Most people who read this know me. And most people who know me know a few basic facts about me, including the fact that I was engaged to an abuser before I married Jeff and that I am a staunch egalitarian, as is Jeff. Thus the funny name and the equality in the household.
Anyway, I'm reading The Macho Paradox (by Jackson Katz) right now and it's making my head spin in a good way. I'll review it when I'm done, but in the meantime read a better review at the website for Christians for Biblical Equality.
In the book, Katz talks a lot about how the language we use frames the way we think, and that the language the media uses when discussing men's violence against women hides the truth about the subject. First, it frames each instance as an isolated event perpetrated by some uniquely deranged individual rather than as part of a pattern of men's violence against women. He uses O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Kobe Bryant as examples here. Second, it treats men's violence against women as a women's issue, rather than as a men's and women's issue. The focus in coverage of men's violence against women is often on the woman's experience of the violence, rather than on the man's responsibility for it. In extreme cases it even seems to transform the victim into the perpetrator and the perpetrator into the victim (such as calling Kobe Bryant's alleged victim his "accuser.").
All of this has made me interested in the coverage of Chris Brown's recent assault on Rihanna. For those of you who aren't obsessed with People.com, Chris Brown and Rihanna are two very popular singers. aged 19 and 21. He was recently arrested and is charged with assaulting her and threatening to kill her. Basically, from what I can gather from the statements, he beat the tar out of her (and an unscrupulous law enforcement official released the photo of her injuries!) and when she called for help he told her he was going to kill her. He released a statement expressing "sorrow and sadness" about what "transpired." Last week it was reported that they are reconciling.
So, what's the headline? Does it ask why he did it, or if he'll ever work again?
No, the coverage focuses nearly completely on her. I even read today that "she might be able to get him off the hook" if she refuses to testify against him, now that their "volatile relationship" is intact again!
Really?
We have a long way to go.
