The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Rihanna

Re: Rihanna

thewayoftheid — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:17:42 -0000

Overall, what I'm saying is that I feel Rihanna has received some criticism for not handling her crisis with more grace and aplomb. And that's ridiculous. Of course her journey through this has been imperfect and messy. People are like that. Survivors should get more credit for simply surviving, however they do it, rather than be criticized for not surviving better.

No argument here. You'll have to pardon my skepticism, as I'm accustomed to some celebrities peddling tragedy in order to stay relevant.

Re: Rihanna

sk — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:39:09 -0000

I actually feel protective of Rihanna on this point. I don't think a celebrity (or anyone, really) should be forced to be a spokesperson for a cause or be criticized if they choose not to act as a role model. For one thing, no one can be a good spokesperson or role model unless they really want to do it themselves. I understand that people were eager for Rihanna to speak out against domestic violence because she could help get the message out to young women. But that can't take precedence over her responsibility to take care of herself. You have to take care of yourself first before you can be of any help to others. (Like with the oxygen masks on airplanes.) And I don't see how she could have been able to say anything coherent about her experience shortly after the abuse happened. She had to figure things out for herself before she could say anything about it. It's been what? six months since Chris beat her up? I'd say that's pretty quick.

I don't really get what you mean by calling this disingenuous because her album's coming out. That she's using her abuse to sell records? Or that she's only talking about the abuse because she can't do publicity for the album and avoid questions about Chris? I'd say that if we want celebrities to use their voices to champion causes, then we can't complain too much about the machinations of the celebrity-industrial-complex that give them that voice.

Overall, what I'm saying is that I feel Rihanna has received some criticism for not handling her crisis with more grace and aplomb. And that's ridiculous. Of course her journey through this has been imperfect and messy. People are like that. Survivors should get more credit for simply surviving, however they do it, rather than be criticized for not surviving better.

Re: Rihanna

stellar — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:16:34 -0000

F love.

I don't really have anything to add to the insight and experience contributed here. Other than to say what I found astonishing about the Rihanna interview was her acceptance of this responsibility she feels she has above and beyond what she felt was 'love' for Chris Brown. Except I don't know if what she was feeling was really 'love'. I haven't been in this exact situation - but I have been in intense personal relationship situations where I was calling something 'love' which in retrospect wasn't really love, but just kind of a desperate neediness and codependence. Did Chris Brown feel he still love Rihanna even as he beat her? Sure, probably. The proverbial thin line and all that. I'm not sure we know a lot of time what we mean when we use and think about that word love - but I do know we are looking to make sense out of something irrational and so powerful to the point that it is taking us over. But I guess this is all pretty self evident and obvious.

Re: Rihanna

sk — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:57:55 -0000

Am I missing something? Your post makes it sound like Rihanna is still with Chris Brown, but I thought she did (eventually) leave him.

Re: Rihanna

wiliwili — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:50:15 -0000

slightly off the greater topic, but it was on this very blog (in the comments section) that I read a great description of the difference between dems/repubs that's related. It was that BOTH democrats and republicans think hard work is necessary for success, but republicans think it's sufficient.

Re: Rihanna

Alisa — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:56:47 -0000

Yep, I should have clarified, because you sort of talk about responsibility in this post, but I guess there's more to say about "personal responsibility" as a political term, often deployed by conservatives and, with a different subtext, nationalists. Meaning, the idea that oppressed individuals need to take personal responsibility for their own failings and poor choices. Spokespeople for this view include Bill Cosby, Black Republicans, maybe Linda Hirshman, I guess. (I still think Malcolm's view is more complex, though.)

In this post, you say that it's your people that keep you in line. That makes sense. But what about when you fall off the line? How do you deploy the analysis in this post to describe how to think of the agent's culpability when she messes up? What if she's hurting others? How does responsibility play out then?

I was listening to a feminist philosopher, Marilyn Friedman, discuss how to measure the culpability of domestic violence survivors who are arrested for not protecting their kids from the abuser. I didn't like her discussion b/c it seemed predicated on a strict view of individual agency and, therefore, survivors were already going to be constructed as criminal because of the absurd situation of dv. If survivors always had the "choice" to leave, and the kids were hurt as a result of them choosing not to leave, then it follows that they will always already be responsible for the abuse of those children.

I think, based on reading your blog, you have a strong intuition that goes something like: "Black people! Get it together! Take care of your business!" Which, of course, I love and cheer on. However, if we hold that agency as socially constituted, is there a tension if we can't yet conceptualize the sociality of accountability?

Re: Rihanna

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:52:30 -0000

I don't really know what else to say. This post is a direct response to those discussions. It begins:

I've talked some about this case, and the broader issues it raised. I feel a little stupid about doing that now. In one post I used nationalism to explain why I tended to focus on agency and responsibility. But what I missed is how community works in the notion of responsibility.

And then proceeds from to expound on what was missed. If it's unclear, I'll gladly explain...

Re: Rihanna

Alisa — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:16:19 -0000

Ta-Nehisi,

You know, we had this debate about the sociality of individual agency back in April in the comments section of this post:

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/04/rambling_rambling_and_more_rambling.php

But you were focused on the problem of "personal responsibility." I'm wondering if, now that you agree that individual agency is socially constituted, your views have about "personal responsibility" have also been impacted.

Re: Rihanna

jenawesome — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:28:19 -0000

that's the key to it all. no one should be allowed to hit any other person out of anger.

Re: Rihanna

thewayoftheid — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:44:03 -0000

I do have to say, though, that I wish she'd come forward with this story sooner. With her album dropping in a few weeks, it comes off a bit disingenuous.

Re: Rihanna

lebecka — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:10:49 -0000

Usually, the men are strong enough to neutralize the woman without hitting her. I am a tall, strong woman, but my brother (even taller and stronger) or my husband (shorter, but immensely more powerful) could stop me by simply gripping onto my wrist and stepping out of my reach. (I have actual experience of this with my brother as teenagers, many, many years in the past!)

i think the men in this situation could also have defused the situation by walking away (stop talking and she will stop too eventually), leaving the house, or if there are kids involved and he doesn't want to leave them with an insanely angry woman, pushing her out of the house with her coat to cool down. then call the police.

These men need to understand that nobody is allowed to hit them, either.

Re: Rihanna

shmoo — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:57:11 -0000

What funkasmellic said--there's no good excuse for a man to hit a woman, ever.

Re: Rihanna

lebecka — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:53:35 -0000

It's hard to watch someone, even if you don't know them personally, walk back willingly into an abusive situation. I want to run up to that girl and hug her, and try to get her to understand that even if its hard for her to walk away, it will be harder for him to change. I hope it doesn't take a broken arm or knocked out teeth to get her to realize he is not likely to stop hitting her.

I don't think that all abusive men are monsters (although they are certainly doing something monstrous). I think they are unhappy, self-centered, self-indulgent, demanding-- the list can go on. Going back to a man who already hit you is giving him permission to do it again. I think that's what makes this whole situation so hard to watch.

Re: Rihanna

CGinWI — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:38:29 -0000

Bingo.

Re: Rihanna

silentbeep — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:32:44 -0000

"Individual agency isn't very individual at all. It depends on the village."

So freakin' good. This.

And this insight is why i can never entirely jump on the libertarian/ayn rand sympathizer wagon.

Re: Rihanna

thewayoftheid — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:57:57 -0000

Can't think of anything to add. Brilliant post.

Re: Rihanna

funkasmellic — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:50:16 -0000

If by "put his hands on a woman" they mean hit a woman, then I absolutely agree. There's never any real excuse for letting things escalate to that point, even if it feels like self-defense--it's a situation that's gone way out of control already, and violence just becomes a convenient rationalization.

About the only thing I could condone in a volatile domestic situation, and have had personal experience with, is possibly having to restrain someone momentarily if they are in danger of hurting themselves or someone else (e.g., me) or throwing or breaking something. But after that, it's time to cool out, diffuse the situation, and if necessary, to just leave. There's never any excuse to hit.

Re: Rihanna

Jimmy D — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:41:57 -0000

Bootstrapping, self-determination, etc.. I swear people that think they got where they are on their own are either blind or ungrateful. No one does it alone (maybe with exceptions, but I doubt it). No matter how small the support group, everyone that makes it has one. Be it a determined mother, or a whole family, a teacher, or just a solid group of friends, or even just one friend - we all had help along the way.

I am thankful to this day that I didn't read Ayn Rand in high school. At the time I had just turned my life around and started accomplishing things instead of underachieving. I would have eaten that crap up. I was already prone to it - enjoying the pats on the back, yeah, look at what I did. Looking back it is so painfully obvious all the help I received from parents, coaches, siblings and friends. But it could have been so easy to think I did it all on my own. To take credit when it was due to so many others. I may have been the one reading the books, but it was everyone else that talked me into that first page.

Re: Rihanna

sv — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:39:46 -0000

I feel a little dumb saying this but the part about community, about feeling the sort of shame you're *supposed* to feel in front of that community and family when you do something wrong, and how that guides us to do right, holds just as true if one is neither black nor particularly oppressed. In other words it seems like you started out talking about one thing - a community of the oppressed and how shame is a shared thing in that situation - and ended up talking about how communal values and family honor, or the desire not to dishonor one's family or fail to live up to your parents' expectations, is the way in which personal shame in front of that community and familiy works to keep us in line sometimes. Certainly that last point is one I really feel you on.

Re: Rihanna

Jrob — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:40:18 -0000

Before I start my comment I need to first say that I do not condone abuse towards women.

I have been thinking about this topic for awhile, even before the Chris Brown incident. My idea of abuse towards women is when a man physically imposes his will on a female. Imposing his will could be considered severe anger, frustration with his own life, or some type of psychological problem. To my own logic it sounds like Chris Brown fits into that definition. I feel he needs intense counseling, but because of his age. I am not ready to put him in the same category as someone like O.J.

In this country we have a tendency to label all acts against women in one category, which I think over simplifies the situation. For example, What about a man who is an attentive boyfriend/husband and for some reason a woman starts a fight. During this fight she starts throwing plates or what ever she can get her hands on. Then she starts to hit the man. In his defense the man hits the woman, and then the police get involved. I have heard of many examples of this and since laws of abuse against woman are so strong in many states the man gets arrested. Should the man really be considered an abuser? It is my opinion that question is no. But many woman consider a man should not put his hands on woman period.

While speaking to women I hear many say that a man should never put his hands on woman period. Again I am not condoning abuse towards women I just feel that all situations should not be lumped into one category.

Re: Rihanna

ellaesther — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:39:10 -0000

Individual agency isn't very individual at all. It depends on the village.

This is one of those TNC lines that I'm going to be quoting all over the place now. Because that's it, man.

I spent years working with rape survivors, and, probably like a lot of middle-aged women, have spent years talking with loved ones in abusive circumstances -- and even they, even the people who have known that help is available and have sought it and have found it, even they have such an enormous struggle with the expectations and norms that surround them, and the complete sense of isolation that they carry with them, around them, like a bubble. There's a reason that abusers work so hard to isolate those they abuse.

Thanks, again, Ta-Nehisi. There are very few men out there who write with such honesty about women's issues and their understanding of those issues.

Re: Rihanna

Dan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:33:58 -0000

To your the about community, it's the "birds of a feather", "company you keep" syndromes that Grandmama talked about.

By growing up with or surrounding yourself with people that share your determination and will to achieve, your journey is not alone. You've shared that path with others, with each person contributing to the success of the whole.

No man is an island unto himself.

Re: Rihanna

Jess — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:56:30 -0000

"Individual agency isn't very individual at all. It depends on the village."

THIS.

I may be a little off-topic here, but this is what bootstrapping conservatives don't get, I think. They look at someone like, say President Obama, and think "well, raised by single mom, obviously not wealthy, if he can get to where he is, why can't everyone else?" and I don't think they realize how important a support network is, and how crippling it can be if you don't have a good one.

Also, I think the bootstrapping idea, in some ways, trivializes people who do manage to "rise from nothing," because it seems to not acknowledge just how truly exceptional those folks are.

I'm not sure any of that makes sense on the outside of my head, but I needed to say it. It's kind of one my buttons.

Re: Rihanna

TigerLily — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:55:41 -0000

Rihanna's 21. Chris Brown is 20.

Re: Rihanna

Persia — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:46:55 -0000

It's funny, maybe it's because they're so young, but I worry about them, mostly her, but him too, because I hope he doesn't want to be a monster. It feels really personal to me, and I'm not sure why it hits home more this time.