So, my Facebook newsfeed is currently infiltrated with statements about Chris Brown. After about a 5 minute exposure to it, when I was offline and waiting for the bus, it all hit me and made me angry.
But not at Chris Brown.
At the people who are inciting a mob mentality towards him. Because, a hostile, angry, mob mentality is probably not the best way to combat domestic violence.
Recap. Three years ago a music artist named Chris Brown physically abused his girlfriend, (who happened to be a music artist named Rihanna). For the record, I dislike both of their music. Pictures were released, public went into shock, and the music industry downplayed it like the NFL downplaying the guy who abused dogs and trained them to fight each other (Michael Vick?)
After turning himself in, doing community service, being on probation, and releasing a (hit) album, Chris Brown appeared at the Grammy's last night.
And the majority of females on my Facebook are pissed about that.
Some commented on their own mixed feelings, between liking his music, but despising him. However, one person posted a link that had the headline, "I’m Not Okay with Chris Brown Performing at the Grammys and I’m Not Sure Why You Are." And that's the headline that really got under my skin.
1. I don't like it when feminists try to tell other people what to think or which music artists to like. Didn't know that was part of the "improving equality" ideology.
2. Criminals and abusers should be allowed to be contributing members of society. If he wasn't sentenced to jail time, and if he's following all his court-ordered regulations, then why the fuck is he not allowed to work?
Yes, ok, there's an exception. If your crime is related to your work (like a child abuser working in a daycare), then you should be forced to switch career paths.
But plenty of people on this earth have done something wrong. Even just considering domestic violence, abusers exist in all walks of life. Doctors, lawyers, mechanics, factory workers, bus drivers, research scientists, movie producers, accountants - all have people who have hit their loved ones in their ranks.
No, domestic violence is not ok. It's extremely, very wrong. But what do you suggest we do with the perpetrators? Round them up and exile them from society? Make a criminal island? (sorry Australia).
If they've done the time for their crime, and doing their job will not increase their likeliness of re-offending, then let them work. Let them contribute to society!
3. Of course, you might say that Chris Brown's job did contribute to his violent ways. Being in the spot light, having media pressure, having tons of money and a god-like status, and being on the partying seen led him to act the way he did.
You might present that argument. But then what about the music artists and celebrities who don't abuse others, but instead abuse themselves. What about Amy Winehouse? What about Whitney Houston? (there, I said it). Jesus fucking Christ, we treat them like saints.
The argument for fame leading to domestic abuse is weak at best, but the argument for fame leading to self-abuse is strong, and well documented. Lindsay Lohan anyone? If there is anyone who should be kept out of the spotlight because it could cause harm, it's Charlie Sheen rambling about tiger blood making him immune to cocaine.
4. Of course, you might feel that having him in the spotlight indirectly causes harm, because it makes him a role model. If domestic violence is tolerated in celebrity couples, then it's more likely to be tolerated within our culture.
Fair enough, and that's when I feel individual boycotts are ok. For example, I feel Dr. Oz gives out lots of ridiculous health advice, and Dr. Phil gives out lots of quackery that sounds like therapy advice. I personally boycott them and would prefer it if they did not have talk shows. I still have a grudge against Tom Cruise from when he condemned Brooke Shields for stating she had depression because I believe Tom Cruise could cause harm with his statements about "mental illness is not real" and "no one needs pharmaceuticals." I truly hope that others have boycotted Tom Cruise also, and that this reduces his chances of having a public voice, and therefore reduces his chances of causing harm to society.
But Chris Brown is not giving out harmful advice on a talk show. He's not advocating hitting women. He's not trying to slink away innocent like OJ Simpson. So I don't feel like it's the same as a personal boycott against Dr. Phil or Tom Cruise. He is not using his celebrity to make his actions ok, or to endorse his actions.
5. Instead, I think we need to treat Chris Brown like we would treat a non-celebrity perpetrator. Let's pick doctor, because they can also have an elevated status in a community.
Let's say you live in a small town or city where there is a choice of doctors, but it's still small enough that everyone knows everyone. Let's say it comes out that a male doctor in town has been violent and abusive towards his female girlfriend/wife/partner. He turns himself in, he does community service, he behaves himself on probation.
Does the medical board strip him of his right to practice? If it's an isolated incident, and if he seeks help and rehabilitation, then maybe he has his license suspended for a year or two.
So, he all his court-order requirements. He waited the two, he was able to earn his license to practice medicine again after two years. Now what?
Well, you certainly do not have to register as his newest patient. You have the right to personally boycott him. As we live in a (wonderfully) free country, you have the right to pick any other doctor in your community to work with and you can decide that on any reason you want.
So if you don't want to support that doctor and his practice, then don't.
But will you write angry messages on Facebook stating he should not be allowed back into your community? You might. In which case I'd disagree with you much like I'm disagreeing with you over Chris Brown.
Basically, this goes back to #1, if you don't want to support Chris Brown, then don't. That's your choice. But don't go telling other people what to think about him. Don't go attempting to exile him and argue that he should not be allowed to have a career.
6. I do not believe that we help anything by turning away from these people. Yes, there are some violent criminals that are difficult to rehabilitate and do pose serious threats to society. Cold-blooded serial killers, and anti-social anger bombs who start random fights, and pedophiles are probably the three that are the most difficult to prevent recidivism. All three of those, and domestic abusers do have something in common. They can commit their crimes because they want to find control. Yes, I will agree.
However, I believe that people who abuse their significant other are different that people who abuse children, random people, and people they are otherwise not in a relationship with. Unlike the other 3 times of crime, domestic violence can arise more from a lack of appropriately learned coping skills. There tends to be more remorse. And although perpetrators of domestic violence are a heterogeneous group, there are levels of wanting to rehabilitate and to learn positive relationships skills.
Evidence of this can be found in forensic psychology research, and in the number of support groups and organizations for men who have been abusive to their partners. Where I grew up, the women's shelter and then men's "New Leaf" programs worked hand-in-hand to help addressing the problem of family violence. Efforts show that education, support, and time for rehabilitation can change things concerning domestic violence.
Men who abuse the women are not monsters. They are human. And we have the tools to help them to learn to cope with their anger and their feelings so that they can change their behaviours.
7. Domestic violence is common and widespread. If we just sweep every abuser away and attempt to paint them as monsters and block then out, then we don't solve anything. If we open a dialogue, and discuss it, then we can educate more people about domestic violence, and we can work towards prevention.
If a man believes that "getting caught" will cause him to lose his career and he will never recover from his criminal offense - he might just continue beating his girlfriend, but not in any visible area.
But if a man is pummeled by information about anger management, coping techniques, cultural messages about why abuse is not ok, information about anonymous and non-judgemental community resources he can access to help change, along with stories of men who changed themselves and switched things around, then he might just have the self-initiative to realize he needs to change. Or, he might realize his guy friend needs some encouragement to change.
If we let abusers know that resources are there to help them, and that they can find a better way to handle things, then this could prevent further acts of abuse, it could promote rehabilitation among abusers, and could help abusers to be motivated to get help for themselves.
8. Ultimately, people are not born as monsters. People do not abuse their significant others because they were born as evil. Most men who abuse have been abused, or have grown up in less-than-ideal circumstances, or were never able to witness a "healthy relationship" among their parents. Of course they should be held accountable for their actions. But punishment alone won't change anything. We need to understand why things are happening, and give them outlets to change.
Therefore, exiling domestic abusers from society is not the answer. And not talking about domestic abuse is not the answer. We need to discuss it, we need to make up front, and we need to provide resources for men to help overcome being abusive.
9. As I stated earlier, I don't like Chris Brown's music. I didn't see him perform last night. But I'm not going to put a big rant on Facebook for how terrible he is and why he should be banned.
I don't want people to think I'm doing the opposite either. I'm not "forgiving him" or "seeing past it." I'm not like someone I know who just tweeted something along the lines of "I don't care what he did, I love him." No. No. No. He (and all other abusers) need to be held accountable. Absolutely. But accountability does not mean being given up on.
*Yes it was very sexist in this post. I did that purposely to avoid lots of him/her language, and also because the statistics of domestic violence are pretty one-side (thought they have been gradually changing). I also chose to use sexist language because the discourse on domestic violence is very abuser=man victim=woman heavy and I wanted to address that audience. I do believe resources should be made available to abusers regardless of gender, and I do believe that domestic violence against people of any gender is wrong and should be talked about. In particular, domestic violence against men is currently something that is extremely hidden in our society and perhaps needs even more attention.