SOCIETY

Domestic Abuse Myths

Five mistakes we make when we talk about Rihanna and Chris Brown's relationship.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Goodbyegirl @ 03/22/2009 10:13:23 AM

    There is mental abuse, verbal abuse and physical abuse..all are still abuse. When you finally get the courage to leave after years of abuse...then you have abuse by the attorneys who want all of your money (if you have any) and the court system who doesn't seem .to care. Divorce, is after all, no fault. If the male has access to all the money...you are abused again...he will try to starve you out. We need more laws to protect women when they do manage to escape.

    • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/23/2009 2:57:01 AM

      Correct. Divorce is no fault. So why the heck should the male owe the woman any money (e.g. alimony).

      Just get a job. He's not charged with caring for your sorry hiney.

      • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/23/2009 11:10:42 PM

        The solution to your dilemma is simple: don't assume that just because you "married" a guy, he is obligated to be your perpetual slave earning money to support you. Then you won't need to pay for any lawyers. Get a job.

  • Posted By: timmc @ 03/14/2009 10:51:49 AM

    Abuse Myths is an accurate title. The law should be blind when it comes to gender. I like one of the comments which referred to the Godzilla rule except that I think it was stated backwards. First we don't know if the woman didn't hit the man first but most of us say it doesn't matter, I think it does. No one should hit anyone. And there is a such thing as provocation in the law. When someone makes a threatening gesture inside your personal space that's called assualt. The whole thing what "A real man" does is ridiculous. I think a real man is first a real person first and no person, either man nor woman should use or be use the other person in a relationship as a punching bag. The dirty little secret is that some women DO assualt men and a "Fight" does insue in which the bigger person in size generally wins the altercation and at the same time loses the legal and public perception battle. The only way to correctly "combat" Domestic Violence issues is to quit treating it like a woman's issue and treat it like any other crime.

    • Posted By: Anir @ 03/21/2009 12:59:40 AM

      Well said.

    • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/14/2009 5:22:42 PM

      I agree.

  • Posted By: jlhanna @ 03/10/2009 8:58:50 PM

    To allege that domestic abuse victims somehow "enable" their abusive partners is completely and totally ridiculous. One can only assume that this statement was made without a full understanding of the term "enable." Just to clarify, examples of enabling an abuser or abusive behavior would be someone dismissing the seriousness of partner abuse because of how an abuser was "brought up," or how far he/she was provoked. (Was that pronoun use acceptable to everyone?) Just so no one has to dash off to their Webster to double check: Enable (v): to make possible, practical, or easy. Last time I checked, becoming upset about a partners infidelity is not an invitation to severe beating. As to both partners being at fault in domestic battery situations, I truly would like to know what the socially acceptable response to a cheating partner is. God forbid I get upset upon discovering that my significant other has been unfaithful to me, and somehow provoke a similar vicious attack. Especially now that I have seen what sort of reactions to expect.

    • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/10/2009 10:48:03 PM

      > As to both partners being at fault in domestic battery situations, I truly would like to
      > know what the socially acceptable response to a cheating partner is.

      It is not acceptable to hit your partner in the face three times just because you think he was cheating.

      And if you did that, then got your ass kicked, nobody ought to feel that bad for you.

      • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/11/2009 3:59:24 PM

        Oh, I see. She was asking for it, right?

        Because a woman half your weight is very, very scary. LOL.

        • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 11:55:19 PM

          I don't know. Did she hit him like TMZ and a few other web sites are reporting?

          • Posted By: akohut @ 03/15/2009 4:28:41 PM

            You do realize that the within the first set of three websites to which you refer as proof "that Rihanna actually assaulted Chris Brown first" two of the websites cite the third as their source and therefore, you really have ONE source and that's TMZ, which does not identify who or what its "sources" are.

            You must further realize that the third set of websites all use the same source and that two of the websites actually have the exact same article, meaning once again you have ONE source, which is again unidentified.

            I'm not saying that Rihanna didn't hit Chris Brown first. I'm saying that we don't know who hit whom first.
            Furthermore, I am not saying that it is ok for Rihanna to have hit Chris Brown (if that is indeed the case), I am saying that an individual has the right to defend themselves against abuse and that's it. No individual has the right to lash back at their attacker with anymore force than is absolutely necessary to prevent their attacker from harming them. Considering the severity of Rihanna's injuries and the lack of physical damage to Chris Brown, I would not say that this is the case in this situation. To justify Chris Brown's behavior as a justified reaction to an "attack" from Rihanna, in other words to suggest that Chris Brown's behavior was simply the natural response of one human being to being attacked by another human being, is not an application of true equality, but rather a disgusting perversion of feminism and women's struggle to be recognized as meaningful, capable beings. Certainly men are abused by women and of course it isn't right that society doesn't recognize this, especially as it becomes more common. However, historically men tend to beat on women and that must be taken into consideration here. Where are the gruesome pictures of Chris Brown's injuries? Had Chris Brown attacked another man with such force there would certainly have been repercussions, perhaps not to this extent, but, as I said before, bare in mind the historical implication of a man attacking a woman, particularly a woman with whom he's in a relationship. The message of this article was less about the specifics of this particular situation and more about teaching children that physical violence is never ok. I believe that you mentioned in one of your previous comments the importance that nonviolence be stressed to all children and not just to boys about girls. I can understand if your critique is about the lack of recognition of men who are abused by women, but I don't understand why your attacking this article with such fervor about who started what. Why the anger? Violence is never the answer and this situation is just sad. Regardless of what happened, why can't we all come together to recognize that violence is not ok ??? that much of what the article says about abusive relationships has been proven true many times and that it isn't about Rihanna and Chris Brown so much as the way we play the blame game and

            • Posted By: Anir @ 03/21/2009 12:52:26 AM

              All types of physical assault don't leave a mark. For example a slap leaves little evidence. But it does leave a emotional scar on the receiver which is not visible to the general public. This makes it even more difficult for men to prove that he have been assaulted. Women know this and use it to their advantage. While acts of domestic violence against women are widely condemned, those committed by women against men hardly get any attention. This has to change.

            • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/17/2009 6:38:42 AM

              > two of the websites cite the third as their source and therefore,
              > you really have ONE source and that's TMZ, which does not identify who or
              > what its "sources" are.... You must further realize that the third set of
              > websites all use the same source..

              Hm. That appears true. So it looks like we have two - as yet unverified sources - one which says that Rihanna hit Chris Brown first a couple months ago when they were in Switzerland, and a second unverified source who says she hit him first in the most recent incident.

              Then we have one source - Rihanna - providing an account of what happened to police, from which have arisen innumerable press reports taken as fact. Of course, Chris Brown has issued an apology, but it is not clear for exactly what,

              Why doesn't Newsweek send a reporter down to find out if these claims that rihanna has hit Chris can be verified?

              > Furthermore, I am not saying that it is ok for Rihanna to have
              > hit Chris Brown (if that is indeed the case), I am saying that
              > an individual has the right to defend themselves against abuse
              > and that's it. No individual has the right to lash back at their
              > attacker with anymore force than is absolutely necessary to
              > prevent their attacker from harming them.

              No, if person #1 swings a person #2 and misses, or person #1 swings at person #2 and person #2 blocks the attack and is unharmed, if person #2 perceives himself to be under continued threat, he's allowed to defend himself by striking back.

              You don't know how many times Rihanna may have actually hit Chris Brown, and you don't know how many times Rihanna may have actually *tried* to inflict injury on Chris Brown even if she didn't succeed.

              > Considering the severity of Rihanna's injuries and the lack of
              > physical damage to Chris Brown, I would not say that this is
              > the case in this situation.

              It may mean something, but not a whole lot, to me at least.

              Of course that doesn't mean a jury won't convict on an emotional basis, even if they get the facts wrong. It doesn't mean a whole lot to me though.

      • Posted By: jlhanna @ 03/11/2009 12:00:04 AM

        I've just re-read the sworn police affidavit in this case and, shockingly, no where does it mention the female victim striking her abuser. I know it???s hard to believe, but the American Justice System does work reasonably well, and makes set distinctions between self-defense and felony assault. I have no idea where one would come across this sort of dubious information, I can only guess it was some sort of gossip rag or other less than credible source. It is precisely this sort of thinking, that the abused party must have done something to deserve what he/she got, that makes the problem of partner abuse so pervasive and disturbingly underreported. Why should abuse victims report the crimes committed against them when society is reluctant to believe their stories? Because this particular couple has such a high profile, the coverage and legal transparency has been extremely high, and still there is a knee-jerk reaction to blame the victim. Somewhere out there this very evening, there are domestic abuse victims following this story that, in many ways mirror their own tales of battery and terror. What message does your derision and spite send to them? If a famous, beautiful, and talented singer cannot get a fair opinion about the abuse she has suffered, then what hope do they have of escaping from the relentless fear and torment at the hands of the one person they should each be able to trust the most?

        • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 1:14:34 AM

          • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 1:20:53 AM

            My sense is that you are more upset that some media outlets are reporting on the female's transgressions that led to the altercation in the first place, than you are upset that the female's transgressions actually occurred. Too bad. Old media no longer has a strangle hold on determining what information is "suitable" for the public and what information is not.


            Multiple reports not are coming forward with information, that Rihanna actually assaulted Chris Brown first:

            http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/768865/rihanna-hit-chris-brown-first
            http://www.tmz.com/2009/03/09/brown-wants-misdemeanor-plea-no-jail-time/
            http://poponthepop.com/2009/03/09/tmz-confirms-what-we-already-told-you-rihanna-hit-chris-brown-first/

            Also, by her own testimony to police, the fight that occured three months ago started when she slapped him.

            http://uk.news.yahoo.com/1/20090310/ten-rihanna-tells-police-of-past-fights-c60bd6d.html
            http://www.teenmusic.com/d/199474/1020/rihanna-tells-police-of-other-fights-with-chris.html
            http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/entertainment/NATLBrown-Did-Not-Hit-Rihanna-Before-Report.html

            • Posted By: jlhanna @ 03/11/2009 2:16:09 AM

              Perhaps I was not clear, but I was referring to CREDIBLE sources of reporting. Any website that runs stories about fired, drug addicted Brittany Spears back-up dancers under their NEWS section, does not qualify as credible in my book, nor in that of any board of journalistic ethics. In addition, the New York Daily News, which was quoted or referred to in many of the ???articles??? you directed me to, credited their inside information to ???a source close to the couple.??? You surely understand that this label is open to a very wide interpretation. Rihanna???s cleaning lady???s third cousin is obviously closer to the couple than most people, but hardly in a position to know specific details about their relationship. So forgive me for not automatically believing everything I read on the internet. As to your assumption that I am somehow against having a well-informed public and a free exchange of information: this is so untrue it is almost laughable. I am against every half-wit person capable of stringing two words together, being able to pass off absolute trash as real news and reliable facts. This unhesitating readiness to accept any and all information gleaned from the Web, is truly frightening. The internet can be a valuable tool, but only if it???s users do not surrender their common sense when they log on.

              • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 11:01:35 AM

                Then ask Newsweek to send a reporter out, to find out what Rihanna allegedly did or did not do, before they rush to conclusions about what this means for the "five mistakes" or whatever yada yada.

                FYI, if there is a journalist who believes that "journalistic ethics" required them not to report on how a woman might assault a man in order to land her getting her butt kicked, then I don't want to hear anything from that reporter. That's not an ethical reporter, that's a propagandist with an agenda.

                • Posted By: Ms.Kar3n @ 03/11/2009 12:58:47 PM

                  What did or didn't happen is irrelevant. You don't hit your girlfriend. Period. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

                  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/11/2009 2:33:47 PM

                    This is what young boys are taught, that we don't hit girls....but who teaches young girls that they don't hit boys? It is relevent if she assualted him first...most men don't report abuse out of embarassment/shame but men are abused by women as well. So don't get on the high horse and say that everything a woman does shouldn't matter since a social rule of not hitting a woman is present.

                    My mom also said keep your hands to yourself and this should apply to both men and women alike....if it was me I would have just left her if she would have hit me....but some women even prevent you from doing this as well.

                    We all don't know what happen in this incident and probably will never know the whole story but this should be a lesson to all to leave an abusive spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend anytime they get physical with you....

                    • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/11/2009 4:03:26 PM

                      " It is relevent if she assualted him first."

                      Let's see some evidence that occurred.

                      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/17/2009 12:43:08 PM

                        Tangible evidence is not necessary in self-defense cases...if a person feels threaten then are they required to get harmed first to prove that they were acting in self-defense? NO!

                  • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 3:21:35 PM

                    Girlfriend shmirlfriend. You don't hit anyone

                    Unless they hit you first.

                    • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/11/2009 4:02:55 PM

                      There is no evidence whatsoever that she hit him first.

                      You just wish to justify the beating of women. That's pretty pathetic.

                • Posted By: Ms.Kar3n @ 03/11/2009 12:57:58 PM

                  What did or didn't happen is irrelevant. You don't hit your girlfriend. Period. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

                • Posted By: Ms.Kar3n @ 03/11/2009 12:55:49 PM

                  It doesn't matter what she did or didn't do. You don't. hit. your. girlfriend. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

              • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 11:01:08 AM

                Then ask Newsweek to send a reporter out, to find out what Rihanna allegedly did or did not do, before they rush to conclusions about what this means for the "five mistakes" or whatever yada yada.

                FYI, if there is a journalist who believes that "journalistic ethics" required them not to report on how a woman might assault a man in order to land her getting her butt kicked, then I don't want to hear anything from that reporter. That's not an ethical reporter, that's a propagandist with an agenda.

              • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 10:58:23 AM

                Then ask Newsweek to hire a reporter to find out, and actually report, what she did or did not do, before they jump to conclusions about what this means for the "five myths" or whatever baloney.

            • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/12/2009 2:38:54 AM

              Well, we'll see if those report turn out to be true or not. Or, maybe we'll never know.

            • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/11/2009 4:01:13 PM

              "My sense is that you are more upset that some media outlets are reporting on the female's transgressions that led to the altercation in the first place"

              Oh, so it's okay to beat the mortal *** out of women who "transgress"?

              LOL.

        • Posted By: Melvie_Sue @ 03/11/2009 12:11:09 PM

          Even if she hit him first (we will probably never know what truly happened -- we weren't there), a real man would have stepped away from the situation, not escalated it, and been the bigger person. An eye for an eye is an archaic and disgusting philosophy to live by.

          • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 3:13:38 PM

            "The only time anybody ever asks a guy to be a 'real man' is when they are trying to get him to do something that is *not in his best interest*."

            Cut it out with the flaccid jabs at people's manhood. I doubt anyone cares.

            • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/11/2009 4:04:04 PM

              You don't. You're not a man.

          • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 3:15:30 PM

            "The only time anyone every ask someone to 'be a man' is when they are trying to convince him to do something that is *not in his best interest*"

            Cut it out with the flaccid old jabs a people's manhood. I doubt anyone cares anymore.

            Didn't we already establish that chivalry is dead?

        • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 1:39:22 AM

          The police report is just a re-hash of what the police have been told by one person. They were not there to witness the attack. More or less, it's speculation, and given that Chris Brown is now the subject of an investigation, don't expect to hear his side of the story in his own word for a while.

      • Posted By: Ismone @ 03/11/2009 1:30:01 PM

        You seem to be making the argument that Chris Brown engaged in self-defense. Self-defense is only a defense to an assault challenge if the defender uses reasonable, proportionate force, and retreats first if s/he is able to. Based on the marks on Rihanna and the lack of injury to Chris Brown, even if he engaged in self-defense, it was not proportionate (unless some other third person beat her up), and so he should still be convicted if he is the source of the injuries. Full stop.

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/11/2009 2:38:17 PM

          Hmmm you are jumping to conclusion and don't know the whole story....could it be that this was multiple attacks and not just one pro-longed attack? Meaning that he could have been tryin gto leave and she could have been preventing (fighting, swinging on him...etc) to many un-answered questions to assumed that it is not self-defense...

          This is why there is an investigation going on as we speak....

          • Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/11/2009 4:00:23 PM

            Nowhere in the police report does it mention her attacking him.

            You just want to defend men that pound the hell out of women, I think.

            • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/11/2009 4:40:39 PM

              Nowhere in the police report do we hear his side of the story either. That is what he is accused of so why don't we let them do the investigation ....like I said before before we jump to any conclusions.....

              No i don't condone the brutal beating of women and if he did what is reported ( I don't know if he did or not) through investigation or confession then he deserves to go to jail period.....

              • Posted By: Ismone @ 03/11/2009 5:00:18 PM

                So how many times, in the history of the planet, do you think a larger person has had to beat a smaller person bloody and choke them in pure self-defense? If she really posed that much of a danger to him, wouldn't there be some evidence?

                • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 5:33:09 PM

                  Small people beat the crap out of larger people all the time.

                  • Posted By: Ismone @ 03/11/2009 6:52:17 PM

                    Is there any indication, that beating someone bloody and choking them has been necessary in self-defense. Answer the full question, and if you like, leave size out of it.

                    That is NOT self defense, if it were, he would at least have a mark on him.

                    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/17/2009 12:40:55 PM

                      Read the news daily and you will see some articles of women shooting their husbands while they sleep and claiming self-defense....you will also see other shoot black kids on a subway and claim self-defense....it depends ont he person who feels threaten to decide if they need to defend oneself....does it pass the litmus test with us? NO! But to the person in harms way it does.... regardless of size the law isn't really clear in what is self-defense in most states...

                  • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 8:23:42 PM

                    I don't know about the facial bruising, but the choking certainly sounds a lot like self defense. The police report indicates that he held her around the neck somehow, applying pressure to the carotid arteries until she lost consciousness.

                    This sounds like what martial arts folks refer to as a "chokehold", in particular a "carotid restraint." Usually in martial arts, it's viewed as an effective and relatively safe way to render a threat harmless in a rather safe manner and without causing substantial harm.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokehold#Blood_choke

                    I don't know, is there any evidence he continued to beat her once she was unconscious? If not, it sounds like it was used in just the manner many self defense specialists advocate: to incapacitate an attacker in a relatively safe manner.

                    Though i suppose some experts in law enforcement may have differing opinions on the appropriateness of its use and in what circumstances.

                    Anyhow, it certainly beats breaking her arm off.

                • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/17/2009 12:30:57 PM

                  You seem to think that only women get abused...there are plenty of men who get abused by women who are a lot bigger than their attacker....look at the Tampa Bay Buccaneer player who was attacked and stabbed in the head with a pair of scissors by his girlfriend and then took the scissors away from her. Then she picked up a knife and stabbed him in the neck with them.

                  We all don't knwo what happen in this situation and unless we get both (Chris Brown and Rihanna) to testify to that night we will never know the whole story....

        • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 3:29:42 PM

          So if a woman hits you multiple times in the head and refuses to get out of your car, despite the fact that you're trying to push her out? What then?

          Arguable. There are reports that she landed multiple blows to his head. Then it seems she may have refused to exit the close confines of the car despite his attempts to push her out. You do the math. Violent person in your car... refuses to leave.

          I gues it all depends on how things played out in reality.

          • Posted By: dalislastrose @ 03/11/2009 3:45:45 PM

            What then? Then he should engage in the legal option available at the time: get out of the car himself, or drive to a safe place like a police station or a fire station and asked for help.

            • Posted By: Ismone @ 03/11/2009 4:51:51 PM

              This is exactly right. The person deciding to engage in self-defense, whether male or female, has a duty to retreat unless they are in their own home. (And people have strongly advised victims of assault by a partner/significant other to retreat even if they are in their own home, because usually that doctrine only applies to stranger assaults.

              And to juliandroms, you SERIOUSLY think he needed to hurt her that badly to defend himself from her? Are you out of your mind?

              • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 6:04:02 PM

                > And to juliandroms, you SERIOUSLY think he needed to hurt her that badly to
                > defend himself from her?

                I have no idea. I wasn't there. And neither were you. And neither were the police.

                Why should he risk bodily harm for the sake of someone who is assaulting him?
                .

                • Posted By: Ismone @ 03/11/2009 6:51:00 PM

                  There were no marks on him, there were all kinds of marks on her. You are either arguing in bad faith, or you have at best a tenuous grasp of reality.

                  • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 8:45:14 PM

                    Hard for me to conclude anything from that. Blows may not be sever enough to leave marks, yet leave the victim in a position of believing an assailant has an intent to inflict serious harm, marks may be hidden by hair or clothing, the assailants blows may be blocked by the arms, yet still provide adequate justification for the one being hit to strike back...

                    Lots of possibilities.

              • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 6:01:44 PM

                That depends on the state. In many states, exceptions to "duty to retreat" also include one's car or one's business in addition to the home. Maybe not in California. You'd have to look it up.

                Not that it would necessarily apply in this case because duty to retreat usually only applies to the application of deadly physical force. e.g. "A person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury, however a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death."

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States

                So far as I know, no-one has a "duty to retreat" when it comes to applying non-deadly physical force to subdue an attacker who has already physically assaulted them.

                But that's beside the point:

                Even if he can be legally obliged to retread from the situation as it occurred and if indeed Rihanna did hit Chris Brown first, that doesn't absolve Rihanna of the original criminal assault that started the whole incident. In which case, they should both be charged. Which is what many of us have been saying from day 1.

                • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 8:42:54 PM

                  I should say may have started this whole incident, because the full report of it is not really available to anyone (and may never be).

              • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 6:01:04 PM

                That depends on the state. In many states, exceptions to "duty to retreat" also include one's car or one's business in addition to the home. Maybe not in California. You'd have to look it up.

                Not that it would necessarily apply in this case because duty to retreat usually only applies to the application of deadly physical force. e.g. "A person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury, however a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death."

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States

                So far as I know, no-one has a "duty to retreat" when it comes to applying non-deadly physical force to subdue an attacker who has already physically assaulted them.

                But that's beside the point:

                Even if he can be legally obliged to retread from the situation as it occurred and if indeed Rihanna did hit Chris Brown first, that doesn't absolve Rihanna of the original criminal assault that started the whole incident. In which case, they should both be charged. Which is what many of us have been saying from day 1.

              • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 6:00:22 PM

                That depends on the state. In many states, exceptions to "duty to retreat" also include one's car or one's business in addition to the home. Maybe not in California. You'd have to look it up.

                Not that it would necessarily apply in this case because duty to retreat usually only applies to the application of deadly physical force. e.g. "A person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury, however a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death."

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States

                So far as I know, no-one has a "duty to retreat" when it comes to applying non-deadly physical force to subdue an attacker who has already physically assaulted them.

                But that's beside the point:

                Even if he can be legally obliged to retread from the situation as it occurred and if indeed Rihanna did hit Chris Brown first, that doesn't absolve Rihanna of the original criminal assault that started the whole incident. In which case, they should both be charged. Which is what many of us have been saying from day 1.

      • Posted By: jlhanna @ 03/10/2009 11:56:44 PM

    • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/14/2009 11:20:52 AM

      > God forbid I get upset upon discovering that my significant other has
      > been unfaithful to me, and somehow provoke a similar vicious attack.
      > Especially now that I have seen what sort of reactions to expect.

      Consider yourself educated about domestic violence: don't hit men, even if they day something bad or cheat on you.

      • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/14/2009 11:23:19 AM

        Er, I meant, "even if they say something bad or cheat on you."

    • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/11/2009 8:39:49 PM

      > To allege that domestic abuse victims somehow "enable" their abusive partners
      > is completely and totally ridiculous.

      That's not what anyone is saying. What's being said, is that it's also likely possible at this point, that Rihanna IS the abuser.

  • Posted By: vancouverbruce @ 03/20/2009 3:27:21 PM

    Thank you so much Raina Kelley! The only article I have read that truly understands the dynamics of domestic violence. Your three words : power, dominance, control are the entire jist of the matter...All the rest of who hit who first, etc. is
    absolute bs! The abuser, almost always a man, wants to dominate and control the woman...that is his total motivation!
    He is glad for "provocation" as it gives him yet another occasion to dominate.. And let's not forget, maybe Rhianna did slap or hit him..beside the point...As many an abused woman has discovered, "provocation" can be a phone call, imagined slight, anything. A close relative of mine who was abused for years as a teen had her "boyfriend" trash her bedroom because she did not bring his coffee fast enough. This is very typical situation repeated daily, or even more often in abusive relationships. Your short article says it all. I don't know how you became so insightful about all this, but
    it is very valuable. I wish every young teen girl could have a copy of your list of 5.... Thank you

  • Posted By: lolliedotcom @ 03/20/2009 10:56:33 AM

    Excellent Article and here's my experience: When I found out my daughter's boyfriend had been beating her up for five years, I made the decision it was going to stop. My grandson told me I couldn't break them up, no one could. I told him to sit back and watch grandma in action.


    I found out who owned him.... his parents. I found out what they cared about "their" reputation. Then I had two signs printed up for the back of my pickup, one for each parent. "Please pray that ____ of _____ Inc. will love his/her son _____ enough to get him into crank rehab before he murders my daughter." His mother tried to get the court to stop me, they said there was no law against asking people to pray for someone.

    I never put the sign on my pickup, only warned her that if he ever spoke to or touched my daughter again I'd use it until it destroyed them. I still have those two signs. It's been over more than five years now. He's in the paper all the time for beating up his girlfriends. But thank God, not MY daughter.

  • Posted By: chesmom @ 03/18/2009 10:18:33 PM

    Thank you Raina Kelley. This is the first news piece written regarding the Chris Brown case that I have seen that demonstrates an actual understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence. I would like to add that it is time we quit focusing on what a victim of assault should or should not do, and tell the abuser that it is not his right to hit and threaten his girlfriend and he is wrong to do so. Period.

    • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/18/2009 10:58:05 PM

      Yeah, so if Rihanna hit Chris Brown, we should tell her to never hit a man again, rather than focusing on what Chris Brown (the victim) did or did not do.

      I agree.

  • Posted By: ceeimac2 @ 03/16/2009 3:57:48 AM

    I totally agree with AKOHUT
    everyone is talking about the abuse that poor lil ms. innocent Rihanna suffered at the hands of big ol' bad Chris Brown. Has anyone ever considered that fact that maybe Chris Brown was the victim. Although, women often suffer stronger physical violence, males are also victims of domestic abuse. Males are more inclined to go through the emotional or verbal abuse. Their abuse is often ignored by the police and government agencies, as well as, males often are ashame to admit it or find it amusing when their partner lashes out at them. But, no matter how you say it ... IT'S STILL ABUSE! So, I say, when talking about Abuse, don't just talk about the female side of the story ... Talk about male abuse too!
    The key to stopping violence is to educate both sides ... cause male or female ... we both are human beings!

  • Posted By: johndog @ 03/15/2009 12:03:11 AM

    <b>Can you use html here?</b>

  • Posted By: 773SleepyHollow @ 03/13/2009 4:40:41 AM

    Juliandroms,

    I'm going to talk to you man to man, and make a few things clear to you...

    1) Real men don't hit women.

    2) If a real man is hit by a woman, if possible he retreats from the situation, and if it's not possible for him to retreat (he's in a car parked on the side of the highway, let's say, and to exit the car would put him in the face of speeding traffic, or if he's climbing a mountain and his female climbing partner starts pounding away at him, or if the woman with whom he's sharing a life raft starts to wildly pummel him), he should restrain her (grabs her by the wrists perhaps) until she calms down, but he shouldn't hit her.

    3) If the real man is physically smaller than a woman who is attacking him (and there's no reason a real man can't be small... real men aren't determined by size), and he is in legitimate danger at the hands of said woman, he should retreat from the situation ASAP and report her to the police for her domestic violence. People in relationships, male and female, big and small, when facing violence from their partner, should retreat from said violence whenever possible, not retaliate with further violence.

    • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/13/2009 7:32:56 PM

      >
      > I'm going to talk to you man to man, and make a few things clear to you...
      >
      > 1) Real men don't hit women.
      >
      > 2) If a real man is hit by a woman, if possible he retreats from
      > the situation, and if it's not possible for him to retreat -- he
      > should restrain her (grabs her by the wrists perhaps) until
      > she calms down...
      >

      ... which is a real good way to get kneed in the testicles.

      Like I say, why is it whenever a guy is asked to be a "real man" he's always being weaseled into doing something that is completely not in his best interest?

      If that's what it means to be a "real man", I couldn't possibly be interested.

      I'd rather be a "***."

      So if you want to do the "real man" thing and be a Don Quixote jousting at windmills like an imbecile for the next 50 years, for the sake of a woman who has long moved on to a more pragmatic lifestyle, be my guest. I'm totally uninterested. Been there. Done that. Long over it.

      So ladies, welcome to the world of equality. So far as I'm concerned, you're all just men with boobs. I don't fight or allow myself to be drafted into the military unless you're also up there in front getting shot like the rest of us, and I don't put myself at any risk of bodily harm in case you can't control your emotions an are having a violent outburst.

      If you're a woman, and you get violent with me; if I think it's safer for me to walk away, I will. But if you've just been violent with me and I feel it's safer for me to knock your block off because you are in the process of attempting to inflict further harm to me, I will knock you block off. Whether or not you are female will be completely irrelevant, because:

      a) You have no business hitting me.

      - and -

      b) You already know better.

      Chivalry, in this era? Ridiculous. When was the last time any of you ladies got chided for not being a "real woman" and did you (or anyone) really give a damn?

      • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/13/2009 7:34:29 PM

        I'd rather be a "***." = I'd rather be a "p*ssy."

        • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/14/2009 5:22:10 PM

          I'd rather be a "***." = I'd rather be a "p*ssy."

  • Posted By: 773SleepyHollow @ 03/13/2009 4:42:09 AM

    4) If a real man is physically attacked by a woman, even one much smaller than he is, he should either end the relationship or make clear to her (through WORDS) that this is unacceptable, and that if it ever happens again it will be the end of their relationship. If it DOES happen again, a real man should refrain from striking back, but follow through on what he previously said and end the relationship. (So should women who face domestic abuse, obviously, but my point in the above is what real men should do instead of violently retaliating, which Juliandroms seems to think is a legitimate option.) If a real man has kids with this woman, he should certainly point to her violent tendencies as he tries to gain custody of his children after the breakup. And the odds are that in the future he will find that there are many other women out there who don't hit their romantic partners, ever.

    5) If the WORDS a woman speaks to a man are so vile, so filled with evil intent, that even a reasonable, non-violent man is somehow filled with a quaking rage that makes him want to bash a woman in the face (or, as allegedly happened in the Brown/Rihanna case, also BITE the woman!), in order to gain control over his emotions he should invoke The Godzilla Rule.

    If a man were dating Godzilla, and Godzilla said some really nasty stuff, would he lose control and start whaling away at Godzilla, or would he control his emotions and refrain from getting physical? Ten times out of ten, he would control his emotions, because Godzilla would stomp him flat in a second. So it's not that a man CAN'T control his emotions, it's just that some men (and some women) CHOOSE not to control their emotions.

    6) If a woman is in the habit of saying horrible things to a real man that force him to invoke The Godzilla Rule, then he needs to think seriously if this relationship is working for him. If not, he should leave her. But he shouldn't hit her first.

    Any questions?


    • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/13/2009 7:29:45 PM

      >
      > If a real man is physically attacked by a woman, even one much smaller
      > than he is, he should either end the relationship or make clear to her
      > (through WORDS) that this is unacceptable, and that if it ever happens
      > again it will be the end of their relationship.
      >

      Absolutely wrong. If a man is with a woman and then discovers that she is violent (slapping, hitting, kicking him) he should dump her immediately. No ifs, ands or buts. No "second chances" baloney. Isn't that what you all just got done telling "Rihanna"?

      He should absolutely dump the woman at the first signs of violence, because of the high likelihood that eventually she'll try to do something worse to the man, and because of the chance she'll force the man to do something to defend himself. And given the current histrionic social climate surrounding women suffering injuries, even when injuries are minor and inflicted in self defence, the chances you'll end up in getting in trouble with the legal system for defending yourself in a completely reasonable manner are too high.

      Just look at Chris Brown, a poster child for the phenomenon. If someone had taught him that he should have dumped the girl back in December or January, the first time she smacked him,

      http://uk.news.yahoo.com/1/20090310/ten-rihanna-tells-police-of-past-fights-c60bd6d.html

      ... he probably would be in this situation at all. When it comes to violent women ,afford them no breaks, because least likely are they going to change for your sake, and because given the current social climate, they have little incentive to change.


      • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/13/2009 7:37:07 PM

        I should add re: Rihanna, provided the report is true, but it's been repeated on so many news outlets by now one has to suspect it is..

        • Posted By: marzolfster @ 03/14/2009 2:34:05 AM

          There is a term for what critics say, It's called, "blaming the victim." It has been used to justify all kinds of crimes and injustices throughout history.

          • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/14/2009 10:38:24 AM

            If you frame frame your comments in this rather Orwellian manner, your statement is little more than tautology. But proclaiming before all the facts who is a victim and who is not is putting the cart before the horse.

            I've seen plenty of people start fistfights who wind up getting their butts kicked - just like there are people who attempt to rob convenient stores who end up in the hospital for one reason or another. Although they end up injured, these people are not victims, rather they are perpetrators.

            I'm just waiting until all the facts are in on this case.

  • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/10/2009 3:27:49 AM


    I'm not saying it's right, but any woman who thinks she can slap or hit a guy, or throw something at a guy and get away with it (just because she has breasts or whatever), deserves to get the dook kicked out of her at least once in her lifetime.

    Ideally, she'd be arrested and charged, but since that never happens, I'll settle for the latter.

    • Posted By: slowmoe @ 03/12/2009 8:11:42 PM

      I feel the same way about men that abuse, Julian. Maybe if everyone just got the "dook" kicked out of them by someone bigger, huh?

      • Posted By: juliandroms @ 03/14/2009 11:19:03 AM

        Well, at least we're on the same page with regard to your first sentence.

  • Posted By: sara2020 @ 03/13/2009 8:24:19 PM

    thank you this was a great article, we need more education in this regard and less hype and sensationalization.

  • Posted By: sara2020 @ 03/13/2009 8:23:43 PM

    Thank you, this was a great article. we need more education in this area

  • Posted By: janajoolz @ 03/13/2009 4:28:57 PM

    This should be in the current Newsweek (in addition to be a web exclusive). It is one of the only articles I have seen that is even remotely articulate on these issues.

  • Posted By: justice4victims @ 03/13/2009 2:14:05 PM

    HLN should be ashamed for continuing to have guests on their show that send these subliminal messages and air voice mail messages from people all over America that blame the victim.
    Please consider this when you write articles and air messages in reference to this topic. Talk to someone who actually works with victims of domestic violence. These experts exist at every Battered Women's Shelter/Program.

  • Posted By: justice4victims @ 03/13/2009 2:10:39 PM

    The question that keeps coming up in all sorts of news outlets is a victim blaming question. "What message is Rihanna sending?" is the question that continues to be asked. Asking this question implies that Rihanna has done something wrong! Rihanna is not sending any message. She is not saying that what happened to her is ok. Why aren't we asking what message Chris is sending? He is the one that did something wrong here, not Rihanna. Various "experts" on TV continue to ask this question as well. I wonder, have these "experts" worked with victims of domestic violence/teen dating? Do they understand why victims return to abusive relationships? Have they spent their careers working with dv victims & learning about this? I am appalled at the backlash that she is receiving. People are speaking out on HLN (Headline News station) stating that her cover girl contract should be pulled, that she is weak, that she is no longer a role model, parents are pulling her posters off of their kids??? walls and refusing to buy her music and talking about her with disgust in their voices. How can it be that we treat a victim this way? She was beaten and her life was threatened and the world is angry with her?? They are not giving her any reason to believe in herself. They are giving her every reason to stay "beaten down." Allowing these messages to be aired over and over again, the world is emotionally abusing her at the time that she needs the most support and advocacy. She doesn't need to be yelled at or told that she is weak. That is what abusers do. Pull her contract from Cover Girl? Take away what makes her feel good about herself?? Why not just kick her while she's down? That makes a whole lot of sense. In a normal dv situation, these same types of things happen. These situations are about power and control, victims return out of love and fear. Making her feel even more isolated than she already does, is not the solution. Telling them "if he beats you once, he'll beat you again" is not something they don't already know. They are not stupid. That statement doesn't magically make them "snap out of it." The dynamics of an abusive situation are much more complicated than that. My issue with all of this is that this is not educating society (our children especially) about dv and the many different reasons that victims return to the situation (returning an average of 7-12 times). Instead this is teaching every victim out there that society has no tolerance for victims. So, why would a victim want to come forward, call the police?? If Rihanna (a beautiful, talented, rich and famous person) is being treated this way because she reported the abuse to police, no one else is safe. This is the message that is being sent to all the Rihanna's out there. We should be ashamed of ourselves. HLN should be ashamed for continuing to have guests on their show that send these subliminal messages and air voice mail messa

  • Posted By: justice4victims @ 03/13/2009 1:59:54 PM

    Finally an article that does not blame the victim!!!

  • Posted By: NiceLou @ 03/13/2009 10:09:31 AM

    Thank you Newsweek for publishing this article. Time and time again I hear people blaming the victim thinking she is weak for staying, she deserves it if she goes back to him, etc. No body deserves this. Society really needs a wake-up call on what domestic violence is, what the warning signs are, and how one can end the cycle of abuse.

  • Posted By: 773SleepyHollow @ 03/13/2009 4:41:31 AM

    Juliandroms,

    I'm going to talk to you man to man, and make a few things clear to you...

    1) Real men don't hit women.

    2) If a real man is hit by a woman, if possible he retreats from the situation, and if it's not possible for him to retreat (he's in a car parked on the side of the highway, let's say, and to exit the car would put him in the face of speeding traffic, or if he's climbing a mountain and his female climbing partner starts pounding away at him, or if the woman with whom he's sharing a life raft starts to wildly pummel him), he should restrain her (grabs her by the wrists perhaps) until she calms down, but he shouldn't hit her.

    3) If the real man is physically smaller than a woman who is attacking him (and there's no reason a real man can't be small... real men aren't determined by size), and he is in legitimate danger at the hands of said woman, he should retreat from the situation ASAP and report her to the police for her domestic violence. People in relationships, male and female, big and small, when facing violence from their partner, should retreat from said violence whenever possible, not retaliate with further violence.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse