Sexual violence in Rihanna video

[Cheeseandhamtoast]

I've just posted about this in AIBU, but the general consensus was that IABU to be bothered about this. So I thought I would give it a go here.

I'm not going to link, but I am absolutely disgusted at the new Rihanna video. Especially coming from Rihanna who has been a victim of domestic violence herself. Who would make a video like this?

I just despair at what is becoming mainstream. For example, Sam Smith has just tweeted a link to it to his 3 million followers, many of which will be young teenagers.

What was the song?

My local branch of the Women's Equality Party have just shared an article on facebook defending the video ... I'm so disappointed!

Polly is about a real life kidnapping of a girl on her way home from a concert. It's not Cobain speaking.

Nirvana played benefit gigs to help rape victims, including the “Rock Against Rape” concert in 1993, which raised money for a women’s self-defense organisation.

I recall there was a famous spat between Axl Rose and Cobain about Rose's sexist, homophobic and racist attitudes.

Never liked G'n'R and similar although their and hair metal bands videos from that period featuring Playboy/Penthouse types being ogled at look positively quaint compared to Rihanna's

My local branch of the Women's Equality Party have just shared an article on facebook defending the video

On what basis? Gratuitous violence carried out by women on other women is equal opportunities violence? "Bitch" is fine if it's used by a woman?

That's putting words in their mouths, isn't it, Lass? Wouldn't it be fairer to simply ask fusty the grounds and wait for the answer?

I asked on what basis. fusty can respond if she wishes.

I can't see any artistic redeeming merit in that video. Am I allowed to say that? Serious question given the Women's Equality Party can speak in its defence. After all they are presumably feminists and much more qualified than me to have a valid opinion on it.

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7710676

Well here's a defence of it "I'm not a feminist I'm a Rihannaist"

They were basically saying that because Rihanna is black, and the woman being harmed is white, and that the white woman's husband owed Rihanna money, that this was an example of a black woman putting her own well-being over that of a white woman.

Then making a video of sexualised violence against that woman.

Intersectional feminism, apparently.

Load of rubbish. It doesn't matter who is in that video, black, white, male, female. Whatever role is being played it is still always going to be offensive.

Plus the song (and video itself as a piece of film) is just bloody awful. I'm so glad I'm old and uncool!

I really didn't expect this from the Women's Equality Party, the fact that they've shared this (or their Brighton branch have at least) is the most shocking thing I think. I don't know if Rihanna calls herself a feminist, but WE certainly do.

Here's the article I'm talking about:
www.blackgirldangerous.org/2015/07/this-is-what-rihannas-bbhmm-video-says-about-black-women-white-women-and-feminism/

You asked on what basis and then postulated a couple of answers, Lass, no doubt wanting to leave the impression that those were the reasons.

Once again, feminists are not Borg. The WEP has been debated on here a couple of times and many posters disagree with some or all of their positions. It's a political party, of course that's the case. Nothing to do with them self defining as feminists and you not self defining that way.

Fusty, I think the WEP is so nascent that a few commenters (who may have paid a membership fee but may not be close to "the central party") could be skewing the impression. They've launched about 40 branches recently, I doubt they've got ducks in a row and on message in the same way as the well oiled Tory machine, say.

I would think (hope!) that that's not the 'official' WEP position. I assume it's just a local branch or, more likely, a few members (or just one member) of a local branch giving their opinion. Rather an unfortunate posting though, in my opinion.

You asked on what basis and then postulated a couple of answers, Lass, no doubt wanting to leave the impression that those were the reasons

No I posted a couple of suggestions with question marks after them. My interpretation of what possible merit they might have found it and which are pretty much the grounds the Huff article used. The subverting of sterotyped angle.

As it turns out the defence is it's Rihanna as a black woman putting her own well-being above the well-being of a white woman. If she had truly wanted to subvert the stereotype the victim could have been a man, white or black.

I hope so Yonic and Vermicious

There is this from the article, Lass:

"Imagine if instead of kidnapping the accountant’s wife, Rihanna and her crew kidnapped his brother? Would White Feminists™ be so upset? I doubt it. Because they understand that revenge fantasies wherein women hurt men are pushing back against the harm men do to us. But here’s what white feminists don’t get (and what has them fucked up): black women often see white women as the same as white men. The harm done to us by white men and white women isn’t vastly different to many of us."

I hate the video. But the above quote does make me think.

That's interesting. I do think that some (many?) women (whether feminists or not) might well have a less visceral reaction to images of a man being tortured.

However I suspect that some (many?) women (whether feminists or not) might have the same visceral reaction to a black woman being tortured as a white woman. Because the primary thing they are identifying with is "female" rather than race IYSWIM.

There is also the prevalence of sexualised images of VAW and images of sexual violence against women which are shot to be titillating all over mainstream TV at the moment so whether the violence is committed by a man or a woman we still have a female being brutalised in that way, depicted that way. Men and rarely have their bodies showcased / camera lingering on them etc in the same sort of way when they are victims of violent crimes. So there is that backdrop to all of this. VAW = sexy in mainstream imagery so I'm not sure what's transgressive.

Don't know, just thinking out loud really.

I've not seen the video BTW. And also haven't read the link! So probably should read the link, not sure I want to watch the video.

That black girl dangerous blog is pretty shite

But i mean it depends on your focus doesn't it, if women are your focus then you will see the sexes, if race is your focus you will see the colours, if religion is your focus and one had a that is what you will see, it all comes down to that doesn't it.

So she has a point, I think.

Going to read it now :D

I can totally understand where that blog is coming from.

I also agree with Innocent's post, above.

Also I'm white so not prepared to comment on whether a black woman is "right" or not about the way she sees this, same as a man isn't allowed to tell me how to feel about stuff about women, or a non disabled person is able to speak with authority on life as a disabled person.

Complicated stuff!

All interesting though.

I'd have all the look let's show a sexy lady being violated while looking sexy stuff would just go from the telly it's revolting really. If you want to show a sexy woman then show her having happy consensual encounters FFS but of course the media have problems with that, while a hot woman being raped is of course serious therefore AOK.

Oh that should say fervently agree with Innocent's post I feel like it's something I would write!