. In fact, the language of the act specifically states that the act is NOT intended to make every rape or domestic abuse situation a literal federal case. Rather the impetus here was the brutal murder of a gay young man, Matthew Shepard, which took place in a the state of Wyoming, where there are no specific hate crime laws. This is why the act bears his name. It does NOT bear the name of the nameless, faceless millions of women in this country who have suffered violence and death at the hands of their husbands and boyfriends. Because the reality of the situation is that domestic violence is so prevalent, there aren't nearly enough federal prosecutors to handle the cases. Each year, an estimated 1.3 million American women are victims of violence at the hands of the men who claim to love them. In fiscal year 2010, the US Department of Justice filed a total of 68,591 cases against 91,047 defendants total. Total. Including immigration, narcotics, organized crime, and violent crime. So clearly there are no resources available to enforce action against every guy who punches his pregnant wife out or kicks her down the stairs when she forgets to make the bed. That is obvious.
But there IS money to protect dogs and make sure no one is illegally gambling!
I am not suggesting that Michael Vick should not have been prosecuted. Of course he should have. But it is amazing to me the amount of ink that is spilled in this country over whether or not this man will ever own a dog again, while Chris Brown continues to record songs and enjoy the public spotlight with virtually zero scrutiny! In fact Rihanna, his victim, makes tear stained excuses for this monster, and Oprah, the alleged harbinger of women's self esteem, looks on with an eye to her ever sagging ratings, hoping this might boost her back to the top. How sad is that? Rihanna is the VICTIM. She clearly has problems. Yet all the record companies, the media and sainted Mother Oprah can do, is EXPLOIT HER PAIN.
BUT LET'S ALL WORRY ABOUT THE DOGS!!!!
You know why we do that? Because it's easier. It's easier to attach importance to animals and inanimate objects than it is to protect people. Because it's easier to blame the victim for not being rational about her abuser than it is to make a public stand against companies who exploit women. We tell ourselves that dogs are innocent and cannot protect themselves. And that is true. They need protection. But human victims need protection, as well. It's just much harder and more painful to attempt to accomplish the latter.
As I always say in this blog, the problems of the world seem so overwhelming at times, it is difficult to believe that one person can make a difference. But we all can. No one person can make Chris Brown irrelevant. But you CAN turn off the radio. You CAN pay attention to the music your children listen to and tell them not to pay to download a song by the guy who beat Rihanna bloody. You can tell them how disgusted you are that record company executives would manipulate Rihanna, an abuse victim, into a collaboration with her abuser for publicity. You can do that. You can empower your teenagers by telling them that famous people are just people with problems and flaws like anyone else. You can prepare your daughters for the challenges of the world they will be entering by taking this and any opportunity to discuss what they need to do if this ever happens to them.
And if you do this? For God's sake, don't call it domestic violence. Call it what it is. A savage beating. An aggravated assault. Battery. Or better yet?
Attempted murder.
BB
IF YOU ARE THE VICTIM OF VIOLENCE PLEASE GET HELP 1-800-799-SAFE
