Chris Brown at the Grammys

Kooli

So last night Chris Brown was welcomed back to the Grammys, got to perform twice and won a Grammy.

Whether you care about the Grammys or American music at all, how do you feel about the collective amnesia that doesn't seem bothered that he beat the absolute sh*t out of Rihanna a mere three years ago?

I'm actually horrified by the lack of clear and unambiguous criticism, disgust and outrage directed at this guy.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/horrible-reactions-to-chris-brown-at-the-grammys

people didn't forget, they just don't care.

MrStuffins

I'm horrified that people still give a f*ck!

Yeah, he hit a woman. But that was so long ago. WHatever happened to forgive and forget? I hate this modern culture of "Wow, someone made a mistake, let's crucify them for th rest of their lives!!"

As if nobody else has ever done something they shouldn't have.

Domestic abuse is a very bad thing and he shouldn't have done what he did, but let the lad be!

baby and crumble

I am NOT a proponent of violence in any way, however Chris Brown admitted he did wrong, entered into and complied with all parole/ custodial sentencing that I am aware of, and has the right to get on with his life and career again, and he should be allowed do so without people bringing up his past. Surely that is the point of rehabilitation?

Kooli

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/horrible-reactions-to-chris-brown-at-the-grammys

people didn't forget, they just don't care.

Well OK, why do people not care?

Why are we OK with this guy, a domestic abuser, a perpetrator of violence against a woman, his partner?

(by 'we' I don't mean any of us here, but collectively he has not been demoted, marginalised or ostracised in ANY way for this)

baby and crumble

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/horrible-reactions-to-chris-brown-at-the-grammys

people didn't forget, they just don't care.

Some people... :eek:

Kooli

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm horrified that people still give a f*ck!

Yeah, he hit a woman. But that was so long ago. WHatever happened to forgive and forget? I hate this modern culture of "Wow, someone made a mistake, let's crucify them for th rest of their lives!!"

As if nobody else has ever done something they shouldn't have.

Domestic abuse is a very bad thing and he shouldn't have done what he did, but let the lad be!

It's not about crucifying him for his whole life. I don't think he has been crucified by anyone. At all. For ANY length of time.

He was never villified for this! OK yes he was by lots of strangers on the internet, great. But not by the people in power, the people with influence.

Actually, here's an article that expresses how I feel better than I could:
http://hellogiggles.com/im-not-okay-with-chris-brown-performing-at-the-grammys-and-im-not-sure-why-you-are

MrStuffins

Kooli wrote: »

Well OK, why do people not care?

Why are we OK with this guy, a domestic abuser, a perpetrator of violence against a woman, his partner?

(by 'we' I don't mean any of us here, but collectively he has not been demoted, marginalised or ostracised in ANY way for this)

"We" aren't. "We" realise that the guy hit a girl once and paid the price for it.

Time to move on!

seanybiker

I thought it was one or two punches not a beating the shyte outta her. Hee a dick for what he done but sure as the others said, he done all he was supposed to do after it happened. Don't like him but wouldn't lose sleep over him singing

MrStuffins

Kooli wrote: »

It's not about crucifying him for his whole life. I don't think he has been crucified by anyone. At all. For ANY length of time.

He was never villified for this! OK yes he was by lots of strangers on the internet, great. But not by the people in power, the people with influence.

So what is it you want? Barack Obama to kick him in the arse with a giant boot?

Kooli

baby and crumble wrote: »

I am NOT a proponent of violence in any way, however Chris Brown admitted he did wrong, entered into and complied with all parole/ custodial sentencing that I am aware of, and has the right to get on with his life and career again, and he should be allowed do so without people bringing up his past. Surely that is the point of rehabilitation?

I do agree with rehabilitation, of course. And I think this would feel different if his actions had been villified at the time and since, and there had been a stronger move in defense of Rihanna. But there wasn't. There was half-hearted comments about how it's 'between them', plus a lot of people trying to find reasons it might be Rihanna's fault.
And now he's welcome back with open arms as if he's not an abuser of women.

What was the actual rehabilitation? Because the passing of time doesn't qualify as rehabilitation if there was nothing else actually involved.

Kooli

seanybiker wrote: »

I thought it was one or two punches not a beating the shyte outta her. Hee a dick for what he done but sure as the others said, he done all he was supposed to do after it happened. Don't like him but wouldn't lose sleep over him singing

Wow. Just wow.

First of all, did you see the pictures?

Second of all, this is exactly what I was talking about. Why this weird kind of half-defensiveness, as if what he did wasn't that bad?

Seriously, I'm genuinely asking? Why is it so hard to say, out and out, that what he did was completely awful and inexcusable. Full stop.

Kooli

MrStuffins wrote: »

"We" aren't. "We" realise that the guy hit a girl once and paid the price for it.

Time to move on!

What price did he pay for it?

MrStuffins

Kooli wrote: »

I do agree with rehabilitation, of course. And I think this would feel different if his actions had been villified at the time and since, and there had been a stronger move in defense of Rihanna. But there wasn't. There was half-hearted comments about how it's 'between them', plus a lot of people trying to find reasons it might be Rihanna's fault.
And now he's welcome back with open arms as if he's not an abuser of women.

What was the actual rehabilitation? Because the passing of time doesn't qualify as rehabilitation if there was nothing else actually involved.

You're just so wrong about this!

MrStuffins

Kooli wrote: »

What price did he pay for it?

If you don't know this then you shouldn't be giving out about the case.

it's quite obvious you want Chris Brown to be punished, so tell me, what exactly is it you want to see done to him?

Kooli

MrStuffins wrote: »

You're just so wrong about this!

Some of the biggest names in the industry made comments along the lines of 'I wish them both well. You can't judge someone else's relationship.'
I've had conversations with people where the first comment is 'I heard she hit him first'.

Even on this very thread we have a comment how it was 'just one or two punches'.

I'm just really struggling to understand why people find it so hard to condemn him

baby and crumble

Kooli wrote: »

I do agree with rehabilitation, of course. And I think this would feel different if his actions had been villified at the time and since, and there had been a stronger move in defense of Rihanna. But there wasn't. There was half-hearted comments about how it's 'between them', plus a lot of people trying to find reasons it might be Rihanna's fault.
And now he's welcome back with open arms as if he's not an abuser of women.

What was the actual rehabilitation? Because the passing of time doesn't qualify as rehabilitation if there was nothing else actually involved.

From wikipedia:

In 2008, Brown's musical setbacks were partially attributed to a domestic assault. He turned himself in to the Los Angeles Police Department's Wilshire station on February 8, 2009, and was booked on suspicion of making criminal threats, while under investigation for domestic violence charges, following an argument with an unidentified woman (Rihanna). Following his arrest, several of his commercial ads were suspended, his music was withdrawn from multiple radio stations, and he withdrew from public appearances, including one at the 2009 Grammy Awards.

On August 25, Brown was sentenced to five years of probation, one year of domestic violence counseling, and six months of community service; the judge retained a five-year restraining order on Brown, which requires him to remain 50 yards away from Rihanna, 10 yards at public events.

In June 2010, Brown's application for a visa to enter the UK was refused on the grounds of him "being guilty of a serious criminal offence."[95] Brown had been planning to do a tour of British cities as part of a European tour but Sony stated that due to "issues surrounding his work visa" the tour was to be postponed. The British Home Office confirmed that Brown was refused permission on the grounds of being guilty of a serious criminal offence – his assault on ex-girlfriend Rihanna.

Looks to me like 'the powers' that be' dealt with him appropriately at the time, and he is still facing the consequences in a legal capacity. Why do we as society feel the need to demand more?

Kooli

MrStuffins wrote: »

If you don't know this then you shouldn't be giving out about the case.

it's quite obvious you want Chris Brown to be punished, so tell me, what exactly is it you want to see done to him?

Actually no, it's not about what I want to see done to him. In fact, it's not really about him personally at all.

I'm just baffled by the public's response to him. The industry's response to him. This sends a very powerful message about how we see a man who beats up a woman.

Would everyone be so OK with a hero's welcome for the return of Gary Glitter?

Stercus Accidit

He beat the face off of a skinny girl half his strength, if even, his career should be over, BUT his target demographic are children and the less intelligent.

Even through my toughest times, tougher than a hit singer with wads of cash will ever see, I would never do something like that to a girlfriend nor would any sensible person, let alone beat the face off of her, I have seen the pictures.

You don't defend that, you let his career crumble into obscurity and move on. I am distressed to see two sides of the fence in this thread, I had a higher opinion of the sort who post on boards.ie. There is no serving your time, or repaying your debt to society for this, it takes a vicious spoiled coward to do what he did and he remains that in my eyes, only with very careful and expensive PR handling after the event, and it is that professional PR handling that is pointed to as to how he has changed in some way.

Davyhal

The world has changed... An artist's personal life used to be so important towards their music career, but that seems to all have changed. Not too long ago, a gay/lesbian/bisexual musician would have to hide their sexuality in order to maintain a successful career. Before that, musicians with husbands/wives/partners used have to pretend to be single in order to appear "eligible" to the fans. This was wrong, very wrong, and I would not be shocked to hear that it is still happening. But this is disgusting. I think a lot of people are won over because they like his music, but I do not believe that he should be forgiven until he has stood trial for his actions. And the way people are defending him saying "he hit her once 3 years ago", as if it were a mere slap. Did you not see the pictures of the bruises? She was battered!

I personally will never purchase any material that will lead to him living his life in the lap of luxury, when in my eyes he is scum. If he was supporting act for one of my favourite acts of all time, I still would not buy a ticket, cos even if one penny of that went to him, I would not be happy with myself.

Question for you people who are supporting him... If a partner of your 20 year old friend beat her, even just the once, would you be so forgiving 3 years later?

MrStuffins

Kooli wrote: »

Actually no, it's not about what I want to see done to him. In fact, it's not really about him personally at all.

I'm just baffled by the public's response to him. The industry's response to him. This sends a very powerful message about how we see a man who beats up a woman.

Would everyone be so OK with a hero's welcome for the return of Gary Glitter?

I was wondering how long it would take for you to lower your argument to child molestation :rolleyes:

I was finding it hard already, but you've just completely ruined the credability of your argument by comparing what Chris Brown did to Gary Glitter!

Don't be so ridiculous!

Kooli

baby and crumble wrote: »

From wikipedia:



Looks to me like 'the powers' that be' dealt with him appropriately at the time, and he is still facing the consequences in a legal capacity. Why do we as society feel the need to demand more?

I'm not that bothered about how much punishment he gets from the legal system in America.

I AM bothered when he is lauded at an international awards ceremony as the prodigal son, staging his 'comeback', performing twice and picking up an award. I AM bothered about what that says about violence against women.

Kooli

MrStuffins wrote: »

I was wondering how long it would take for you to lower your argument to child molestation :rolleyes:

I was finding it hard already, but you've just completely ruined the credability of your argument by comparing what Chris Brown did to Gary Glitter!

Don't be so ridiculous!

Actually the reason I made the comparison was to discredit those who were making the 'rehabilitation' argument.

If the argument was about 'rehabilitation' or 'giving someone a second chance', then fine.

But the fact that you react so strongly to my Gary Glitter comparison shows the nature of the crime is what is important here. We should only give second chances and warm comeback welcomes to people who have commited 'less serious' offences. Like, you know, beating up women.

Davyhal

I agree that what Gary Glitter did was disgusting, and is a more serious crime than beating a woman, but that does not make beating a woman any less deplorable.

Unfortunately, I think the reason why Chris Brown is back and so easily forgiven by the public is because he is young, good looking and current. It is easy for the public to hate a creepy old man who was big 30 years. If Chris Brown beat up his partner when he was 50 and his music career was effectively long dead and buried, would he have gotten off so easily and would people still be so quick to forgive his crimes?

Kooli

OK I don't want to come off like I'm trying to be a Mod, I'm not. But this is the Ladies Lounge, and I'm trying to talk from the perspective of a woman about what it means to me (as a woman) when I see how an abuser of women is treated by the media and by the music industry.

Luckily I've never been abused, but if I had, this would be a very difficult thread to read.

This might be a huge assumption on my part, but are most of the posters telling me I'm overreacting men?

doesn't cheryl cole have an assault conviction too?

i think b&c's quote on what happened to him was punishment - and if anyone feels more strongly about it they can boycott his stuff
and he is still banned from the UK
i dont think that's nothing

Stercus Accidit

Kooli wrote: »

Actually the reason I made the comparison was to discredit those who were making the 'rehabilitation' argument.

If the argument was about 'rehabilitation' or 'giving someone a second chance', then fine.

But the fact that you react so strongly to my Gary Glitter comparison shows the nature of the crime is what is important here. We should only give second chances and warm comeback welcomes to people who have commited 'less serious' offences. Like, you know, beating up women.

I agree;

The main thing to remember is that his 'rehabilitation' was the only outcome that his record company and PR handlers would ever have allowed, he is a multi-million dollar product, and the whole rehabilitation thing was done to allow him to earn money again. This guy had everything to lose (mainly money) as did countless others involved with him by doing anything other than profusely apologize, do good works and donate money. None of it was done for any other reason than his actions were a PR disaster for his image and the bottom line of his investors. Anyone would say sorry too if millions of dollars were on the line.

What we can see for a fact is that behind closed doors and away from prying eyes this spoiled little coward beat his girlfriends face in, anything since then has been a carefully managed act.

baby and crumble

I think it's entirely erroneous to assume that those of us who are disagreeing with you are male. That does a huge disservice to the men who post on this board, and men in general. And also to the rest of the women.

As regards your point re: Gary Glitter. If Gary Glitter had served his time and wanted to reignite his career, then why not? You can't demonise a person forever one act they committed.

Violence towards anyone is abhorrent. No-one here is saying otherwise. but I think a lot of people here are simply saying that if you have done the time, and made an effort to rehabilitate yourself, why shouldn't that person be given another chance?

MrStuffins

Kooli wrote: »

Actually the reason I made the comparison was to discredit those who were making the 'rehabilitation' argument.

If the argument was about 'rehabilitation' or 'giving someone a second chance', then fine.

But the fact that you react so strongly to my Gary Glitter comparison shows the nature of the crime is what is important here. We should only give second chances and warm comeback welcomes to people who have commited 'less serious' offences. Like, you know, beating up women.

I was wondering how long it would take yout o stoop to mentioning Child Molestation.

Are you actually saying that Gary Glitter contributing to an International ring of perverts to kidnapped and raped children in front of cameras for the gratification of scumbags all over the world, Gary Glitter "buying" children in the Fat East in order to have sex with them, and the countless other disgusting things Glitter is guilty of............... is the same as Chris Brown hitting Rihanna?

I'm getting out of this thread before I say something I get banned for :mad:

Kooli

MrStuffins wrote: »

I was wondering how long it would take yout o stoop to mentioning Child Molestation.

Are you actually saying that Gary Glitter contributing to an International ring of perverts to kidnapped and raped children in front of cameras for the gratification of scumbags all over the world, Gary Glitter "buying" children in the Fat East in order to have sex with them, and the countless other disgusting things Glitter is guilty of............... is the same as Chris Brown hitting Rihanna?

I'm getting out of this thread before I say something I get banned for :mad:

Em...NO!! That's exactly what I'm NOT saying!!

I'll try to be clearer:

1) When I object to the triumphant return of Chris Brown, people respond by saying that he has paid the price, done his time, everyone deserves a second chance, don't I believe in rehabilitation.

2) Hmmmm....I don't think people believe in rehabilitation and second chances across the board. To verify this, I mention Gary Glitter

3) Confirmed. People don't believe in rehabilitation or second chances across the board because (quite rightly), what Gary Glitter did was disgusting and despicable

4) OK Can we now move on from a blanket argument that people who have done a crime have the right to rehabilitation, and move on to discussing the nature of what he actually did, and why the public's response to that (even three years later) is actually important and sends a clear message to women about what happens to abusers. (i.e. we're still pretty much OK with them)

MrStuffins

Kooli wrote: »

Em...NO!! That's exactly what I'm NOT saying!!

I'll try to be clearer:

1)When I object to the triumphant return of Chris Brown, people respond by saying that he has paid the price, done his time, everyone deserves a second chance, don't I believe in rehabilitation.

2)I don't believe think people believe in rehabilitation and second chances across the board. To verify this, I mention Gary Glitter

3) Confirmed. People don't believe in rehabilitation or second chances across the board because (quite rightly), what Gary Glitter did was disgusting and despicable

4) OK Can we now move on from a blanket argument that people who have done a crime have the right to rehabilitation, and move on to discussing the nature of what he actually did, and why the public's response to that (even three years later) is actually important and sends a clear message to women about what happens to abusers. (i.e. we're still pretty much OK with them)

But we're not talking about across the board!

Some crimes are different in nature.

Again, NOBODY has said we are "OK with abusers". Nobody has said what he did was right.

What we are saying is, the guy made a mistake. he broke the law and he did a pretty low thing! He has paid for what he has done and there comes a point when he should be allowed live his life again and not have martyrs to the cause bleating out of them and wanting to hold him up as a pariah for the rest of his life!

Comparing him to a child molester. How absurd!!! :mad:

baby and crumble

Kooli wrote: »

Em...NO!! That's exactly what I'm NOT saying!!

I'll try to be clearer:

1) When I object to the triumphant return of Chris Brown, people respond by saying that he has paid the price, done his time, everyone deserves a second chance, don't I believe in rehabilitation.

2) Hmmmm....I don't think people believe in rehabilitation and second chances across the board. To verify this, I mention Gary Glitter

3) Confirmed. People don't believe in rehabilitation or second chances across the board because (quite rightly), what Gary Glitter did was disgusting and despicable

4) OK Can we now move on from a blanket argument that people who have done a crime have the right to rehabilitation, and move on to discussing the nature of what he actually did, and why the public's response to that (even three years later) is actually important and sends a clear message to women about what happens to abusers. (i.e. we're still pretty much OK with them)

Your logic is flawed. You can't treat all crimes the same. If we stick with Chris Brown for a minute- this is his first and only crime/conviction. yes, it was a despicable act. Nobody here is denying that. However, there is always the possibility that he snapped-- this happens, both to men AND women. Women snap too, and attack men, quite viciously. However, this seems to have been a one-time act, which he admitted to, was charged with, and has appeared to rehabilitate himself from. This was not a premeditated attack (like rape), nor a sustained set of behaviours like child abuse.

krudler

Kooli wrote: »

Actually no, it's not about what I want to see done to him. In fact, it's not really about him personally at all.

I'm just baffled by the public's response to him. The industry's response to him. This sends a very powerful message about how we see a man who beats up a woman.

Would everyone be so OK with a hero's welcome for the return of Gary Glitter?

if you were to villify every actor or musician who does something stupid or illegal in their past there'd be a long waiting list, not condoning what Brown did at all, he's a scumbag, but the public do tend to let stuff be forgotten, hey Ozzy Osbourne nearly murdered Sharon once, now he's seen as a loveable scatterbrained rocker. Sean Connery did an infamous interview where if advocated slapping a woman if "she deserved it" Cheryl Cole racially abused and assaulted a toilet attendant yet is seen as some sort of English rose despite being a complete knacker. Celebrities are people, they do stupid things at times same as anyone else just their transgressions are public knowledge. People tend to let celebrities off the hook faster than "normal" people due to being in the public eye.

Kooli

I'm trying to point out that there is a tendency to minimise gendered crimes against women. This thread is demonstrating it very well actually.

It was just a punch or two

It was his first offence

There are other celebrities who've done bad things.

Why is it so hard to just condemn what he did without qualification?

And why am I being shouted down by men in the Ladies Lounge???

MrStuffins

Kooli wrote: »

I'm trying to point out that there is a tendency to minimise gendered crimes against women. This thread is demonstrating it very well actually.

Well no. All this thread is doing is showing your ignorance to the actual reaction that Chris Brown received at the time and up until now. It seems you weren't paying attention.

it's also showing your hard-headedness in not realising that everybody is agreeing with you, it was a terrible thing that he did. But it is YOU who is MAXIMISING the crime rather than us minimising it!

It was just a punch or two

Yes. A less serious crime than Child Molestation, which you brought up!

It was his first offence

This is true, is it not?

There are other celebrities who've done bad things.

Indeed. WHere were you when Cheryl Cole had a No.1 hit after being convicted of GBH?

Why is it so hard to just condemn what he did without qualification?

It's funny how you think us thinking about the situation and considering the circumstance, and you blindly saying HANG HIM!!! is a failure on our part!

And why am I being shouted down by men in the Ladies Lounge???

It's called discussion. You wanted just women's opinions was it? Really shows the strength of your convicitons TBH! This is not a discussion where there is a woman's POV and a man's POV.

krudler

Kooli wrote: »

I'm trying to point out that there is a tendency to minimise gendered crimes against women. This thread is demonstrating it very well actually.

It was just a punch or two

It was his first offence

There are other celebrities who've done bad things.

Why is it so hard to just condemn what he did without qualification?

And why am I being shouted down by men in the Ladies Lounge???

nobodies condoning what he did at all, so I dunno where you're getting that from, and nobodies shouting you down either, once again:

In 2008, Brown's musical setbacks were partially attributed to a domestic assault. He turned himself in to the Los Angeles Police Department's Wilshire station on February 8, 2009, and was booked on suspicion of making criminal threats, while under investigation for domestic violence charges, following an argument with an unidentified woman (Rihanna). Following his arrest, several of his commercial ads were suspended, his music was withdrawn from multiple radio stations, and he withdrew from public appearances, including one at the 2009 Grammy Awards.

On August 25, Brown was sentenced to five years of probation, one year of domestic violence counseling, and six months of community service; the judge retained a five-year restraining order on Brown, which requires him to remain 50 yards away from Rihanna, 10 yards at public events.

In June 2010, Brown's application for a visa to enter the UK was refused on the grounds of him "being guilty of a serious criminal offence."[95] Brown had been planning to do a tour of British cities as part of a European tour but Sony stated that due to "issues surrounding his work visa" the tour was to be postponed. The British Home Office confirmed that Brown was refused permission on the grounds of being guilty of a serious criminal offence – his assault on ex-girlfriend Rihanna.

all seems like fair justice for a singular domestic violence charge (as far as I know, not sure if it was an ongoing thing or the one incident), what exactly do you want? if it was Rihanna who assaulted him and she got the same punishment i'd be saying the exact same thing.

baby and crumble

Kooli wrote: »

I'm trying to point out that there is a tendency to minimise gendered crimes against women. This thread is demonstrating it very well actually.

It was just a punch or two

It was his first offence

There are other celebrities who've done bad things.

Why is it so hard to just condemn what he did without qualification?

And why am I being shouted down by men in the Ladies Lounge???

MrStuffins and others have pointed out with their example of Cheryl Cole having a conviction for GBH, which is probably just one example of that, the same thing happened- she was given a sentence, she served it, and was allowed rehabilitate herself and given another chance. I'm sure if Chris brown or Cheryl Cole were to offend in a same manner again, they'd be ostracised- because it becomes clear their crimes are a long standing problem behaviour.

I do condemn what he did. Violence is a despicable thing. Pretty much everyone here agrees with that. but like I would say for pretty much any crime, that people who have served their time, shown remorse and genuinely rehabilitated themselves in the eyes of the law should be given a second chance. From murder, to rape, to domestic abuse to theft; i don't believe in demonising anyone, male or female for a crime they have committed once they use the time of their incarceration/ parole to work on themsleves and change.

Also: I am female. Just for the record.

Kooli

I brought up Gary Glitter to show that people only believe in second chances and rehabilitation when it suits them. I wasn't comparing the two crimes myself, or trying to make any judgements on greater or lesser crimes (although I was assuming others would). I generally don't see the value in saying 'well this crime isn't so bad because this OTHER crime is worse'. So that's not what I was trying to do. Apologies if it came off that I was (despite repeatedly trying to explain that I wasn't...)

So I do find it a bit weird to compare Chris Brown beating up his girlfriend with Cheryl Cole assaulting someone in a nightclub. Does no one else see them as different? That to me would be more worrying...

And anyway, the reason I brought this to the Ladies Lounge rather than AH or anywhere else, is because I am looking at the gender issues at play in this situation (and these don't apply in Cheryl's situation).

It's the same with Mike Tyson's getting a 'hilarious' cameo in one of the most successful movies of the last decade. He is a rapist and I found it uncomfortable that he was given such a high profile role, and yet the same actors wouldn't work with Mel Gibson.

It's not about the specifics of the case itself and what exact punishment Chris Brown got. For me it's about how the culture we live in deals with and talks about men who commit gendered violence (and further to that rape and sexual assault). All these things commit to a rape culture and are worth discussing IMO.

p.s. I don't see how I could possibly be 'maximising' the crime. I do think it's a pretty huge deal what he did, and I don't think I'm overstating it.

saintsaltynuts

If that Brown lad did that to my sister or daughter he would'nt be able to talk never mind sing.Did you see the pictures of Rihanna after it.. black and blue she was.

baby and crumble

saintsaltynuts wrote: »

If that Brown lad did that to my sister or daughter he would'nt be able to talk never mind sing.Did you see the pictures of Rihanna after it.. black and blue she was.

Saintsaltynuts, we don't advocate violence in any way on this board. Please don't post in this style again, thanks.

MrStuffins

Kooli wrote: »

I brought up Gary Glitter to show that people only believe in second chances and rehabilitation when it suits them.

Well you have, again, failed to understand the points of others. it's nothing to do with "when it suits them". It's about taking things on their merits. You did yourself nothing but a disservice by bringing Gary Glitter into this!

I wasn't comparing the two crimes myself, or trying to make any judgements on greater or lesser crimes (although I was assuming others would). I generally don't see the value in saying 'well this crime isn't so bad because this OTHER crime is worse'. So that's not what I was trying to do. Apologies if it came off that I was (despite repeatedly trying to explain that I wasn't...)

Well you shouldn't have said things like:

Kooli wrote: »

We should only give second chances and warm comeback welcomes to people who have commited 'less serious' offences. Like, you know, beating up women.

So I do find it a bit weird to compare Chris Brown beating up his girlfriend with Cheryl Cole assaulting someone in a nightclub. Does no one else see them as different? That to me would be more worrying...

I find it hilarious that your own argument is now turning on you and you're now becoming one of the people you are complaining about in the thread.

And anyway, the reason I brought this to the Ladies Lounge rather than AH or anywhere else, is because I am looking at the gender issues at play in this situation (and these don't apply in Cheryl's situation).

Ah well that makes it ok for the world to forgive Cole, because her assault was only race-related! :rolleyes:

Also, gender issues go both ways.

It's not about the specifics of the case itself and what exact punishment Chris Brown got. For me it's about how the culture we live in deals with and talks about men who commit gendered violence (and further to that rape and sexual assault). All these things commit to a rape culture and are worth discussing IMO.

Whoa whoa! What the hell has rape got to do with any of this? I think you're really scraping the barrell now!

p.s. I don't see how I could possibly be 'maximising' the crime. I do think it's a pretty huge deal what he did, and I don't think I'm overstating it.

No, but what you're doing is saying the man shouldn't be allowed get on with his life after what he did. Despite the fact he has been through the processes he has been through and has been vilified the way he has for the amount of time he has!

You keep saying things like "he has not been demoted, marginalised or ostracised in ANY way for this". This is just plain wrong!

You said "But not by the people in power, the people with influence." too but when I asked what should happen to him you won't answer.

Again, it seems you are misinformed about what has actually gone on here! For some reason you think he assaulted Rihanna and everyone just said "meh".

This was not the case! If you think he hasn't been vilified for this you've had your head in the sand. If you don't think what has went on with him is enough, please make it clear what exactly should be done?

Kooli

I actually have very little interest in having to defend, point-by-point, why the celebration of a woman-abuser makes me uncomfortable.

I have no idea why people want to prove me wrong that this shouldn't make me uncomfortable or angry.

So while it might suit you that I quote your post line by line and dissect each part and look for holes in logic or inconsistencies, and in other arguments I am very willing to do this, it just misses the entire issue for me at the moment.

I do think there are a lot of women out there who are really angry when someone who beats women or someone who abuses women in other ways is celebrated in the media. And we don't think it's no big deal or something we should get over.

but I'd be more worried of the effect it has on other women - to silence them. As Sasha Pasulka put it better than me in that article I linked to:

"We – the grown-up influencers in this country, the people with platforms and with educations and with power — are allowing a clear message to be sent to women: We will easily forgive a person who victimizes you. We are able to look beyond the fact that you were treated as less than human, that a bigger, stronger person decided to resolve a conflict with you through violence. We know it happened, but it’s just not that big of a deal to us."

MrStuffins

Kooli wrote: »

I actually have very little interest in having to defend, point-by-point, why the celebration of a woman-abuser makes me uncomfortable.

Then don't start a thread on the subject!

I have no idea why people want to prove me wrong that this shouldn't make me uncomfortable or angry.

it's not about proving you wrong. This isn't a black & White subject (unlike Cheryl Cole's one :P )

So while it might suit you that I quote your post line by line and dissect each part and look for holes in logic or inconsistencies, and in other arguments I am very willing to do this, it just misses the entire issue for me at the moment.

Yes i'm not surprised by this. You haven't really backed up anything you've said. You haven't really put forward any kind of argument except for seeing to say this man should be crucified for the rest of his life.

I do think there are a lot of women out there who are really angry when someone who beats women or someone who abuses women in other ways is celebrated in the media. And we don't think it's no big deal or something we should get over.

Well that's their problem. I, for one, think that everyone makes mistakes and does bad things. And there should come a point when, depending on the offence, the person should be allowed to get back to living their life.

but I'd be more worried of the effect it has on other women - to silence them. As Sasha Pasulka put it better than me in that article I linked to:

"We – the grown-up influencers in this country, the people with platforms and with educations and with power — are allowing a clear message to be sent to women: We will easily forgive a person who victimizes you. We are able to look beyond the fact that you were treated as less than human, that a bigger, stronger person decided to resolve a conflict with you through violence. We know it happened, but it’s just not that big of a deal to us."

Yeah, it's all well and good to quote others but not actually contribute yourself.

Nobody has silenced Riahnna in this case by the way. In fact, I can't put on the f*ckin radio without hearing the woman!

Ickle Magoo

OK folks, can we dial it back a bit please - telling female posters what they should or should not post in a forum dedicated to them is not on.

Please respect that the OP posted in the Ladies Lounge over any other discussion forum and was interested in hearing ladies opinions - in line with the charter and purpose of this forum.

Cheers

Kooli

I shouldn't start a thread about a subject if I'm not willing to defend, point-by-point, how something makes me FEEL??
There's no other way to discuss something?

Seriously??

And I can't quote someone else (who expresses how I feel better than I can) because that means I have nothing to say myself? Did you even read her article?

Just because I don't want someone lauded and glorified, does not mean I want them crucified. Didn't YOU say this isn't black and white?

Yitzhak Rabin

Kooli wrote: »

"We – the grown-up influencers in this country, the people with platforms and with educations and with power — are allowing a clear message to be sent to women: We will easily forgive a person who victimizes you. We are able to look beyond the fact that you were treated as less than human, that a bigger, stronger person decided to resolve a conflict with you through violence. We know it happened, but it’s just not that big of a deal to us."

Nonsense.

How was Rihanna treated as less than human? Violence is wrong. Everyone thus far on the thread has agreed.

But you seem to want to put male on female violence into some special category where it is never forgiven. Ever. All violence is wrong, whether it's male on male, female on female, female on male or male on female. It's you who seems to have the double standard whereby it's ok to forgive cheryl Cole for assaulting another female, but Chris Brown can never be allowed to move on.

Gilldog

To be honest I have to agree with MrStuffins on this, I do understand your frustration to a point Kooli, but your attitude seems so rigid and you have contradicted yourself when you first say that it is a gender issue, which is fine, but then you say

'So I do find it a bit weird to compare Chris Brown beating up his girlfriend with Cheryl Cole assaulting someone in a nightclub. Does no one else see them as different? That to me would be more worrying... '

As MrStuffins rightly said, gender issues go both way. So you are expecting me as a woman to get in line behind you simply because this was male on female violence, while dismissing female on female violence as unimportant and not in the same league. To me 'beating up' and 'assaulting' are pretty much the same thing and I feel that yes, he committed a terrible act, but that yes, he has served his time so to speak.

And the fact that you think just because its a ladies forum that all women will row in behind you and have a good old rant about how all men are b@stards is more than a bit patronisinig.

Kooli

Gilldog wrote: »

To be honest I have to agree with MrStuffins on this, I do understand your frustration to a point Kooli, but your attitude seems so rigid and you have contradicted yourself when you first say that it is a gender issue, which is fine, but then you say

'So I do find it a bit weird to compare Chris Brown beating up his girlfriend with Cheryl Cole assaulting someone in a nightclub. Does no one else see them as different? That to me would be more worrying... '

As MrStuffins rightly said, gender issues go both way. So you are expecting me as a woman to get in line behind you simply because this was male on female violence, while dismissing female on female violence as unimportant and not in the same league. To me 'beating up' and 'assaulting' are pretty much the same thing and I feel that yes, he committed a terrible act, but that yes, he has served his time so to speak.

And the fact that you think just because its a ladies forum that all women will row in behind you and have a good old rant about how all men are b@stards is more than a bit patronisinig.

No of course I don't expect women to agree with me, but I don't expect to have to argue against men telling me repeatedly I'm wrong, and repeatedly claiming I'm saying something different to what I'm actually saying.

I think all violence is wrong. You can quote me on that.

But this thread is about domestic violence. Violence between intimate partners. This is a gendered crime - the vast majority is committed by one gender against the other. And I'm talking about the gender issues at play. I'm happy to talk about Cheryl Cole's assault in another thread if it's relevant, but her conviction didn't really touch off these same gender issues, so I'd prefer to leave it aside.

The fact is misogyny and sexism are genuine issues that affect millions of women, and when a man in the public eye viciously assaults a woman in the public eye - like beats her up. Hits her in the face repeatedly until she needs medical attention - it's important how the media and the industry react to that. That's what I'm discussing, so forgive me if I find it difficult to get derailed into discussions about general assault between two people of the same gender. Yes, it's terrible. But it doesn't affect gender issues, discrimination or power dynamics (although admittedly there may have been race issues involved, I don't remember the story that well, and if there were great let's talk about that some other time!)

So female on female violence is not unimportant. It's just not what I'm talking about here. If you think it's relevant to discuss the media's portrayal of girl on girl violence, I'd love to discuss it.

I don't expect you to get in line with me because you're female. Every female is entitled to have their own opinion. Sure go to his concerts and buy his albums if you like, that's your choice. But I would like to hear your perspective as a woman - how you feel about Chris Brown's triumphant return to public adulation, two years before his probation is even up. And don't let your dislike for my 'rigid' attitude colour your own opinion on the subject.

But I'm discussing my perspective which is specifically gendered, and for that reason I don't like men telling me I've no right to feel that way.

Tell me you disagree, fine. Ask me more about it, great. Try to understand how a situation like MIGHT make women feel uncomfortable, angry, oppressed - wonderful!
But tell me my feelings are wrong and that the issue is not an issue - nope, I'm not really OK with that.

I'm not speaking on behalf of all women. But I am, very much, speaking as a woman.

Wibbs

Kooli wrote: »

But this thread is about domestic violence. Violence between intimate partners. This is a gendered crime - the vast majority is committed by one gender against the other.

Point of order K. Up to 40% of domestic violence is committed by women upon men. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

For the mobile users;

"Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09."

It's anything but a "vast majority"

While I actually take many of your points on board re this Brown person, I state this Kooli simply because we don't like to see any blanket gender stereotyping in here, regardless of said gender.

Kooli

Wibbs wrote: »

Point of order K. Up to 40% of domestic violence is committed by women upon men.

OK, point taken.

It's still a gendered crime in that it affects women more than men, I retract the word 'vastly'.

I really disagree with gender stereotyping, so I hate to think it was interpreted as such.

But that doesn't mean it's not a gender issue. As I said, we live in a culture where sexism and misogyny are rife, and systems of oppression are still in operation, so it's important how the media and industries respond to an incident where a man beats the sh*t out of a woman, his partner.

(if a high profile woman beat up a high profile man, it would also be really important and sensitive how it was handled to in order not to diminish the crime or make light of it)

Dudess

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm horrified that people still give a f*ck!

Yeah, he hit a woman. But that was so long ago. WHatever happened to forgive and forget? I hate this modern culture of "Wow, someone made a mistake, let's crucify them for th rest of their lives!!"

As if nobody else has ever done something they shouldn't have.

Domestic abuse is a very bad thing and he shouldn't have done what he did, but let the lad be!

I don't know whether he should be completely demonised career-wise as a result of something that happened in his private life (if very public an incident) but it was a fair bit more than a mistake...