Rachel Chung
When Joanne Lee wrote her article, “Was Rihanna semi responsible“, it sparked outrage. After all, this was a highly educated journalist who was not only simplistic in her gauche attempt at psychoanalysis, it was also social irresponsibility in the endorsed condoning of ‘provoked violence’.
Ms Lee seemed to have missed the point that there is no excuse or justification for violence in any relationship, provoked or not.
For a start, she argues that she had a part to play in aggravating the onset of her ex boyfriend’s violent behaviour, but it completely eludes her that he had total freedom in his choice of response. I found it very disturbing that it was insinuated that violence is the only inevitable method to ’argumentative’ behaviour.
While she stressed that she supports Rihanna to leave Chris Brown as it was a ’not so mild’ case of abuse, she subtly condones and excuses the violence in ’mild cases of domestic/ dating abuse’ by urging the women to change themselves if they ’truly love the guy’.
“So my humble advice to anyone out there facing mild cases of domestic/dating abuse is this: If you can help the situation by changing yourself, perhaps that’s something to try if you truly love the guy.”
The condoning continues in her subsequent blog post where she reiterates that her ex ‘only hit out a couple of times, and they were very MILD cases because he stopped after one hit, knowing he was wrong.’
So, does stopping ‘after one hit’ make it acceptable then?
I am shocked that a journalist as qualified as Ms Lee had demonstrated such emotional and analytical deficiency.
Who should be responsible – the victim or the abuser?
Ms Lee calls upon the victims of ‘mild domestic/dating abuse’ to change themselves. This suggests provocatively that the fault lies with the victims and not the perpetrators of violence. This is an unreasonable attack on the psychological mindset of victims who often suffer from an already overwhelming sense of inadequacy.
As any social worker will tell you, victims of domestic or dating abuse tend to suffer from a displaced sense of responsibility – that they had caused the abuse somehow with their behaviour or words. Being psychologically and physically dominated, they tend to feel that the ‘punishment’ is proportionate to their ‘mistakes’.
Abuse victims wish that they can stop the abuse by being a better wife, a better girlfriend, by saying and doing the right things but of course it never happens. The abuse will continue to happen despite their best efforts. The simple reason is this – the responsibility for violence lies completely with the person employing it. To suggest otherwise is socially irresponsible.
With that, I seize every opportunity to nurture confidence and independent thinking in my daughters and have always encouraged them to express their thoughts or opinions. Being opinionated or the very notion of having an opinion should not be a basis for the trigger of violence or abuse of any sort.
Having walked out on an abusive marriage myself, I share my story without shame with victims of abuse as positive encouragement. My ex husband felt it was emasculating and humiliating that his wife commanded a bigger salary than he did and indulged the need to reinforce his ‘masculinity’ with physical and verbal abuse, which by Ms Lee’s standard, might be considered ‘mild’. What kind of ‘change’ would she have suggested for me?
Therefore I felt flabbergasted that Ms Lee trivialized the evolution of hard fought feminism and women’s rights with her distasteful stoking of the chauvinistic ego and in advising women to change if they ’truly love the guy’.
I say, change for yourself, for the better for your future and not for a man who deems it fit to slap you around because you did not measure up to his expectations of ’acceptable behaviour’.
Visitor bait?
It is easy to bait traffic by being deliberately controversial. Indeed, her choice of title – “Was Rihanna semi-responsible” – was provocative and distasteful. Her argument was weak to say the least but it was certainly outrageous and controversial. If Ms Lee is aiming for eyeballs in this case, I must say that she has succeeded.
However, since tabloids also enjoy a high circulation, there is always the question of editorial integrity versus quantifiable reach.
Attempt at ‘explanation’
Ms Lee subsequently published another blog entry in an attempt at explanation. She now claims that, ‘I was sharing my experience; I wasn’t saying it applied to all abuse cases.’
If that response was from a primary or secondary student, I would have understood and empathized with the level of maturity. However, when it is coming from a qualified journalist, the lack of maturity and depth in thinking is appalling.
Ms Lee should also remember that she is blogging on the domain of blogs.straits times.com and not her personal blog. Any ‘personal’ opinions she expresses also carry the weight of mainstream media endorsement and that of a newspaper editor.
The blog entry also offered no real explanation with the exception of attempts to trivialize the dissenting opinions.
The readers did not take offence to the ‘Boston youths saying that Rihanna was to be blamed for her beating’ nor was there outrage about them ‘getting back together‘. Instead, the debate was about accountability being unfairly levered on victims of abuse in the questionable blog title and content. I find that the divergence of topics at hand insults the readers’ intelligence.
In further arguing that her blog entry was about herself and her experience, she has missed the woods for the trees.
While we may congratulate her for her personal enlightenment, it does not excuse the impact her remarks have on the bigger social picture.
Furthermore, she was shocked that ‘readers of her blog thought she was trying to excuse abusers (of any age)’. In that, perhaps she should re-examine her writing style or technique if it had indeed caused such a widespread misunderstanding of her intentions.
ST blogs – corporate or personal?
The public reaction to Ms Lee’s article had inspired a question – what is the angle and objective of the ST blogs?
Is it to ’humanize’ the journalists behind the print medium?
Is it a corporate mouthpiece of the Straits Times?
Whatever they might be, it is safe to say that the blogs are never meant to be ‘personal musings’.
Thus, saying that ‘the best response to my blog entry via Facebook from my ex: “Thank you for forgiving me.” Now that response is one that really means something to me’, seems inappropriate.
Either it is a case of bad writing (again) or it communicates the writer’s true thought – that the readers’ responses are inconsequential.
———
Rachel also blogs at : http://www.xtralicious.com/
———
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
she IS from the ST group –
you mean it was meant to carry any weight? You give ST too much credit, especially the likes of Sumiko Tan, why I can’t get married / pregnant / pretty. genre…..
sigh,
Good Afternoon,
Domestic violence is a bit like interrogation; everyone has a limit; you have one; the person reading this has one and so do I; if you havent lost your temper it doesnt mean you are enlightened or Buddha; it just means you haven’t been pushed to you limit. Neither is domestic violence a respecter of gender; it could just as well be perpetrated by women as well as men (that could explain why my coffee taste funny, I think my secretary is trying to kill me with rat poison); the only thing to remember is once that limit is crossed everything and anything under the sun is possible, including day light murder.
I think Joanne Lee was just calling a spade a spade and drawing from her personal experience – it came across as an introspective piece, so she deserves some slack. If its reportage, then thats a different matter.
SD (Internet liaison officer of the brotherhood)
ST’s weight comes from its circulation volume
it was introspective
I feel sorry for her and do not agree with her.
Abuse occur at all levels of social strata, to males, females, young, old, educated, not educated.
Just hope someoone else writes in to counter her sad viewpoint.
I don’t condone violence. But truth of the matter is, and succinctly mentioned by Singaporedaddy, is that we all have limits.
I’ve had 1x insane abusive gf before. But that’s immaturity and the stupid need to win arguments that leads to pushing someone into a corner. People can and WILL snap. When they do, expect “out-of-character” behavior. It’s psychology.
ST is a stupid medium. Most of the reporters are poor excuses of journalistic integrity. But honestly, I agree with SD- Joanne Lee was calling a spade a spade.
If you’ve never reached breaking point before- Be thankful for God’s blessings. If you have- then you probably know the fury you are capable of unleashing and the consequences of said actions.
Rihana’s bf was an idiot. He went overboard. But we all know how to push buttons. Some of us push them better than others. Emotional abuse is abuse too and to be honest, the times where the ex threw steel implements at my head, I look back on hindsight and agree that I was being a real jerk for arguing my point rather than looking at things from her perspective.
In her eyes, she probably felt cornered. What we really looking out for is whether it’s a cycle of repetitive and meaningless violence.
Rather than pretend we’re saintly examples of Christ-like/Buddha-level patience, we really have to come to a consensus that we have tolerance levels, some less than others and we really need to be showing people how to manage those levels to prevent more occurences, rather than a blanket condemnation.
ST got journalists? I thought they were just writers. No offence meant. I was a writer too at some publication. I did “news” and some features but I have no illusions about my role, which is to produce some work for publication, nothing more.
SPH calls their crew “journalists” and “PJs”, but look at the end product!
Anyway, I sincerely feel that people need to be educated that newspapers (not just ST) should be taken with a big pinch of salt. I was brought up to believe that the mainstream media is a reliable source of info, but I eventually learned otherwise. I hope more people come to realise that too.
Anyway, I hope for Joanne Lee’e sake that her current/future someone is not abusive, otherwise she will pander to his sadistic tendencies.. ouch!!
Sumiko Tan and Joanne Lee . Well done ST.
I disagree with Joanne Lee’s call for women to “change themselves” in situations of “mild violence”. When domestic violence occurs, whether mild or violent, whether initiated by the male or the female partner, there is need for counseling to identify and resolve issues and police intervention in violent cases.
I also happen to disagree with the many stands that violence resulting of provocation is “intolerable”. Humans are animals too. Reaction to deliberate emotional provocations that threaten a creature are a natural thing and these can often be violent. It indicates a problem that requires immediate psychological analysis and counseling. This stance of baying for the punishment of those who show even the slightest violence really irks me, almost as much as those decisions to execute any animal that happens to have harmed any human being, whether provoked or not.
The two ladies are the least of my gripes with ST. Their columns are the fluff that plumps up the page count of ST i.e. you can safely skip these without suffering any great loss in edification. Come to think of it, you could skip the ST almost entirely, for that matter. The parts that you don’t want to miss can be found, usually unabridged and at least a day earlier, at Bloomberg, NYT and elsewhere – for free. Reading the ST is an exercise in reading between the lines. You find yourself asking as you go along, “What is it that was actually meant?”, “Was that an attempt to paper over some inconvenient fact?”, “What else was said in the parts of this quote that have must have been left out?”, “Was she out of his/her mind, writing this dross?” and, very frequently, “Why do I bother reading this?”
singapore is so-called 1st world now.
women are so-called very modern now.
women charter very powerful.
but what is the mentality of women here?
violence should never be tolerated.
hit you once, may hit you again.
you get hit, you can’t get hit again? ha haa.
singapore women should not think like a weak woman. standup to violent spouse. turn him in to police. don’t take 4 steps back by tolerating and expecting he will change.
in short, i totally disagree and dislike what the writer wrote. am never gonna read anything from her again. complete disappointment!!
This is totally from a feminist point of view judging from the article….no offense to the the author of this article of cos….but men do get abused too and this article’s view point is through a woman’s own bad experience and hence she have a bone to pick with the Joanne Lee. Watever it is, male/female abuse is not right but everyone and i mean EVERYONE have a limit….
Rachel, that was a first rate presentation. Top rate, logical arguments that are far, far more coherent than some of the arguments emanating from some of our court judges. Kudos to you.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article.
rgds
Once a person hits another- it is time for the ‘victim’ to move on.
whether rihana provoked chris brown is totally irrelevant.
if your BF or husband hits you- it’s time to end the relationship. i did.
http://www.escapefromparadise.com
Thank you for this Rachel.
- Jolene (www.glass-castle.org)
Maybe someone from the Centre for Promoting Alternatives to Violence (PAVe) should go talk to her and educate her a bit on dating violence. Sigh.
i dun deny women are more outspoken especially modern educated women this what civilization is all about verbal abuse rather than physical abuse
read a few ST blogs.. thought its only so-so . But this Joanne like no brain like that to talk that way.. hahaha
Violent men should not be condone- Mild or Violence. Period
http://www.currypaper.tk
Thank you everyone for your comments. rwkc, I am glad you enjoyed the article and Jolene, I am a supporter of Glass Castle.
I would also like to reiterate that violence is NOT acceptable for both sexes. I don’t buy the bullshit of both men or women being ‘provoked’ beyond control.
There is always the choice to walk away, both for men and women. Your ‘limit’ is also a choice, albeit one that requires much restrain and control.
Rachel #18 –
I have changed my mind. I did some light reading on a Canadian website on provocation and domestic violence (which I encourage others to read – http://zerotolerance.ca/3_domestic_violence.htm) and I think we are no longer in disagreement on the matter of provocation.
There is perhaps only a gap between what you and myself view as violence. In my mind, I had considered instances where things are thrown and broken (not necessarily at the spouses), aggressive shouting, shoving and perhaps slapping.
My concerns have always been about fairness. I’ve posted to your blog before and I think you know how I feel about such things. I did not feel comfortable with the idea of having a person instantly demonized for violence without considering the aspect of provocation.
In any case, I agree with the article’s conclusions that serious violence like battering and murder tend to be planned rather than as instinctive responses to provocation. This appears to be backed by conclusions from sociological studies. However, I wished that article had more links to the appropriate sociological research.
Lee Chee Wai:
I hope you don’t mind if I butt in with something.
” I did not feel comfortable with the idea of having a person instantly demonized for violence without considering the aspect of provocation.”
I don’t think people should be ‘demonised’ for anything. Most people are capable of the most heinous acts under the right circumstances, and there is nothing to be gained by casting anyone who does the wrong thing as wholly monstrous.
However, I do think the violence itself, and the choice to resort to violence, should be condemned unequivocally regardless of whether there are any concerns about ‘provocation’. Self-defense is another matter: I don’t think anyone can be blamed for using violence to prevent imminent harm. But I disagree with ever seeing violence as a proportionate or legitimate reaction to aggravating behaviour.
One can wholly condemn and censure violence, and wholly place responsibility for the violence on the violent person, without demonising the violent person. We can look at ways to get that person to accept responsibility, and change their methods of response to situations to which they tend to respond violently. But we should not do this by blaming victims, or putting the onus on victims to avoid triggering violent responses. The whole point of violence is that it’s an attempt to get other people to conform to your will without having to reason with them; putting the burden on victims to submit to this system is basically colluding in a system of dehumanising control.
- Jolene (www.glass-castle.org)
Chee Wai
Thanks for sharing. The focus has been ‘hate the sin but not the sinner’. There are avenues for help like PAVe and independent counsellors.
I also think Jolene has a good point in bringing up self defense.Which reminds me of the ‘protection’ angle – think a mother being pushed to protect her children from physical abuse. That is why temporary insanity is being employed as defense, and understandably so.
The article I linked in my previous comment #19 also mentions self-defense (in one of the side-bar links), which was what laid to rest any remaining doubts I had.
The key point was that a violent reaction resulting from an overwhelming perception of threat to one’s life is indeed a reasonable thing. What I had previously considered – a perceived emotional threat from a provocateur should hardly qualify as a life-threatening event.
Good discussion.