In the almost two weeks since his Thanksgiving weekend car crash, much has been speculated about the state of Tiger Woods's marriage...and the reason for the crash itself. (In a press conference last week, the Florida Highway patrol announced that its representatives saw no evidence of anything but reckless driving and, in a statement a few days later, Woods confessed to "transgressions.")

Of course, Tiger's reported infidelity and problems with his wife are private matters, but matters that filtered through to the public consciousness long ago. Nothing better epitomizes this than this past Saturday's SNL skit with Keenan Thompson playing Tiger Woods and Blake Lively as his wife Elin.

The skit moves the assumptions about what happened to Tiger Woods three steps forward. "Elin" is shown standing behind Woods at a press conference, during which Woods makes increasingly feeble excuses as to his battered state, finally holding up a sign saying "help me." Many of the excuses the writers provide are classic lines from the domestic violence "script" ("I fell down the stairs...") and Elin hovering behind him menacingly is supposed to add to the laughs.

Obviously, many people found this funny. But in the context of how we talk about domestic violence in this country, I found it downright depressing. It's hard enough to get these sorts of conversation going without a catalyst - reports on domestic violence often go unremarked upon, and unless there is a celebrity hook, most news outlets will not spend much time going into detail about those reports. And, as we saw in the case of Chris Brown and Rihanna - the latter was the musical guest on SNL, as Hortense pointed out - even if it eventually emerges that domestic violence did occur in a high-profile couple, most of the public conversation revolves around blaming the victim and trying to silence discussion entirely. But, as Elizabeth Mendez Barry wrote over on The New Agenda, the way in which we frame such conversations has a great many unintended consequences:

The Bloods have a strict policy against domestic violence. That's what a 16-year-old male affiliate proudly told me last year before a weekly "gang awareness" meeting of about fifteen teens, most of them Crips, Bloods or Latin Kings, at a high school in Castle Hill, the Bronx. That week, the topic was domestic violence, and several members of the group, including the 16-year-old, said that hitting a woman was never acceptable. Others argued that there were situations where it just couldn't be helped.

The conversation turned to an article I had written about domestic violence in the hip hop industry for Vibe. The rapper Big Pun grew up near the high school, and his devastating abuse of his wife (which started when the couple was just 16) was described in the piece. "I heard she cheated on him," said the only young woman in the group, and others repeated some of the many rumors that swirled around Pun's wife when she told her story (up until then she had been Soundview's favorite widow). Several people enthusiastically launched into scenarios where it was OK to hit a woman. There were many. The bottom line: sometimes you've got to teach a woman a lesson if she gets out of line. It sounded like a man's responsibility.

In the midst of the rationalizing, one usually talkative young man stood up and walked out. When he returned twenty minutes later, he quietly told the group that his aunt had recently been murdered by her abusive boyfriend. It was no longer a hypothetical conversation. The jokes stopped. Young men who were significantly invested in their inner gangsters gave them time off, and started talking about how domestic violence had affected their lives–and it had affected most of them. The young woman, who minutes before had been arguing in favor of beating females who didn't know their place, talked about how despite the rules, male gang members beat up on female gang members. Behind her swagger, she seemed anxious.

Why discuss teenage gang members when the issue at hand is a couple of unaffiliated celebrities? Because frank conversations like the one I described are rare, but they're crucial to stopping relationship violence and healing the wounds it inflicts not just on its victims, but on their families, and even on abusers, many of whom grew up in abusive households themselves. Because of one young man's honesty about his own experiences, everyone else anted up. The conversation got past knee jerk reactions, and revealed some of the pain lurking behind them. It certainly didn't resolve all the issues that came up, but it was a start that gave a group of teens an opportunity to share the conflicting emotions they had about the issue.

Teenagers and children are listening to how we treat these conversations. With Chris Brown and Rihanna, many different groups, writers, and bloggers spoke out against victim blaming, about stereotyping based on race or nationality and about quickly forcing someone into the advocate role.

With Tiger Woods it's a bit more difficult. It's true that we do not know exactly what happened, in large part because Woods and his family aren't elaborating and, perhaps more importantly, because the State of Florida sees no further reason to suspect domestic violence. Thing is, with skits like the one shown on SNL, the message being sent is that it is okay to joke about punishing men with force. That it's understandable for women to react to allegations of infidelity with violence. Such demonstrations tell us that men bearing the brunt of a woman's rage should be the subject of laughter, not concern.

Some, of course, won't see what the big deal is. Admittedly, I didn't either - until recently. I was walking through New York one night with a friend when we passed a heterosexual couple who appeared to be having an argument - but with an inverted dynamic. In this case, the male (who was taller and heavier set than the woman) was trying to retreat while the female aggressively screamed, pulled and tugged at him. I sighed and kept going. After we got about a block up the street, my friend stopped me. "I'm sorry, and I'm sorry for dragging you into this, but we really have to go back." She explained that her brother was in a situation with an ex-girlfriend that was violent and full of manipulation, but that neither police, nor his apartment security took seriously the fact that his petite ex-girlfriend was out to do him bodily harm. "I have to help," she pressed. We turned around. Standing on the corner closest to the still-warring couple, she asked, "I'm sorry to be intrusive, but do you need any help?"

"Mind your business bitch!" shouted the woman, now trying to leap onto the man's back.

"Yes, I do," he said. The woman hit him.

For the next twenty minutes, the four of us engaged in horrible game of frogger: my friend and I would flag down a cab, and the woman would physically block the man from getting in and leaving the scene. Repeatedly, he lifted his hands, making sure to announce loudly "I am not touching you, I am not trying to touch you, please let me get in the cab."

Occasionally, the woman would remember we were around and would scream at us to leave - she was insistent that he come home with her and not to his house. After the third pissed off cabdriver left with no charge, we decided to call the police. The man didn't want us to leave and the woman showed no signs of giving in. When the cops showed up a few minutes later, one of the officers rolled his eyes. We left.

Even with that experience, I might have not taken violence against men seriously - except for the fact that it kept cropping up in seemingly strange places. A coworker laughed off a prominent mark on his face with a bashful, "oh, you know the wife." A friend asked me to accompany him to pick up his child in an increasingly rancorous (and increasingly violent) shared custody situation. Another coworker initiated divorce proceedings when the honeymoon went sour and his wife started taking literal bites out of his skin.

I know many people will shrug this off as well - but it's worth asking why we sweep violence against women under the rug, and play violence against men for laughs, but are still too afraid to risk confronting any of these issues directly. Saturday Night Live writers: I'm asking you first.

Update: TMZ reports that The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence is not pleased:

During the show, the audience laughs, but Smith claims, "There's nothing funny about this story, particularly if violence was part of the events that took place ... I hope that SNL refrains from using this kind of skit in the future as it diminishes people's support for victims of domestic violence."

Beyond Gossip, Good and Evil [The New Agenda]
Domestic Violence Group Rips SNL's Tiger Sketch [TMZ]

Earlier: SNL Brings Us "Shy Ronnie," The Salahis, And Gossip Girl: Staten Island
Game Over: Woods Charged With Reckless Driving; No Evidence Of Domestic Violence
"Some Simple, Human Measure Of Privacy": A Textual Analysis Of Tiger Woods

In yet another softball interview regarding Brown's brutal attack on ex-girlfriend Rihanna earlier this year, Robin Roberts sat down with the oh-so-redeemed R&B star to discuss the abuse, the fallout from the abuse, how he made Rihanna cry with a song she claims she's never heard before, and and perhaps most importantly, to promote his new album and show off his dope sneaker collection. Isn't he the coolest, you guys?!

Brown seems to take a great deal of pride in the fact that he made Rihanna cry with the song he wrote for her, as if it's some great accomplishment on his part that he was able to evoke an emotional response from a woman he beat horribly just months earlier. Whether or not Rihanna has heard the song is unclear, but the point is that she said she didn't, and Brown still insists on undermining her interview in order to promote himself as some romantic savior with magical songwriting healing powers.

It is a quality in Brown that seems to come out in every interview he gives on the issue: he's sorry for "what happened" or "what went down" (he never seems to actually say, "I'm sorry for beating/physically assaulting my ex-girlfriend") and plays himself up as some angelic changed man who should be commended for writing apologetic love songs and going through mandatory community service and domestic violence classes. As Chris Richards of the Washington Post writes, since the assault, "the 20-year-old Brown has shown various faces to the media — flip, contrite, smug, confused — apologizing at every turn while still seeming not to fully grasp the severity of his misdeeds."

But why shouldn't Chris Brown be smug? Why shouldn't he sit there in that chair and gleefully report that he made Rihanna cry with his song? With networks continually giving him and his album a promotional faux-contrition platform, why shouldn't Brown seize the spotlight and play the role he seems best at playing as of late: the brand new man, who surely has, as Roberts breathlessly adds in a post-interview voiceover as his new video plays in the background, become someone whose lyrics show "lessons learned and love lost." Ah yes, lessons learned and love lost. For what truly sums up the effects and fall out of domestic violence, not only on those involved but on society as a whole as well as "love lost," right?

We are all supposed to forgive Brown: he has paid his dues and given his apologies. Even Rihanna wants to move on at this point. But none of this makes it okay for networks to continually hand Brown a platform to show the world what a super guy he is and how his new album is going to wash away his sins. The message everyone is sending is that it's perfectly okay to beat the living hell out of someone and return to glory less than a year later, thanks to a few classes, a few half-ass apologies, and a song or two. It isn't a new message: we've seen it before and surely we'll see it again. Could Brown really be sorry? Could he really have changed? Perhaps. Forgiveness and change exist, but they're a tough sell when promoting your new record seems to be the push behind them, an lately it seems that everyone is giving him a spotlight and an invitation to return before he's shown any honest signs of deserving it.

Onstage, At Least, Chris Brown Has Nothing To Apologize For [WashingtonPost]

Wise probably deserves no moral consideration for hacking into other women's voicemails because some of them had the temerity to get themselves involved with men Wise herself had dated. (In one case, not until two years after Wise's relationship with the man in question had ended.) Even if it was not illegal  and Wise is defending the charges  it was wrong, and she must have known it at the time. An unlovable woman with a nasty habit of violating other women's privacy: this is textbook Internet-enabled girl-on-girl crime, with the salacious hell-hath-no-fury element thrown in as extra tabloid bait. No wonder "sources" are now calling her "radioactive in the industry."

A former Dolce & Gabbana publicist, Wise was arrested this summer for allegedly hacking into the voicemail of Munich-born Nina Freudenberger, an interior designer whose clientele includes many of Manhattan's elite. Freudenberger became involved with Josh Deutsch, the founder of Downtown Records, who had once been Wise's boyfriend. The criminal complaint details 337 individual calls Wise made, via an online number-masking service called SpoofCard, into Freudenberger's voicemail.

This was not isolated behavior. When the District Attorney added three new victims to the case yesterday, he alleged that Wise accessed a second victim's voicemail 137 times. And to have targeted a third victim 119 times. And a fourth one at least 102 times. Wise is said to have also harassed coworkers and friends; anonymous sources have whispered to Page Six about restraining orders Wise was subject to, about anonymous online comments and threatening e-mails. She targeted not just Deutsch's exes, but also women involved with Jason Pomeranc, a hotelier Wise had a long, on-again, off-again relationship with.

All told, Police say she used the SpoofCard service over 1,000 times to listen to the private communications of women who were, in some cases, complete strangers.

How many times have I looked at the Facebook pages of women a boyfriend has cheated on me with? One thousand times? Two thousand times? Five thousand times? Often enough to notice when one gets a new job, manages to use "it's" and "its" correctly, or deletes from her page the year of her birth. Often enough to know where they live. (At first, I only wanted to know if they were pretty. Perhaps Wise started because she just wanted to hear his voice.)

Wise certainly crossed a line in obtaining information under false pretenses  voicemail is private in a way that a profile on a social networking site is not. And it is not my intention to treat her behavior with any more generosity than it deserves  probably close to none. But what I can't get around, is an uncomfortable feeling of identification with her motivations, with her feelings. I can't help but think there's a certain basic understanding of the world and of relationships that she and I share. I suspect Ali Wise has found herself, as I have, unable to sleep at a quarter to four in the morning because a person she has never met has committed some minute act that has nonetheless created a digital trail, an act which, under the circumstances, knowing about is still somehow less painful than not knowing about. Some people have a native disinterest about these things  they hear about someone they loved very much seeing someone else and either don't feel the urge to know just a little more, or successfully repress it. Some people are seeing someone who's seeing someone else and don't even wonder about the nights he has "plans." Some people are probably smart enough not to torture themselves with Google. But I do. More often than I'm comfortable admitting.

What Wise did was wrong, but I understand it. I empathize. I've been there. And that frightens me.

Perhaps the strangest turn in this whole saga is this factoid, buried in today's Post story:

The blond society babe has at least one person still standing by her  Pomeranc, in whose SoHo apartment The Post found her yesterday.

"It's really rude for you to come up here," she said.

So, it's pretty rich for someone accused of serious, long-term stalking, hacking, and harassment to accuse a reporter of being "rude." But I was strangely touched to learn that Wise still has some kind of a relationship with Pomeranc, and I hope it's not wrong of me to wish that it gives her at least a little comfort right now. Because she's facing up to four years in prison for the kinds of acts that, while most of us would not have committed, might, if we're honest with ourselves, have at least considered. Some of us more than once.

Flack 'Hack Attack' On Love Rivals [New York Post]
P.R. Pals Hang Up On 'Spy' Ali Wise [New York Post]
Former Dolce & Gabbana Publicist To Face Charges From Four Women In Stalking Case [NYDN]

[Lovill's] cause has been taken up by civil liberties and women's rights groups who complain that Lovill was treated more severely than a man or nonpregnant woman in the same situation.

"Women should not be incarcerated because of their pregnancy. It's not healthy for pregnant women or the fetuses or future children that they carry," said Kathrine Jack, staff lawyer at National Advocates for Pregnant Women. "This is just another example of very old stereotypes being used to punish or discriminate against a woman."

Prosecutors say Lovill was targeted for violating her probation, not for being pregnant. But probation officers also were entitled to take action to protect the fetus from Lovill's drug use, said Doug Norman, Nueces County assistant district attorney.

"The use of illegal drugs during pregnancy clearly has an impact on the health of the unborn child that is beyond serious dispute," Norman told the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a brief. "The state clearly has an interest in healthy children."

Oral arguments in Texas v. Lovill, PD-09-0401, will be Wednesday in the appeals court's downtown Austin courtroom.

Women's Take, a site run by the National Women's Law Center, points out flaws in the state's reasoning:

Jill offered a presentation called "Prosecuting Pregnancy," where she talked about state actions that criminalize the medical decision-making and drug use of pregnant women. For example, women have been criminally prosecuted with such charges as child endangerment, neglect, or fetal homicide when their newborn infants test positive for drugs at birth. Jill posed the question: Is it right to prosecute pregnant women when they (or their newborn children) test positive for illegal drugs while we don't prosecute anyone else for who tests positive for illegal drugs? And she answered it for us, too: No, she said, because having illegal drugs in your body is not a crime — even for a pregnant woman. Jill explained that the Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to criminalize a person's status, including the status of being an addict. A person can be charged with possession of a drug, but the appearance of that drug in their system can't be a crime.

Now, obviously, the issue is a complicated and contentious one. I think that most people are uncomfortable with the notion of pregnant women using drugs.[...]

However, there are two questions that must be asked when looking at the way we currently punish pregnant women. First: Is it constitutional to criminalize pregnant women's actions during their pregnancies? Jill asked. The answer, is no. It is not equitable, legal, or constitutional to apply the law differently to pregnant women than anyone else. A recent example of this unconstitutionality in action is the State of Texas v. Amber Lovill. When Amber Lovill tested positive for drugs while pregnant and on probation, the state moved to revoke her probation and incarcerated her for the duration of her pregnancy. As the Webwire story on this subject notes, officers in the trial acknowledged numerous times that if Ms. Lovill were not pregnant, "less restrictive alternatives would have been the typical response to a positive drug screen."

The second question that must be asked when looking at the prosecution of pregnant women for their drug use: Is it an effective public health strategy to criminalize pregnant women's actions during their pregnancies? And the answer to this question is also a resounding no. First of all, it can sometimes in fact be more dangerous to the fetus for a pregnant woman to stop using certain drugs suddenly than it would be for her to continue using them. As the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University has shown, "It is important for the health of both a pregnant woman and her fetus to be under close medical supervision when she stops her drug use, particularly if she is addicted and if the drug to which she is addicted causes withdrawal symptoms." More broadly, as Jill has said, threats of prosecution just scare women away from drug treatment and prenatal care.

The ACLU has filed an amicus brief in support of Lovill.

This conversation is most certainly complicated. After all, I, like many on this site, am staunchly pro-choice and so I do not believe that a fetus should have rights, particularly if those rights trump the mother's. In addition, I am against the incarceration of non-violent offenders. However, memories of the 1980s crack epidemic are quite haunting, and I know of too many people who ended up wards of the state because their mother never could manage to get her addiction under control. If incarceration is helping to protect the child for exposure to harmful drugs and could possibly lead to treatment, is this a better way? If this child is intended to be carried to term, does it make things different? Is there ever a "right" to intervene?

Jailed for being pregnant? [American Statesmen]
A Lesson On Prosecuting Pregnancy [Women's Take]
State Of Texas V. Lovill - ACLU Amicus Brief In Support Of Respondent [ACLU]

Part of the question is easy to answer. Oudin is a great player, with great technique. She rose quickly out of relative obscurity and has bested players with years more experience and much higher rankings. And according to all the interviews, Oudin also appears to be a fairly normal teen. She is praised for her "heart" and her inspirational faith in her own abilities. On Monday, following her win against 13th-seeded Nadia Petrova, Oudin said, "Today, there were no tears because I believed I can do it. Now I know I do belong here. This is what I want to do."

Oudin certainly seems to be a lovable sports star, and her accomplishments are definitely praise-worthy, but there is something off about the way she is being celebrated. She has been called the "darling" of the U.S. Open, America's "sweetheart," a "pint-sized, freckled-faced blonde from Georgia," the "tiny little savior of women's tennis," everything it seems, save tennis' "Great White Hope" (although given the media coverage of Oudin's win, it would probably be more like the "little, teeny-tiny, super cute White Hope").

Especially problematic was this article from the Daily Beast, which quoted ESPN sportscaster Michelle Beadle comparing Oudin to the Williams sisters. "From Day 1, I've never heard the Williams sisters referred to as sweethearts," she said, which prompted Jez commenter sympathyforthebasementcat to remark:

Yes, there's just something different about them. Americans just aren't quite to fully relate to them. They just don't seem like the type of girls that would live next door. Hmmm, what could it be?

Jezemale put it even more succinctly:

Young, white and cute= sweetheart
Black and muscular= not a sweetheart?

This is certainly only part of the equation, but it is an important part. It seems like every sportscaster reporting on Oudin feels the need to comment on how pretty she is, how cute, how "All-American." Again, there is nothing wrong with Oudin being blonde, petite, and white, but much of the commentary, which focuses so heavily on her looks, fail to recognize the racism that lurks behind these terms.

The New York Times attempts to explain why Oudin's story is so special. Columnist George Vecsey argues that the "crowd is fickle. The crowd wants new faces, new stories, every hour, on the hour." Oudin is just the next new story. However, Vecsey says, unlike the Williams sisters, Oudin has fought her way up from the bottom:

The crowd always loves upsets, which is one reason Venus Williams and Serena Williams are not universally loved at the Open. They are sometimes too good for their own good, and they take up the same airspace, with the same history.

Which reminds me of something commenter heykoukla posted yesterday:

What a shame the Williams sisters don't have a rags-to-riches backstory. You know, like growing up in a poor neighbourhood and being coached by a father who had zero experience of their sport, and fighting their way to success against the odds. Yep, that would have made a great story and endeared them to the public, right?

The Williams sisters are great, but what does it mean to call them "too good?" And, on a related note, when is the last time you heard a male athlete called "too good for his own good?"

An article in the Wall Street Journal suggests that Oudin is working with a new level of technique and precision that had been missing in the game. She may be able, the paper says, strangely, to "drag tennis from the dark ages" with her superior skill. And the New York Observer calls the Williams sisters a "tired act." Oudin and Kim Clijsters may just make women's tennis "watchable again." Unlike many other players, Oudin "doesn't play this monotonous tennis," said Jon Wertheim from Sports Illustrated. He praises Oudin's variety and ability to move about the court, but he also remarks upon her size. "She's noticeably smaller than most players, and that's part of the appeal, too."

Unpacking all the different levels of sexism and racism that are operating subtly behind the scenes is an incredibly difficult task. Oudin is small, skilled, and attractive, which seems to automatically endear her to the American public. None of these things is a problem in and of itself, but it becomes a problem when the focus is no longer on her skill or achievements, but instead on her "relatability." "America's sweetheart" is a label that is only given to certain people, and those people nearly always look the same. I am personally familiar with this phenomenon. Last month I was stopped on the street by a woman who wanted to tell me just how "wonderfully all-American" I look. It was clear that she meant this as a compliment, but when she went on to explain how I have the perfect "all-American skin and hair," I began to feel incredibly uncomfortable. What is so "American" about being blonde and pale? I am all-American, and so is Oudin, but most importantly, so are the Williams sisters. They may be stronger and bigger than players like Oudin, but they that shouldn't make them any less American, or any less beloved.

For Generation Text, Tennis Role Models Get Younger [New York Times]
Thoroughly Modern Melanie [Wall Street Journal]
The Tiny Little Saviors Of Women's Tennis [New York Observer]

Related: American Teen Is The "Cinderella Story" Of The U.S. Open

The clip, which I'm posting here as it's relevant to the story, not because I think it's funny at all, features a couple dancing at a wedding. When the wife misses a dance move, the husband takes the opportunity to smack her across the face, twice. Eventually a friend steps in, but the scene, as I see it, anyway, is pretty damn disturbing. The internet, naturally, thinks it's hilarious. There are several versions of the clip on YouTube; the clip itself is over 3 years old but thanks to Tosh.0 seems to be back in the public eye, with over 40,000 hits on this version alone:



Look- I'm not surprised that this is popular online, nor am I surprised that Comedy Central decided to show it for its "hilarity" factor, but when a video like this is held up on a comedy network for being "funny," doesn't that send the message that violence against women is also pretty funny? That it's something that can be shrugged off simply because it happened to be a drunk guy at a foreign wedding smacking his wife on the dance floor? If that had happened at a wedding here, with an American slapping his girlfriend twice across the face, would people still be laughing? There's a creepy sense of removal from this scene, as if distance and cultural differences make it hilarious when a man strikes a woman. This clip should be a document of domestic violence. Instead, it's just another way that the world is turning a blind eye and making a joke out of a very serious issue.

Colon had lived with Andrews for three months, but had recently moved out. She was in Andrews' apartment, collecting her things, when the incident occurred. According to ABCNews, "Police say she wanted to get a Pop Tart and he said she couldn't have anything. Police say Andrews pushed and hit Colon, and she stabbed him in the chest, causing a severe wound." Andrews is currently alive and hospitalized: his condition has not been released.

Sadly, the fight over the Pop-Tart will reduce a fairly horrifying story into an "isn't that wacky?" phenomenon. The picture used on ABCNews' website is the one I used above: the tiny box of Pop-Tarts has been added to her mugshot, in what appears to be an attempt to bring more attention to the fact that she was denied a Pop-Tart as opposed to the fact that this woman stabbed her boyfriend after he pushed and hit her. The violence on both ends has been brushed aside in favor of the "ha ha ha Pop Tarts" factor, completely missing the fact that domestic violence is rarely as simple as it seems. ABC News also runs this story under the headline "Toasted Treat Spurs Violent Behavior." Oh really? I was under the impression that the violent behavior came into play because her boyfriend pushed and hit her before the stabbing. But if the Pop-Tart factor makes it a wacky story, let's brush aside the violence at hand!

The commenters on the ABCNews site are already making light of the situation with bullshit sexist comments:

Dude, don't make women hungry. You wouldn't like them when they're hungry. To all who do not understand this: if a hungry woman asks you for food, you give it to her. Just some good advice from a guy who knows. Anyway, I don't blame her, because all women get like this when they're hungry. She's cute too. She wins in my book. I hope they let her off due to temporary insanity, and charge him with torture for denying her the pop-tart.

We've got to put an end to this Pop-Tart violence before it gets out of hand. And what about knife control? Just think of all the children eating Pop-Tarts with kitchen knifes laying around in plain view.And another thing: Was this an assault knife that she used? Perhaps that's the reason we have so many more Pop-Tart injuries than Europe.

Though one commenter kicks some common sense into the discussion:

It isn't really funny, her nutcase boyfriend beat her. I never find hitting someone no matter the reason funny.. pity it even made the news. Maybe as news of the stupid or weird, but really abc is it that slow a news day? I would like to know more about the economy and other topics not nuts on parade.... thanks.

Sadly, domestic violence incidents like this aren't terribly uncommon. The Pop-Tart angle may be what makes this story different from every other domestic violence story that goes unnoticed and uncovered by the media, but by focusing on the "lighter" elements of the story, we're missing the true, and extremely sad, story that lies beneath.

Toasted Treat Spurs Violent Behavior [ABCNews]

The wrongness begins with the title, "Teenage Girls Stand By Their Man," which, in itself, sets the tone for the entire article, which seems to paint "teenage girls" as immature, uneducated, and clueless when it comes to dealing with potential violence inflicted upon them by their "men." The "men," by the way, are barely spoken of at all, as if they have no place in this story, as if they are not a piece of this increasingly difficult puzzle.

The piece, by Jan Hoffman, centers around the reaction many young women are having toward the Rihanna/Chris Brown incident, wherein many high school girls are blaming Rihanna for her actions and defending Brown, something we've discussed before. Oh, and it's published in the "Fashion and Style" section of the Times, because nothing says "Fashion and Style" like violence against women, right?

"On blogs and social networking sites, teenagers are having an e-shouting match about this highly publicized episode - perhaps the first time their generation has been compelled to think aloud about dating violence, Hoffman writes, "And what may be surprising is the level of support for Mr. Brown. While thousands of teenagers have certainly turned on Mr. Brown, many others - regardless of race or gender - defend him, often at Rihanna's expense."

While this is a true and horrifying phenomenon, the notion that girls are perpetuating this cycle by being so quick to forgive is a bit unfair. Marcyliena Morgan, director of Harvard's hip-hop archive, claims that she's not surprised that boys are quick to forgive Chris Brown, "But it's the girls! Where have we gone wrong here?"

Perhaps "we've gone wrong" by being so apathetic towards the reaction of young men here. If it's not surprising that boys are quick to forgive Brown, doesn't that signal a problem? Why is it only the girls who are expected to be outraged, horrified, and willing to take a stand against dating violence?

As Melissa McEwan of Shakesville writes, "Where have we gone wrong with girls? The same place we've gone wrong with boys: Not providing them alternative narratives, that's where. It doesn't do girls any fucking good if we just throw up our hands and say, "Well, of course boys excuse rape and violence against women," and take that as read, so we can move on and wonder what's wrong with the girls. Talk about victim-blaming."

Jill at Feministe, however, points out that the article makes a good point about the way young girls tend to be blaming Rihanna as a means to continue their harmless crushes on Brown, who, prior to this incident, had a squeaky clean public image as the type of boyfriend who would never, ever hurt you. "The victim-blaming in high-profile intimate partner violence cases reads to me a lot like self-defensive victim-blaming in sexual assault cases: If you can pin the responsibility for the violence on something the woman did, you can live without the fear that someone might harm you in a similar way." As Hoffman writes, "After all, sweet Chris Breezy - his nickname - even appeared in a music video with Elmo of "Sesame Street." Acknowledging his attack would make them feel vulnerable: How could they have a crush on someone who could do that? It was less terrifying to blame Rihanna."

Perhaps the fault lies in the fact that attempting to open girls' eyes to the true horrors of dating violence without expecting the same participation from boys is simply going to lead to a one-sided viewpoint that many young women will have a difficult time sticking to, especially when the society that surrounds them seems to agree that boys, as always, will be boys. It's a bit difficult to stand up for one's self when the system in place argues that girls should be appalled by violence, and boys should be forgiven for it.

Teenage Girls Stand By Their Man [NYTimes]
Teenage Girls And Dating Violence [Feministe]
What's Wrong With The Girls? [Shakesville]

Earlier: Teenagers Claim It's Rihanna's Fault

Almost all of the issues brought up by Melissa can be easily dismissed with the simple excuse: it's television, and television is ridiculous. She calls Special Victims Unit unrealistic, but in an age where "reality" TV is about as close to real life as an episode of Lost, bemoaning lack of accurate representation seems almost beside the point. The same can be said of her other issues: producers' ridiculous tendency to put a huge twist into every episode that completely changes the original case? Necessary for entertainment value! The absurdly attractive victims (including cherubic children)? Well, on American TV, even a character named "Ugly Betty" is played by a stunning actress, so what else would you expect?

However, these things that wouldn't bother me, that would be easy to dismiss in almost any other show, become problematic when pretty much the entire premise of the series is about sexual assault. McEwan notes that SVU has some very good episodes, which deal with surviving and prosecuting rape in a honest and helpful way, but the writers also frequently rely on plot twists that discredit victims and vindicate the wrongly-accused man. She's right in pointing out that SVU is designed to exploit victims' stories, but so is the rest of the Law & Order franchise. The fact that SVU deals primarily with "sex crimes" (some episodes are about child neglect/abandonment, not sexual abuse), makes it difficult to enjoy even a single episode without feeling vaguely uncomfortable about the whole thing.

But I do enjoy it, at least for the most part. I've seen almost every episode of SVU, and despite some feelings of discomfort, I keep going back. One of the greatest draws of the Law & Order series is that it asks you to think about the moral dilemmas surrounding each crime. SVU has been the impetus for some really important discussions about issues I might otherwise have never brought up, with people who may not normally think about the uncomfortable reality of sexual assault.

But unfortunately, many of the problems Melissa points out have become especially obvious in the most recent seasons. As the series struggles to stay entertaining, it has veered further and further into the realm of gratuitous violence and undisguised voyeurism. The most obvious example of this is an episode from Season 9 titled "Undercover," in which Detective Olivia Benson (Mariska Hargitay) comes terrifyingly close to being raped. The clip at left shows the attempted rape of Detective Benson in horrifically graphic detail. (FYI: the only clip I could find of the scene is a tribute video with a terrible song, so play it with the sound off.) Watching it is extremely unsettling. Even though they get the guy in the end, the prolonged struggle is disturbing. Was it necessary? Does this episode contribute anything to the discourse about rape? I would say no on both counts. If this is where Law & Order is going, I may have to stop watching.

Although McEwan's main gripe is that SVU does not accurately represent the reality of rape, I think the larger, more interesting issue is the fact that the show exists at all. There is something slightly off about using stories of assault for entertainment value, even if the larger narrative is one of justice and vindication. Which begs the question: is it possible to build a television show around the greater issue of sexual assault without exploiting the real-life victims or commodifying rape? Can the positives (increased discussion about rape, sexual assault, victim-blaming, and the like) ever overcome the negatives?

L&O: SVU [Shakesville]

Fairstein writes:

Nicole Brown was 18 years old in 1977, when she started dating the famous athlete who would take her life less than 20 years later. Shortly after their relationship began, Nicole documented the first incident of physical abuse by her lover. O.J. Simpson's charm and good looks, his celebrity endorsements, and his dazzling smile also allowed others-relatives and friends among them-to overlook the escalating violence throughout the couple's courtship and marriage.

She adds:

Like most victims of intimate partner violence, Nicole Brown called 911 to report her attacks more than eight times before she successfully separated from her husband. Police officers responded to her home on those occasions, sometimes making formal reports of their visits and often-when Nicole herself declined to press charges-left without making any record. At no point did anyone in her family or in law enforcement effect a successful intervention. O.J. Simpson was never arrested for assault, never forced to acknowledge the injury he caused his wife. He was never held accountable for any of the violence he perpetrated against Nicole.

While her point is understandable, by bringing up a decades-old celebrity-oriented case (which may not mean much to Rihanna or others her age), Fairstein makes dying at the hands of a "loving" man seem like a fluke. Isn't it more important to know that 1,232 women are killed each year by an intimate partner? It's not just something that happens every once in a while. It happens all the time. The American Institute on Domestic Violence reports that 5.3 million women are abused each year. Shouldn't we focus on the here and now, that this is happening every day, and not just a case from 1994?

Meanwhile, Raina Kelley has a piece for Newsweek in which she debunks the many myths surrounding domestic violence. "Any discussion of domestic violence should not revolve around what the couple may have been arguing about," she writes. "There isn't a verbal argument that should "spark" or "provoke" an attack of the kind that leaves one person with wounds that require medical attention." Kelley also warns against calling what Chris Brown did "a mistake."

People leave the oven on or fry turkeys in the garage and burn their house down. One may even accidentally step on the gas instead of the brake and run over the family cat. Mistakes resulting in tragic consequences happen all the time. But one cannot mistakenly beat someone up. You do not accidentally give someone black eyes, a broken nose and a split lip.

Of course, what really needs more attention and focus is the psychology of a woman who stays with someone who has hit her. Kelley urges: "Understand that those who are abused do not stay with their abusers because they want to be beaten again, or because they are really at fault; it's usually because they feel trapped and guilty." And Fairstein echoes this sentiment, noting: "Some women capable of supporting themselves tell us that they love the offender so deeply that they are unable to separate, believing that his behavior will change, or that they did something to provoke the attack and bring it on themselves." Yet, the most recent comment on Fairstein's Daily Beast essay? From "sonofloud," who comments on Rihanna: "If she's stupid enough to stay with someone who beats her, she has no one to blame but herself."

Next Time, He'll Kill You [The Daily Beast]
Domestic Abuse Myths [Newsweek]

"What if Rihanna doesn't break up with Chris Brown? What would happen to her? Her well-being, her carefully-managed image via Jay-Z and the people at Def Jam; her ads for Gucci and CoverGirl cosmetics? Rihanna - and her management - were always reluctant to admit that the star was dating Chris Brown; how will they handle commenting on this incident to the public, should she choose to stay with him? Or will they "encourage" her to stop seeing him?" Dodai asked.

We now know that Rihanna is with Brown, which, sadly, will come as no surprise to those who understand the nature of abusive relationships, yet for the general public, who may not be as tuned in to the cycle of domestic violence, the judgment of Rihanna has already begun. Nobody seems pleased at the news (understandably), but commenters appear to be split between feeling sorry for the singer and being angry with her.

From commenters on the gossip site Oh No They Didn't, for example:

i probably won't ever look at them the same again now.
atleast rihanna's career had a chance, but that just flew out the window.

fuck em both! he needs to hit her ass again! if she didnt learn the first time

If this is true I'm not gonna feel sorry for her when he hits her again

it's really upsetting to me how many people are blaming rihanna, calling her stupid etc. it's not as simple as getting up and leaving. there's a lot more to it than that.

I'm sorry but I no longer feel sorry for her, because she's going right back to the person who put her in that situation

I feel worse for her now. So many women don't have the strength to remove themselves from abusive situations. That makes me incredibly, incredibly sad.

I have been trying to figure out a way to approach this story since last night; my initial reaction was one of anger, and then of sadness: it's a strange thing to feel so strongly about a situation regarding two people who I've never even met, and yet I can't help but feel an overwhelming sense of dread that the nastier reactions posted above will become the norm over the next few weeks. For every supportive comment, there are several cruel ones, diminishing the difficult nature of the situation into "that dumb bitch" types of statements that don't help anyone.

I am angry, but not at Rihanna, at the cycle of violence and the textbook way she seems to be falling back into it, at Chris Brown for his bullshit, half-ass, passive-aggressive apologies, at the hip-hop community for backing Brown and telling us all to forgive and forget, even after that terrible fucking picture was released, and for the missed opportunity here to make a point to young women that you can get out of these relationships, and to young men that beating your girlfriend is completely unacceptable. Of course, we can not expect Rihanna to take up the cause of Domestic Violence Crusader if that is not a position she is emotionally ready to take on at this point, but this entire situation is incredibly sad and frustrating; just as it would be if your friend, Robin from down the street, kept going back to the man who beat the hell out of her.

Perhaps the only silver lining here is that this reconciliation provides a clear example of the cycle of violence; for people out there who keep asking, "But why? How could she?" it may be an opportunity for education and insight. All we can do, as outsiders looking in, is to hope that Rihanna's inner circle will provide her with the same insight, before it's too late.

WTF: Chris Brown And Rihanna Are Back Together [Oh No They Didn't]

Earlier: What Will Happen To Chris Brown And Rihanna?

Take this absurd, insulting (they're laughing????) interview on last Friday's season premiere of Real Time with Bill Maher with Lebanese-American activist Brigitte Gabriel.


For starters, domestic violence is perpetrated by people  men and women  in this country and abroad of all nationalities, religions, cultures, economic classes, ages and skin colors. From Rihanna to Charlotte Hilton Andersen to Leslie Morgan Steiner to Nicole Brown Simpson, victims of domestic violence don't conform to a stereotype any more than their abusers do. Studies show that 1 in 4 American women and about 1 in 13 American men will be the victim of some sort of relationship violence in their lives. Twenty percent of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women will come at the hands of their intimate partners in this country, and about one-third of female murder victims in a given year will die at the hands of an intimate partner. For far too many people in this country, domestic violence  as either a victim or a perpetrator  is a part of their lives. Period.

But, as Katy noted last week, there has been quite a rush to place the Hassan murder in the context of the Hassans' faith and/or culture. It has been called an "honor killing" despite scant public evidence that Mr. Hassan characterized it as such. Sobia, Krista and Fatemeh over at Muslimah Media Watch point out that the language used by most news outlets does not describe the murder as a "decapitation" but rather as a beheading, which underscores the popular sentiment that it was meted out as punishment (i.e., again with the "honor killing" meme) and has connotations of a judicial sentence. And all of this comes despite the fact that  as Kari Ansari in the Chicago Tribune and the women of Muslimah Media Watch both point out  decapitations aren't part of honor killings which aren't sanctioned in the Qur'an or under Shari'ah. Ansari says:

Islamic law does not allow a man to kill his wife, for any reason. There is nothing in the teachings of the faith that says a man should protect the honor of his stature in the community by committing violence against a woman.

While the problem of honor killings does still certainly exist in the Muslim and Hindu worlds, and in other patriarchal societies, we are addressing this problem on a worldwide basis, working to eradicate this cultural practice. [emphasis mine]

Much like female genital mutilation, Ansari is saying that honor killings, when they do occur, might be blamed on Islamic traditions but are in fact older, patriarchal cultural traditions onto which Islam has been superimposed. MMW's Krista adds:

Again, nothing that has been published in any of the news reports has given any indication that this was some kind of religiously-imposed punishment, or that Ms. Hassan had been said to violate any Islamic law. Even the most extreme and violent (mis)interpretations of Shari'ah don't allow for beheading a woman who divorces her husband. The way that Shari'ah gets talked about in relation to this case – usually without a direct link; the word just gets thrown in there to imply a connection – is really worrying, and puts the blame on Islam for something that would be clearly condemned within an Islamic legal framework.

What none of them mention, but I will, is that "honor killings" are far from universal in the Islamic world  which stretches around the globe and, like Christianity, is practiced by a variety of people in different countries and cultures, usually shaping it in individual ways to fit cultural needs and practices.

Nonetheless, the irony that this woman's murderer was also a man committed to a business venture which attempted to teach Americans and Canadians that Islam isn't so foreign or so scary or so decidedly alien has seemingly given too many people a pass to traffic in the very stereotypes the Hassans were trying to combat. And, let us be frank about why: it is a way of denying rhetorically that domestic violence and heinous crimes against women happen in our communities, in our neighborhoods, to our friends and our family. It is an easy way to explain away the horror of the crime, to minimize its significance to our shared society, to say-without-saying that it's just one of those things that happens to those people. Yet statistics tell us if you're in a room with 3 other women, one of you has been (or will be) the victim of domestic violence. One of every three women murdered in this country is murdered by an intimate partner. One in every five non-fatal assaults on a woman is committed by an intimate partner. That is the reality. It might not be that Muzzammil Hassan's religion left him insufficiently assimilated to our culture to let go of some supposed cultural tradition of wife-beating and wife-killing; rather, it is entirely possible that his religion was insufficient to keep him from assimilating the American tradition of doing just that.

MMW Roundtable on the Murder of Aasiya Hassan [Muslimah Media Watch]
Restraining Order Against Ignorance [Chicago Tribune]
Commission on Domestic Violence: Key Statistics [American Bar Association]

Related: The Shadow of Shame [Newsweek]

Earlier: Murder Of Muslim-American Woman Sparks Media Frenzy
Rihanna's Guide To The Criminal "Justice" System

Adeola Matanmi, a high school sophomore, says she's heard plenty of people placing the blame on Rihanna. "People said, 'I would have punched her around too,' " she says, "And these were girls!" Kriana Jackson, also a sophomore, admits that her peers tend to make light of serious situations as well: "There was a girl at school this week with a scratch on her eye," Jackson says, "She was talking openly about her boyfriend hitting her, but she was smiling and saying it was funny."

A lack of education and proper information regarding the signs of abuse may be to blame for the rise in abuse in romantic relationships amongst teens. As Esta Soler, president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, notes, "This incident has brought the issue into sharp focus. This type of education is not happening in any broad or consistent way. We need to take it to scale, to make sure it's happening in every community."

In Chicago, the group Between Friends seeks to educate teens to recognize the signs of unhealthy relationships: "When we first get there, it's not unusual for kids-both boys and girls-to say it's OK to hit your girlfriend or boyfriend," says director Kathy Doherty,"By the time we're done, they say, yes, it is abuse, and, no, we shouldn't do that."

Even if teens are able to recognize the signs of an unhealthy relationship, they may downplay them or turn the blame on themselves, as escaping from said relationships is extremely difficult when one has to attend the same school with their abuser on a daily basis. The rise of text messaging, cell phones, and constant communication also makes it easy for abusers to retain tight emotional control over their victims. The difficulty lies in teaching teens to recognize the difference between love and obsession. It's a tough lesson to learn for many young people embarking on their first serious relationship: the notion that "this is just how things are" is something that needs to be broken down and disproved. If we don't teach children how to recognize unhealthy relationships, they might not realize when they are in one, or know how to get out.

Many Teens Blame Rihanna, Say Dating Violence Normal [Chicago Tribune]

Earlier: Lawmakers Attempt To Stop The Rise In Dating Abuse Amongst Teens

Steiner is brave to admit her naiveté when it comes to domestic violence, though it is certainly troubling that she thought it couldn't happen to her because she was affluent and smart. When asked if she saw herself as vulnerable, she replies:

A lot of people assume that I must have had really low self-esteem at the time, but it wasn't that. In some ways, I was too confident. I had just graduated from Harvard, which some people thought was a big deal, and I had a great job at Seventeen magazine and a New York apartment and I was meeting men everywhere. I was on top of the world. When I met my future husband, he told me about his very abusive childhood, and I never really doubted that I could help him. I was very naive in that way. I didn't realize what kind of psychological problems this kind of history could create. He was my first love, and I threw myself into loving him unconditionally.

Steiner's situation was incredibly sad, and her statements offer a clear view of the psychology and thoughts women in domestic violence scenarios often have. For instance, she talks about keeping the abuse a secret from her friends:

With most people, I would work to hide it … I also think I knew that the minute I told people, the jig would be up. I would have to leave the relationship, and I was not ready to do that.

In addition, when Newsweek asks: Did you ever blame yourself for what was happening? Steiner reponds:

I didn't blame myself for him being abusive, and I never felt like I deserved to be hit. But I blame myself for staying. It would have been easier if I had told people the first time it happened. But I didn't. By waiting until it had happened 20 or 30 times, I was afraid everyone would think I was pathetic that I let this go on for so long.

Some people might find it hard to understand why a woman would not leave a man who physically injured her, and while Steiner isn't completely clear about her reasons (she does say violence doesn't happen on a first date, but instead when you're already "trapped" in a relationship), it does seem that she has learned from her experience:

I hope so much that other women won't ignore the red flags like I did. When he choked me during sex, I ignored it. His early possessiveness, I ignored it. I didn't realize that things would get much worse… Love can't fix a violent person. The only thing you can do is leave.

The Shadow Of Shame [Newsweek]

Judging from massive amount of tips we've gotten over the past week on this, most of you probably know how this story goes: Mrs. Hassan had been beheaded in a horrific, alleged "honor killing" by her husband, who owned a television station devoted to dispelling stereotypes about Muslims. She was found in the offices of the television network they had both worked to build.

Despite the tips, we held off on writing or posting about this story for several reasons. First, of all, we did not want to add to the growing pile of crap that has been written about it. The media portrayal of Mrs. Hassan and her husband has made us (and some of our tipsters) uncomfortable: The speculation over whether this was an "honor killing", the awkward way in which people have dealt with a clearly terrible crime committed by an obviously unhinged man, and the lamentations over the "brutal irony" of Mr. Hassan's occupation have all made this crime more about the religion of the perpetrator than the experience of the victim. For some, it has even come down to a feminist vs. Muslim debate.

At this point, we don't want to speculate over what happened to Mrs. Hassan, or even why. She was brutally murdered at the hands of her husband, and this is a tragedy. But the reality is that many women are killed by their partners, just as many women suffer from domestic violence. However, while we've made Rihanna the poster girl for speaking out against domestic violence, we hesitate to make this into a poster-case for "honor killing." While we care about Rihanna because she is already, independently famous, we (and by "we" I mean the media and our society, not necessarily the Jezebel editors or readers) care about Mrs. Hassan's death for other reasons. We care because of the manner of her death, but more importantly, we care because he was Muslim.

In a particularly awful article from CBS News - which begins, "The crime drips with brutal irony" - "acquaintances" speculate on just how "Muslim" Mr. Hassan really was:

Acquaintances said Mo Hassan was not overtly religious - co-workers did not see him pray, for instance. But he seemed to adhere to many traditional practices.

Nancy Sanders, the television station's news director for 2 1/2 years, remembers him asking her to move her feet during her job interview so he would not see her legs. She was wearing a skirt and stockings.

He also would not let women enter his office unless his wife was there, and he blocked the station from airing a story about the first Muslim woman to win the title of Miss England in 2005, Sanders said.

And although Mr. Hassan had two children from a previous marriage, The Buffalo News focuses on the stigma against divorce in Muslim communities as a possible motive for the crime:

Nadia Shahram, a matrimonial lawyer in Williamsville, said that some Muslim men consider divorce a dishonor on their family.

A teacher of family law and Islam at the University at Buffalo Law School, Shahram said that "fanatical" Muslims believe "honor killing" is justified for bringing dishonor on a family.

While it has not been determined whether Aasiya Hassan's death had anything to do with fanatical beliefs, the community should address the attitudes that make divorce particularly difficult for many Muslim families, Shahram said.

And certainly this has been hard for Muslim families. But Marcia Pappas, New York state president of the National Organization for Women has placed the blame entirely on his faith: "This was apparently a terroristic version of honor killing, a murder rooted in cultural notions about women's subordination to men....Too many Muslim men are using their religious beliefs to justify violence against women." Although this may be true, there is no way of knowing Mr. Hassan's motives. Pappas may be right, but there is also a possibility that Mr. Hassan was just unhinged and violent. The New York Times addresses this view point:

The gruesome death of Ms. Hassan prompted outrage from Muslim leaders after suggestions that it had been some kind of "honor killing" based on religious or cultural beliefs.

Dr. Sawsan Tabbaa, a Muslim community leader who teaches orthodontia at the State University at Buffalo, said, "This is not an honor killing, no way."

Dr. Tabbaa added, "It has nothing to do with his faith."

However, the question of whether or not Mr. Hassan's faith played a role in her murder has acted as a screen for the bigger issue of violence against women. In a collection of responses about the story on Muslimah Media Watch, Imam Mohamed Hagmagid Ali, Vice-President of The Islamic Society of North America writes:

This is a wake up call to all of us, that violence against women is real and can not be ignored. It must be addressed collectively by every member of our community. Several times each day in America, a woman is abused or assaulted. Domestic violence is a behavior that knows no boundaries of religion, race, ethnicity, or social status. Domestic violence occurs in every community. The Muslim community is not exempt from this issue. We, the Muslim community, need to take a strong stand against domestic violence. Unfortunately, some of us ignore such problems in our community, wanting to think that it does not occur among Muslims or we downgrade its seriousness.

The most important thing to take away here is that domestic violence "knows no bounds," it is not related to a single religion or group. It happens to pop stars and civilians alike.

Possibility Of 'Honor Killing' Mulled In Orchard Park Slaying [The Buffalo News]
Upstate New York Man Charged With Beheading His Estranged Wife [New York Times]
Brutal Irony In New York Woman's Beheading [CBS News]
A Collection of Responses Concerning The Murder Of Aasiya Hassan[Muslimah Media Watch]

Timmerman's goal in writing the book was to force consciousness of our clothing's origins — and how closely our buying habits are connected to the fates of those who produce it. Often, he says, we oversimplify the issue, and gives the example of the infamous Kathie Lee Gifford scandal, in which we learned the talk-show host's clothing line was being produced by child labor. The outcry led to a wide-scale boycott of Bangladeshi goods; in response, factories laid off child labor. Great, right? Well, according to Timmerman, who calls it "the toughest thing I came across...a really harsh reality," not entirely.

"It turns out that a lot of these kids kids actually needed to work — these children, just because they're not working in a factory, doesn't mean they're not working at other, way worse jobs in Bangladesh...all we're doing [in boycotting] is removing our guilt."

Timmerman is at pains to elucidate that he is "not a proponent of child labor" but does urge us to remember that while we may recoil at the words, it's important to take a realistic look at the situation. What do we really imagine will happen to these children if they stop working in factories? That they'll suddenly be given opportunities for education? As Timmerman points out, the alternative is more likely begging, brick-breaking or sex work. None of which is to say child labor is acceptable; just that our knowledge and concern — and activism — needs to go beyond easy shades of black and white. Timmerman also makes the point that as an educated consumer, it's important to make distinctions between factories and true "sweatshops" rather than condemning all foreign labor as such.

But is this the best we can hope for? A measured pragmatism that finds child factory labor preferable to child prostitution? The idealist in all of us doesn't want to believe it, and shouldn't. The ultimate and only course, as the author says, is addressing the grinding poverty that creates the situation. And none of this is to say that boycotting — and, more to the point, selective and educated buying — is not important. It's essential, and should become as second-nature as questioning the provenance of the food we eat, itself a relatively recent phenomenon. Many of us are quick to think of the plight of a factory-farmed animal but still able to buy a shirt at Forever21; it's this disconnect that Timmerman's book seeks to address. His point is, we need to take the time to learn where things are produced, and under what circumstances. (Alpha Consumer emphasizes the importance of looking up where things are manufactured — a small step that nevertheless connects us to the process.) Should people boycott what they find reprehensible? Of course, but with an awareness of the realities our actions create — and the impossibility of easy answers. We could all wear nothing but locally-made artisanal garb, and that's great, but it would do nothing for the poverty in Bangladesh; in fact, it's two different issues.

I'm not advocating the disingenuous piety of trickle-down economics, just saying that when we boycott, let's also do something pro-active, be it as simple as education or as old-fashioned as a donation towards sponsoring a children's organization. Not to be a total downer, but as a society it does seem like we have to wean ourselves off of a self-satisfaction we've come to take as our due for minimal sacrifice — while all the while not being overwhelmed by the reality of the task's scope. What say you?

Podcast: How Our Clothes Are Made [US News]

Related: Where Am I Wearing? [Amazon]

Obviously, Todd has some rather specific ideas about race, from her Twitterfeed about being on the "wrong" side of Pittsburgh to this disturbing "mean janitor" video that Wonkette unearthed.

The janitor, who was probably just doing his job by cleaning up after her, locking the bathrooms on an urban college campus and removing signs that she may or may not have put up in violation of the rules, is called "mean" and "amusing." It's probably not really a coincidence that the janitor  who likely didn't appreciate the mockery from a 20-year-old from Texas  resembles the specter she tried to pin her assault on.

Like too many people before her who are inspired to this sort of action, she made her personal boogeyman the one she thinks we all share. That she did so in a season when her candidate's own campaign has been accused of making Barack Obama the unacceptable Other to try to win the presidency probably allowed her to convince herself that her actions were valid and helpful. Of course a black man would be enraged by a McCain sticker, of course she later added that he tried to grope her, of course he was an Obama supporter. Aren't all African-American men violent felons with bad tempers and an inability to keep their hands off of white girls who support Barack Obama? Aren't all douchey frat boys rapists with no respect for women who view black women as sexual objects? Aren't all white guys in upstate New York violent, racist rapists? Who else but a black man would steal a car with children in it and drown them? Why wouldn't their stories be believed? Too many people in this country have self-segregated themselves  racially, politically, educationally, religiously  to a point where their stereotypes and fears are all they are ever exposed to and so they seem not like illegitimate stereotypes but like Greater Truths  when the truth couldn't be further from their grasp. The shadows on the wall become their reality because it's easier than stepping back and turning around to see what's making them, and less disturbing than having to admit that it's you.

Police: Campaign Worker Admits Making Up Story [KDKA]
Joe The Mugger? [The Smoking Gun]
North Carolina: Attack Claim Repeated [New York Times]
Could ‘The Mean Janitor’ Have Attacked This McCain Lady, Again? [Wonkette]
Pittsburgh PD Smells a Rat [TMZ]

American Apparel is clearly not the first  or the last  clothing company to be "inspired" by "African" prints. Oscar de la Renta showed some for Spring 2008. (And don't get us started on DeBeers.) But from fashion to music, there are different levels of "inspiration." There's Vanilla Ice, and there's Eminem. Meaning: You can steal from a culture, or you can be born of and truly appreciate that culture while recognizing you are not quite of it.

But are there are so many instances of cultural appropriation in America  itself a "melting pot" of cultures  that we don't even know a truly offensive and insulting example when we see it? Are most people outraged over the Cleveland Indians? Do people care that (as Racialicious points out) Halloween is an "appropriation" of the West African religion of Voudou? Do shoppers think twice before buying from the "Afrika" collection at American Apparel?

Cultural Appropriation: Homage or Insult? [Racialicious]
Related: Zebras, "Tribal" Prints: It's Afrika! [What Tami Said]

Earlier: The Jewels In September's Elle Come At An Extremely High Price

India-based human-rights lawyer D. Geetha estimates that at least 30 of the nearly 400 Indian children brought into Australia in the last 10 to 15 years were trafficked. The Time investigation found dubious agencies, illegal practices, false signatures; stolen children shipped to wealthy countries. The children were processed through an adoption agency and orphanage known as Malaysian Social Services. According to Time, Australian authorities knew that MSS was a suspect agency. Its license was suspended in 1999 after one of its staff was arrested for handling four babies stolen from a hospital.

Here's the problem: The chances of the biological parents reclaiming their children? Slim. Former Australian Family Court Judge John Fogarty says: "I wouldn't like to be acting for the Indian parents. You might get pro-bono lawyers, but the bottom line would be the best interests of the child, and that may be a one-way street. If you compared the position of the child in Australia returning to poverty in India, you would have to be a pretty dramatic judge to send a child back to the slums."

Meanwhile, Zabeen's biological mother would love to see her: "I am yearning," she says. "I must embrace her."

Let's just say for a minute you were an Australian judge. Would you send Zabeen back to her Indian family after eight years? Or would you let her stay with her new parents, who are "horrified" that they unknowingly adopted a trafficked child?

Stolen Children [Time]
Children 'Kidnapped For Aussie Adoption' [News.com.au]
Earlier: In China, Child Kidnappings Are An Equal Opportunity Affair

Gopal writes:

Well, it certainly is one for the inalienable right to be tall, thin, and airbrushed… Black models? Sure. But there's not a "natural" or "kinky" in sight, indeed, barely even a mop of curly hair. This is black girls-as-white girls: all aquiline noses, large eyes, oval faces (bar the standard exception of "unusual" Alek Wek), hair coaxed into silky straightness or carefully turbaned away in shot after shot. As for "black", it's more latte than americano.

By simultaneously marking blackness as "special" and yet ensuring conformity to dominant (white and European) ideas of sophistication and beauty, the "black issue" tells us a great deal about race and ethnicity in the media today. To be non-white is to be constantly relegated to a "special issue", while the regular edition remains determinedly white.

She has a point. Magazines are not inclusive. There's absolutely a euro-centric point of view; a Westernized, Caucasian standard of beauty. But I'll argue that without the "special" issue, some people would not be talking about the race problems in the fashion industry at all. Model mogul Bethann Hardison spearheaded conversations about the lack of black models last fall; I attended her "Out Of Fashion" discussion in October. Then another one in January. The number of people at the events grew; the number of news outlets discussing the issue grew. By June, Vogue had acknowledged the problem. Italian Vogue may be but a hammer blow to the wall put up around a billion dollar industry; a fortress to which, for years, only willowy Eastern European 16 year-olds had access. It wasn't always so; black models worked in the '70s and '80s more than they do now. Does Italian Vogue solve the problem? No. But every little bit helps. A dialogue helps.

And the next wall to break through just might be weight: With the exception of Toccara, all of the models in the "all-black" issue held to the slim standard. Unfortunately, according to a study by business professors at Villanova University and the College of New Jersey, ads featuring thin models made women feel worse about themselves but better about the brands featured. Writes Jack Neff for AdAge, "Despite the negative effect on their body image, women preferred ads showing thin models and said they were more likely to buy products featured in those ads than in ones showing 'regular-size models,' said Jeremy Kees, a business professor at Villanova." Why do we expect magazines to embrace women of all colors, shapes and sizes, when we, the women reading them, fail to do so?

Vogue Italia Is a Hit in Black [Time]
Vogue: All White Now? [Guardian]
Study: Skinny Women Better for Bottom Line [AdAge]
Earlier: Italian Vogue's "All Black" Issue: A Guided Tour
Is Prada To Blame For the Lack Of Black Models?
Modeling Matriarch Continues To Demand Diversity On The Runways
Vogue's Not Racist; Three Black Models Prove It!