pokey_valentine

Don't get me wrong. It burns me up that Charlie Sheen is working. It's worse that he's got a show that's basically a joke about how horrible he is. I hate that his "punishment" was rehab. One of the most persistent myths about abuse is that it's caused by drugs or alcohol, and this so-called punishment only serves to perpetuate that myth. Abusers are essentially con-men. They only "lose control" to the extent that they allow themselves. They are image obsessed, and their images are carefully cultivated. That goes for Charlie Sheen and Chris Brown. We watched Charlie Sheen and decided that he was crazy. We mockingly adopted his catchphrase, "Winning," and somehow bought into the narrative that he's crazy, delusional, unpredictable, but, ultimately, harmless. He created an image, he manipulated us, and it worked. Chris Brown did, too, and his image is far more sophisticated. He's not simply, as you put it, "one of the most hated men in America." He is, by his own design, the man we love to hate. But, he's also the passionate lover/bad-boy: he's passionate, he's a little bit dangerous, but maybe the love of a good woman could put him on the right track. He tells us that he has so much love in his heart that he might need two women in his life. The two sides of this image--the man you love to hate and the lover/bad-boy--work in concert, inflaming his "enemies" and rallying his fans. It sucks that Charlie Sheen is still working, making money and getting famous even as he exploits his abuse, but don't lose sight of the fact that Chris Brown is doing the very same thing! Attitudes toward them are different, in part because of race, but in large part because of what they have in common, which is that they've crafted images for themselves that manipulate public opinion. Neither man has faced real consequences. Abusive men rarely do, especially wealthy abusive men. What bothers me the most about every argument I've heard about the racial implications of this story is that it always portrays the perpetrator of violence as a victim. There was another black person involved. If it's a certainty that race affects attitudes toward Chris Brown, isn't the same true for Rihanna? Would America be more outraged if we saw similar photos of Taylor Swift? Would we be as willing to forgive Katy Perry's batterer? Would our expectations of Rihanna be different if she were white? Would we be as derisive of her choices in the aftermath? Maybe the photos wouldn't have leaked if the perpetrator had been white, but what about the confidentiality of the victim? About Michael Vick...oh, lord. You're right that he became one of the most hated men in America. You're right that race factors into that a great deal (more so, I'd argue, than for Chris Brown). What you're missing, though, is the fact that America is quicker and more willing to forgive a man for violence towards women than for violence towards dogs. And I do think the expressions of racism against Chris Brown are subtle. It's subtle because the issue is one of attitudes and motivations, as opposed to more overt expressions of racism that are all too common, and compared to the plain and violent misogyny on display in the very story. For example, whatever you make of Jenny Johnson's tweets to Chris Brown, they were not overtly, explicitly racist. You can speculate, if you're so inclined, on the attitudes that motivated Jenny Johnson to write those tweets. You don't need to work so hard to interpret Chris Brown's replies, which were sexually violent threats. There's an important distinction to be made, because the argument coming across, Shariq (and Andrew), is that Chris Brown has gotten a raw deal because he's black. There is some truth that Charlie Sheen has gotten it easy because he's white, and that's the start of a productive conversation, in my opinion. Even that, though, ignores the privilege both offenders enjoy because of their gender, wealth, and fame.

I was disappointed that "wipeout" was mentioned without Scott singing it, but his BNL impression made up for it.

Chris Brown is an abuser. He's demonstrated misogyny, control, and even violence on multiple occasions, and consistently on Twitter/YouTube. He didn't "make a mistake," he just got caught at the same game all domestic abusers play, because the woman he battered happened to be one of the most famous women in the world, which is why he got such a hefty sentence of probation. Probation seems hefty, because most abusers face no consequences at all. Whatever hatred Chris Brown has received has rallied his fans and doesn't seem to have hurt his career very much. Put in a global perspective, Chris Brown is one of the most privileged people alive. To ask whether an equally popular, young, white male celebrity would receive the same animosity or even publicity after beating a female celebrity as popular as Rihanna...well, it gives us something to think about, I guess. But it also distracts from what actually happened, and how routinely it happens to women of every race, background, socio-economic class, etc. And, most of the time, it comes pretty damn close to an apology for intimate-partner abuse and systemic misogyny. It seems like anyone interested in promoting social justice could use this story to educate people about abuse. Abuse is endemic to our society, but most people remain ignorant about it. Racism is endemic, too, of course, but there is at least some awareness and some progress, at least enough that it doesn't make sense to ignore, excuse, or downplay such an egregious example of abuse (threatening and battering a woman, leaving her for dead, making misogynistic comments, and playing the victim in the aftermath) for the sake of drawing attention to a possibility of subtle expressions of racism (Gawker coverage, Twitter animus, etc.).

This has been my favorite week of this podcast. Christian was a great guest!

I don't know what the original poster said about Matt using improv4humans as a "bully pulpit," but I think it's worth mentioning that the phrase "bully pulpit" has nothing to do with "bullying." The "bully," there, is the outdated definition, meaning something good ("Bully for you!"). The phrase means that a person uses his/her position in the public eye to promote his/her beliefs or agenda. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'd even argue that comedians should do it! Comedy is often more enlightening and persuasive than serious arguments could be.

Shelly Driftwood is my new favorite storyteller.

Thank you, Marissa Wompler!

It would be unreasonable to demand perfect moral agreement, but there's a line somewhere, right? If it were a white artist chanting, "N*****s ain't shit," would you be endorsing it enthusiastically as one of the all time great hooks? I don't need to be morally aligned with my music. I'd just rather not be disgusted by it.

Help me out, though. Why are you comfortable with it? Do you agree with the sentiment of the song? Would you be okay with a song that used a racial slur in the same way, as long as it was catchy?

Shots Fired is one of my favorite podcasts, but y'all are way off when it comes to misogyny on The Chronic, and in rap music in general. The comparison to slasher flicks rings hollow: people don't imitate slasher flicks the way kids in the '90s (self included) repeated misogynistic and homophobic lines from The Chronic and other hip-hop albums. You played a chant from the album, "B****es ain't s***..." That doesn't bother you? I love hip-hop, and I always have, but as I've grown up it's become harder to overlook the hateful lyrics that are in so much of it. I imagine many share this sentiment. I'd love to hear you guys really wrestle with that subject rather than defending it or dismissing it.