A reminder that I wish wasn’t necessary. With the news breaking that popstar Rihanna and her abusive ex-boyfriend Chris Brown have re-united to collaborate on a single together, the wonderful legions know as internet commentators have come out to largely shame Rihanna for what is in effect, an act of publicly forgiving her abuser when he has continously showcased behavior that clearly states he has no remorse for his abusive actions. This collaboration now becomes a tumultous moment in how we read this event as feminists and how we respond. First, some quotes from Gawker commentators (who I’m pretty sure are NOT feminist identified) on the first two articles I linked to:
Don Quijote writes: “yea I have totally lost respect for Rihanna stopped following on twitter “thats mad serious lol”
but honestly this is just a slap in the face to all those women who have
suffered domestic violence.”
Colbert Nation chimes in with: “This whole thing makes Rihanna look quite pathetic. She’s just a weak little girl, and not at all the strong woman in control she has presented herself as after the Chris Brown incident. This sends a terrible message to young girls out there. Fuck her.”
Duffin states: “Yup, alright. Any sympathy I had left for Rihanna is pretty much out the window at this point. She obviously doesn’t care how terrible of a person Chris Brown is, so I suppose I don’t either. I’m still not listening to his crap albums, though.”
I think these three comments are illustrative of what appears to be an attitude that Rihanna is no longer a victim and is now deserving of whatever violence or abuse she may suffer in the future from Chris Brown. Which, conveniently, now excuses Chris Brown from being an abusive, unrepentant jerk. Just the loophole he (and our victim-blaming society) was looking for! While it is entirely unclear whether they are dating again and I frankly don’t feel like mucking through virus-ridden hack-celebrity-gossip websites to find out, this collaboration is a very HUGE public statement about Rihanna’s relationship with her abuser. Which is, maybe, her own business, but contracts and how the recording industry works probably has some bearing on her decision. Her agent obviously thought this would be good for P.R. (It is undoubtedly good for Chris) and the idea of this being good for public relations is one of the more troubling aspects of the collaboration.
That aside, what has really bothered me is this move to deny Rihanna her “victim-hood”, as if it some badge or a ticket that is taken away at the public’s will depending on the collective perception of her actions. Is it troubling that she consented to this collaboration? No doubt. Should it be questioned? Yes. I’m not even going to feign of having any knowledge on the psychology of abuse victims and how to read her actions, but I think it is fair to say that it does ring true of how abusive relationships continue to exist. Many abuse victims do continue to stay with their abusers and go back to them and to anyone on the outside, particularly those of us fortunate enough to have never been in a abusive relationship, this behavior is unfathomable. Families and friends of abuse victims often feel powerless over their loved ones “decision” to stay within the relationship, and this is where victim-blaming can become particularly heavy: “She is asking for it by staying with him” and other such thoughts continue to deny that she is a victim. Conversely, it silently condones the abuser’s behavior by blaming the victim, as if it is out of the abuser’s control and a natural aspect of their personality and behavior. Every time that we deny a victimization, we are turning our back on that person and blindly justifying their abuse. To say that Rihanna is now a “bad example” to “little girls” is to make her appear as if she is somehow the abuser and to completely ignore that the message being sent to “little boys” by Chris Brown is that it is OK to abuse others, especially if they “forgive you” because your victim is clearly “asking for it.” While it is incredibly troubling for this collaboration to occur, we have to strive to correct victim-blaming comments that we may encounter in the coming days as this story continues to go viral and not let the public deny that Rihanna was a victim of domestic violence.
ShoutOut! James Madison University 
A fascinating article. I think my first job as a feminist is to recognize that a woman (or man) is entitled to make their own choices regardless of my opinions.
If we prescribe and permit (or not), are we being different from the paternalism we have fought for so long?
I’m writing from the UK, a few minutes walk away from where Emmeline Pankhurst married, and in the same month that she and her courageous sisterhood finally won women their right to vote. I can’t help but feel some sadness, when I think how much work there is still to do to change attitudes.
In the UK victim blame happens every day and is entrenched in our legal (and other) systems, despite the best efforts of many. We are becoming better at “talking the talk” but are not yet “walking the walk”.
Maybe we need to accept that someone may have an outer persona which displays confidence and competence, but lack inner strength and assuredness. The tragic and recent deaths of gifted individuals such as Michael Jackson, Amy Winehouse and Whitney Houston demonstrate this.
We accept that a dependence on eg alcohol, gambling, cannabis or chocolate, whilst not necessarily a physical/chemical addiction, is a desperate problem for many that takes over their lives. Why do we find it so difficult then, to accept that when a person has had their confidence damaged or destroyed by another (in whom they’ve invested huge emotional trust) they might struggle to create a new life away from them.
An abused mother, rather than being supported by the state, is demonized, and blamed for her own pain and any potential emotional harm that might befall her children. They may be removed from her temporarily or permanently, which is rarely what the children want.
Our society still stigmatizes, judges and ditches the abused, seeming to find them an embarrassment… but allows the abuser (in most cases) to shake off their past and just get on with their lives. The harshest critics are men and women alike, even those employed to support the vulnerable, making comments that would make your ears bleed!
I know because I’ve got the T-shirt, worn the T-shirt and now use it as a duster!
I ask myself is telling a woman she’s stupid, mad or deserving of suffering any better than telling her she’s fat, ugly, or useless?
No. This is the language of abuse.
LikeLike
jjwillow2010, thank you very much for your thoughtful reply and for joining us from the U.K. I do like that you bring up paternalism as far as our opinions on these (and other matters) and that is entirely true in regards to personal matters (why Rihanna herself did it, etc) and I by no means wanted to be paternalistic in that regard. But, and I wish I clarified this in my post better, the fact of the matter is that A LOT of people in the music and entertainment industry will be making money off this collaboration and it also, undoubtedly, a P.R. stunt that Chris Brown will greatly benefit from. While I’m not trying to imply some conspiracy theory that Rihanna has no control over her career decisions, I think it is really important for us to consider that this may not have been her idea, or something she fully wanted to do. But it may have been, and if so, her business.
I’m glad that you brought up Emmeline Pankhurst, I just read one of her speeches in European Women’s History last week and in it she has this great statement about why she believes in militancy (which I’m not recommending by any means) but also how to demand change from the government: “Why, is it not evident to everyone that people who are patient where mis-government is concerned may go on being patient! Why should anyone trouble to help them?” And I thought of that when you mentioned Pinkhurst but when you also delved into how we socially (and legally) sanction domestic abuse and punish the victim, that these two could be kind of combined into the point that she is making, which is how do we change this? Do we continue to petition our government for reform in the laws? Is legal change real social change because it actually requires a change in society to fully act on and enforce the laws that we pass or would a change in laws just be used as a false way of saying change has happened without any changes being made? I’m not entirely sure, but I agree with you, the speech I quoted from Pankhurst is coming up on being a century-old and it is depressing that these battles are still being fought, but I suppose we have to imagine what battles are not being fought anymore within that time. If Pankhurst’s legacy is still with us a century later, then she must have inflicted some very major changes indeed.
Also, I fully agree with your final sentence, which is something I had not thought of precisely within those terms. Also, your points comparing abusive relationships with chemical/physical dependency is certainly thought-provoking, and a parallel that I will have to keep in mind when I think about these matters.
LikeLike
Thanks for your post! I think your section on victimhood is really interesting because, for many victims of domestic violence, there isn’t a way around interacting with the abuser. For example, when there is a child involved that needs visitation with both parents, it doesn’t make sense that the abuser/victim would not interact. It seems unreasonable for the victim to have the burden of never interacting with his or her abuser in cases like that. Furthermore, in the case of Rihanna, there is a difference between her interacting with Chris Brown on a professional and personal level. I think the fact that she is doing business with him could indicate a number of things: she doesn’t want personal issues interfering with business, she thinks it is a good step for her music, she is trying to put the issue behind her, etc. But these are all speculations and it seems incredibly difficult for anyone to judge her for exercising her choice in working with him. If she wants to work with him, then that should be the end of it. Even if she is back in a relationship with him (I have no idea), I still don’t entirely think it’s right to criticize her. It seems to suggest that she wouldn’t be qualified to make her own choices. I’m sure there is more to their relationship than what we see through media. As unlikely as it sounds, he could have actually changed/gone to therapy/etc. I think when we prematurely judge women who stay in/return to a relationship where they experienced domestic violence, we assume that it’s not actually possible for the abuser to change, which I think is also a bad stereotype.
LikeLike
Humble apologies to one and all. I’m being a bit rubbish and failing to keep up, but managed to sign up to see your posts.
LikeLike
Not a problem, we are just glad to have you with us as a commentator!
LikeLike