Slut shaming, porny pop stars and Rashida Jones

I've been thinking a lot about slut-shaming over the past few months, possibly more so than usual because I've had my first unpleasant experiences of it in my own life, and nothing makes you realise how the personal really is political quite like your personal experience of being negatively labelled by other women. Rashida Jones learned the hard way that people are a lot less tolerant of public slut-shaming these days when she tweeted "This week's celeb news takeaway: She who comes closest to showing the actual inside of her vagina is most popular. #stopactinglikewhores".

 

Naturally there's been some major facepalms, a lot of vocal objection and many articulate takedowns from the feminist community on why Jones' choice of words and targets were extremely ill-judged, so I don't feel like there's a lot to add to it. However, when I read Jones' response in Glamour magazine, I did find myself agreeing with some of her points. I certainly don't agree with all of it, especially the unfortunate decision to use Lily Allen's recent cringeworthy video in her defence. I also don't buy her claim that she wasn't hating on sex workers by connoting 'whores' with despicable, undesirable, anti-feminist behaviour. I think she was probably just using the word without even thinking, so entrenched in our culture is a hatred and suspicion of women who don't have sex in the same way as us (i.e. those who have 'too much' sex, or too little, or kinky sex, or sex with women, or sex for money). I think that, unfortunately, much as I can believe that she really is trying to be a feminist, in using the word 'whores' to condemn other women, Jones has fallen victim to the kind of respectability politics that I wrote about in my last post, the ones which make women clamour to differentiate themselves from "other" women who are too slutty/fat/poor/working class/whatever just in order to get a pat on the head from society.

 

All this said, I do feel Jones is right on the money when she says "...let's be real. Every woman's sexuality is different. Can all of us really be into stripper moves? The truth is, for every woman who loves the pole, there's another who likes her feet rubbed. But in pop culture there's just one way to be. And so much of it feels staged for men, not for our own pleasure". I agree with these words so much, but I feel wrong-footed by the fact that this kind of thinking often comes from anti-porn, anti-sex work feminists (sex-negative, if you will). I feel like as a sex-positive feminist, I often end up stuck between a rock and a hard place when I try to suggest that there must be a middle ground between draconian, right-wing censorship and neoliberal acceptance of the total pornification of culture. Yes, I want to see female sexuality celebrated rather than shamed. But as Jones points out, what we're seeing is not real female sexuality - it's prepackaged, heterosexual, slim, white (or occasionally, horrendously stereotyped hypersexual bootylicious black), abled-bodied, young, cisgendered sexuality. It's hairless, it's odourless, it's flawless. It's also soulless, and bears very little relation to the experiences or bodies of the vast majority of women in the world.

 

You may say it's not my right to decide what version of sexuality is 'acceptable', and while that's true, I think it's just utterly insincere of any feminist to pretend that the saturation of popular culture with the same tedious writhing, panting image of female sexuality is not problematic. Yes, I want to support other women's right to do whatever the fuck they please and not be judged for it. I may not like what other women choose to do with that right, I might not even like the women themselves, but none of that should matter. Men enjoy the privilege of the unexamined life - when did you last hear a man upbraid Robin Thicke for 'letting the side down' by being such a consistently sleazy douchebag? - and if we want true equality, we should be supporting the right of women to make their own choices, even make their own mistakes, free of finger-wagging from the sisterhood.

 

But. But but but. I remain sceptical of 'choice feminism' precisely because no choice takes place in a vacuum, and as I pointed out in a recent post, this supposed 'freedom' that Miley, Britney, Beyoncé, Rihanna et al are supposed to be emblems of actually boils down to the freedom "to wear little, say even less and do whatever's going to sell records." And yes, those women have the right to do all that without judgement, but don't call that a feminist victory. Call it a capitalist victory, call it a neoliberal victory. Call it evidence that pop culture is ultimately about nothing but the lowest common denominator. But until Janelle Monae appears on my video screen in a tuxedo as often as Rihanna does while clothed in a few scraps of cloth, or Adele is considered as sexy as Miley, don't tell me feminism still doesn't have far to travel. Female pop stars are doing what they can within the restrictive parameters they're allowed, and fair play to them - it's not up to them to carry the weight of responsibility to all women on their shoulders, and Rashida Jones may well have missed the point and fucked off a lot of people in the process of expecting them to. But she was right to point out that it's utterly fucked up that women in the public eye are still offered such limited choices if they want to be successful, and she was right to demand better.

Chris Brown, Trolling and Forgiveness

(This piece was also reprinted over at Independent Voices)

Anyone who has a passing association with social media will probably be aware that singer Chris Brown has suspended his Twitter account after hurling misogynistic and sexualised insults at comedian Jenny Johnson. To see the full transcript of Brown's NSFW tweets, you can go here, and it's likely you will be pretty disgusted. A few brave commentators have pointed out that Johnson has been aiming derogatory comments at Brown ever since his 2009 conviction for his vicious assault against then-partner Rihanna, and that she started this particular exchange by calling him a 'worthless piece of shit'. Others have added that this is mere publicity-seeking on the part of Johnson. But even if it is, Brown's reponse - where he threatens to defecate in Johnson's eye/mouth, calls her a 'worthless bitch' 'a bushpig' and tells her to 'suck my dick YOU HOE' (sic) - has proven exactly what Johnson and countless other appalled women and men have been saying for years. Namely that, far from being a 'reformed character' just because he 'served his sentence' (and more on why that's SUCH an inadequate defence, later), Brown remains a total misogynist, and one with a frightening lack of self-awareness to boot.

Twitter trolls are at best annoying, and at worst severely disruptive to one's life and sanity. However, the solution to them remains in our hands - ignore and block. Brown could have blocked Johnson long ago, but egotist that he is, he chose to engage and show his true colours instead. He could have responded with some dignity or at least attempted to defend himself in a reasoned way. But I guess a man who bites, punches and throttles a woman while screaming "I'm going to kill you!" perhaps isn't particularly schooled in the nuances of having a mature debate with another person, and not using any excuse to rise to the bait. While I don't believe in 'trial by social media', I do believe in winding your bloody neck in when the thing you're most renowned for is a vile, violent, inexcusable assault on the person you're supposed to love, rather than repeatedly behaving like an obnoxious twat and then making out you're just soooo bafflingly oppressed by 'haterz'. And don't even get me started on Brown's use of social media to label his legion of followers 'Team Breezy', as if to somehow imply that his crimes are something that we should all be 'super casual' and 'mellow' about.

To those then, who will inevitably come back with the 'He served his sentence and said he was sorry' defence, sorry but no dice. That defence will only stand when we live in a world where violence against women is adequately punished, and all the evidence at hand shows that this is far from the case. I remember over a decade ago, how Mike Tyson's supporters clamoured to defend him when he was barred from entering Britain on grounds of his rape conviction. Women and men were vox-popped on the evening news bleating 'But he's done his time, forget it, move on'. Oh sure, Tyson did his time for raping Desiree Washington. He was sentenced to 6 years, but served 3. If you were an average sized woman forced into sex by someone with the physical strength, power and capacity for violence of Mike Tyson, would you think that an adequate sentence? Not to mention if you had to go through the media circus and complete annihilation of your character that would follow the (extremely brave) action of accusing one of the world's most famous and admired men, as Tyson was at the time? It's pitiful, that out of the very few rape cases that actually reach court, sentences remain so light, and it defies logic to think that a man who thinks he can use force to dominate a woman is going to be magically reformed by undergoing such a sentence.

This is illustrated perfectly by Chris Brown's behaviour. His sentence was a joke, and whatever public 'apology' he was forced to issue for PR reasons, his behaviour since 2009 implies he is utterly unremorseful. He served no jail time, and got a mere 5 year's probation with 6 months community labour. Reading the description of the frenzied, possibly murderous assault Brown unleashed on Rihanna, I think most of us would agree that this is in no way proportionate to the terror and pain his victim underwent and will probably continue to undergo in the aftermath. When someone punches you repeatedly in the head and then squeezes on your carotid artery while you scream for help, you don't just get over that overnight, or in a year, or even five years. I'd wager it stays with you for life. 

And whether Rihanna herself appears forgiving of Brown is irrelevant. We've all heard the term Stockholm Syndrome, and anyone who has done the slightest bit of research on domestic violence, or worse, experienced it themselves, will tell you that victims regularly defend and make excuses for their attacker. Even if Rihanna and Brown actually do start up a relationship again, this is in no way evidence that Brown is magically 'reformed', and could end up being quite the opposite - the average domestic abuse victim will leave their abuser only to return to them 7 times before managing to leave for good. It's also worth bearing in mind that domestic abuse victims will usually endure repeated beatings before even calling the police. Had Brown's attack on Rihanna not occurred in public, whereby worried bystanders overheard Rihanna's screams and called the police, the story could have played out very differently. Brown's victim deciding she wants to forgive him or still wants to be in a relationship with him does not negate what he did, or improve his character, or erase the surrounding culture of victim-blaming and apologism for violence against women.

Ah yes, that culture. That culture whereby a rich, powerful man who is looked up to by millions describes another man's violence against a woman as a 'mistake' and demands that we give that man 'a break'. That culture whereby Rihanna being punched, choked and bitten is merely a punchline in a primetime panel quiz show  (which was also tastefully broadcast on International Stop Violence Against Women Day), and where complaints against such filth are dismissed on grounds of 'varying tastes of humour'. In such a culture, there is no punishment harsh enough, no disgust deep enough, no grudge held long enough against the likes of Brown. Served his time, my backside. And if you think I'm being unfair, imagine what happened to Rihanna happening to your wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter, mother or friend, and tell me how forgiving you'd feel four years later, when the man who had beaten, strangled and bloodied the woman you care about is rich, successful and hurling vile abuse at another woman on social media. Somehow I doubt you'd be rushing to defend delusional misogynist Brown either.

Read more celebrity gossip at: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2009/08/chris-brown-assault-rihanna-details-domestic-violence-history-past/#ixzz2DKWx0hNn

her mouth to fill with blood and blood to splatter over her clothing and the inside of the car."

Read more celebrity gossip at: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2009/08/chris-brown-assault-rihanna-details-domestic-violence-history-past/#ixzz2DKWx0hNn

her mouth to fill with blood and blood to splatter over her clothing and the inside of the car."

Read more celebrity gossip at: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2009/08/chris-brown-assault-rihanna-details-domestic-violence-history-past/#ixzz2DKWx0hN"I'm going to kill you!"

Pah.

A few weeks ago, I sent a complaint to the BBC after watching David Walliams on 'Never Mind The Buzzcocks' make a joke about the Chris Brown/Rihanna domestic violence situation. His words were "Unlucky things for Rihanna include black cats, walking under ladders, and burning Chris Brown's dinner" - a reference to the fact that earlier this year, Brown attacked Rihanna, biting and punching her in the face until her mouth filled with blood. Nice work, Mr Walliams. Not only have you made light of an issue that kills two women a week in this country, perpetuated gender stereotypes about female servitude and implied that domestic violence is the fault of some minor 'slight' on the part of the victim, but you managed to do it on International Stop Violence Against Women day. I don't care if he's an 'alternative comedian' with a reputation for 'edgy jokes'. I don't care if he spends most of his comedic career mocking or caricaturing the female form. But I do care when he thinks that taking the piss out of an issue that is already not taken seriously enough, is funny and OK. So I complained in the strongest terms.

Here's the response I received:

Dear Ms Scott

Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Never Mind the Buzzcocks' broadcast on 25 November.

I understand you felt David Walliams made light of domestic violence, making a joke about Rihanna being assaulted by Chris Brown. I note you felt it was particularly wrong as it was broadcast on International Stop Violence Against Women day.

As a public service financed by the licence fee we must provide programmes which cater for the whole range of tastes in humour. We believe that there's no single set of standards in this area on which the whole of society can agree, and it's inevitable that programmes which are acceptable to some will occasionally strike others as distasteful. The only realistic and fair approach for us is to ensure that the range of comedy is broad enough for all viewers to feel that they're catered for at least some of the time.

Nevertheless I assure you that it was never our intention to case any offence and I regret any you may've been caused. With your complaint in mind I'd like to take this opportunity to assure you that I've recorded your comments onto our audience log. This is an internal daily report of audience feedback which is circulated to many BBC staff including senior management, producers and channel controllers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks again for contacting us with your thoughts.

Regards

Ciaran McConnell
BBC Complaints

 

So, apart from one tiny concession in the form of a vague promise that my comments might be seen by senior management and used to 'shape decisions about future programming', I get diddly squat in the way of actual redress. Had Walliams' comments been racist or homophobic, I can see them causing much more of a furore. When Anton Du Beke told Laila Rouass she 'looked like a Paki' on an episode of Strictly Come Dancing, the stink made the front page of several newspapers, and Du Beke was forced to make a statement apologising. There was no attempt by the BBC to defend Du Beke on the grounds that 'there's no single set of standards upon which society can agree' ergo racism is fine, no recourse to this disingenuous form of cultural relativism that the media resorts to in defence of misogyny time and again. Just because there'll always be a vile minority who thinks that racism, homophobia or misogyny are fine, does not absolve the rest of us from all responsibility from challenging them. Yes, the BNP had to be given a spot on Question Time if we really do consider ourselves to have a free press in this country, but that also meant they were thrown open to the powerful challenges, and sometimes outright abuse, that they deserved and so rightly got. Why, then, is a powerful and popular comedian, allowed to go unchallenged in his mockery of violence against women? Is being anti-misogyny not chic or 'edgy' enough for the BBC? Are they less afraid of being seen to be misogynist because feminists aren't likely to send a suicide bomber round their way, whereas racism and religious hatred has already been seen to generate plenty of extreme violence?

I'm disappointed, but in no way surprised. A cowardly response from a cowardly organisation, and an insult to women from a man who has, ironically, spent his career appropriating femininity and effeminate behaviour for his own ends.