All signs point to yes. (And yes, that is a tattoo of a beaten woman’s face on his neck). Can we all agree that no one should buy his music, attend his concerts or play his songs/videos anymore? Please?
Author: has written 5116 posts for this blog.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index
71 Responses
Comments are closed.
It’s pretty hard to tell for sure from that photo (and perfunctory searching didn’t lead me to any better ones), but to me this looks more like a trend I’m seeing more and more of tattoos where a beautiful woman is half zombie. (Try a Google image search for something like “half zombie tattoo”; I’ve seen several that resemble Marilyn Monroe.)
I’m not saying it’s not in poor taste, particularly if it’s modeled after Rihanna, but to me the left half looks more skeletal/zombie-like than like a victim of violence.
MK, I’m thinking the same thing. That looks like it could be a decorated skull on the left. But I have to tell you, I’m laughing long and hard. I’m laughing because a better tattoo artist could have made a tattoo that wasn’t so butt ugly and now Brown has to live with that hideous thing on his neck.
And I’m laughing at the thought that maybe the artist was perfectly talented and make the woman resemble Rhianna so that everyone would see it and think “God, what a jerk.”
It could be Rihanna, it could be a stylized sugar skull zombie lady. Either way, dude and someone in his entourage should’ve been like, “Hey, maybe you shouldn’t get a mutilated lady on your neck because, YOU KNOW. CHRIS BROWN.”
Exactly. I love horror flicks and if anyone else w/o an arrest record for violence had gotten
thisa well done version of this I’d think awesome zombie tat. Zombies are walking mutilated corpses of formerly living people, so on him it looks like he’s thumbing his nose at the reputation he earned. Just waiting for his next arrest, you know if they can’t bribe his next victim to remain quiet.I’m pretty sure that a) that tattoo is a half-skull face, with visibly empty eye and nose cavities b) that very strongly implies it is not a depiction of a domestic abuse victim, who generally do not have their entire skin and musculature removed from half their head c) regardless of the aforementioned, Mr. Brown is still a terrible person and the answer to Jill’s final question is still ‘yes’.
Oh C’ mon– just squint and it looks exactly like a certain popstar with a black eye: Umami, I couldn’t have said it better:
You would think someone who “gets what [I] make in ten years in two days,” you would think he’d spring for a better tattoo artist. His tats are looking awful.
Yeah, no kidding. He’s a terrible person, but he also looks pretty terrible too. :p
It’s bad enough that the new tattoo alludes to his assault on Rhianna, but did he have to go full Sisqo?
Wow, I really feel I’m ahead of the trend here. I’ve never done any of those things in the first place! Actually, I’m speaking on a personal music collection level, the radio station I’m with now is playlisted, they play top 40 music, and I never know what the songs we play are- so we possibly do play Chris Brown. Normally, I ignore the playlist but I will definitely look into that. I may even have to take a mini-stand.
The article linked seems to confirm it is NOT a tattoo of Rihanna but I agree it looks more like a half skull than anything else.
No, we can’t all agree to that. If I curated my music and literature collections to only people I either personally like or politically agree with, it’d be small and honestly quite bad.
Even if I only narrowed to men who weren’t known abusers of women, I’d be cutting everyone from Chekhov to Dr Dre.
The solution for me isn’t a boycott but a sensitised reading of their work. Chris Brown isn’t the best or even up there in the top hundred at what he does, but he’s damn popular. That says a lot about the people (young women especially) that buy his stuff and the society they live in.
To me that makes him worth taking the time over.
The second part, is he the worst person in the world? no. Not even close. Sorry. And getting angry about the non-existent meaning of a tattoo won’t change that.
You realize that was hyperbole, right?
Jill literally thinks Chris Brown is worse than, I dunno, Hitler. Duh.
Chris Brown is worse than ALL THE THINGS!
So Chris Brown is pretty obviously an abuser who refuses to be held accountable for his actions. I don’t see how it should not be expected of us to refuse to engage him/his work at the level of the consumer. Perhaps if what you’re getting at is studying the popular engagement with his music as a cultural phenomenon, I could understand.
I think I get the legitimate complaints that a lot of the Brown-hate has to do with racism, but the answer is not to then defend Chris Brown, who is a misogynist. The answer is to recognize all problematic artists as problematic and reevaluate our relationship with their work. I recently started doing this with John Lennon (who was apparently abusive toward Yoko Ono as well as his son Julian).
Of course, the difference between Chris Brown and a lot of other problematic artists that are talked about is that Chris Brown’s current popularity is at stake–this isn’t a retrospective. Every time you purchase his music–even if you listen to it critically and consciously–you are in some small way perpetuating his prominence and his acceptability as a public figure.
And muthafuckas act like they forgot about Dre
I’ve never been much of a rap fan, what did Dre do?
*Trigger Warning: Discussion of domestic violence and rape*
I think my essential problem is not that I can’t get behind the idea of freezing out unabashed and unapologetic abusers, refusing to consume their products and art, but I don’t know why Chris Brown is presented as the face of this when, to my knowledge, I can think of at least 3 different men who are much older, whose works are typically celebrated or held in much higher regard despite well-documented histories of abuse and are almost never held accountable for them. Like, Sean Penn hit Madonna multiple times and once tied her up and abused her/forced her to perform sexual acts on him over the course of 9 hours. Why has that not followed him around for the past 20 years?
I feel as if Chris Brown is used as someone we can all rally around in our mutual despisement of, someone to bring up when some people (not people here necessarily) want to seem like they give a damn about domestic violence, but it’s rather selective and specific. I really like that he’s held accountable, but I’m suspicious of why he’s held accountable in ways certain other male celebrities are not.
Why is it the primary point of discussion in everything he does, but we’ve stopped talking about the three counts of rape Ben Roethlisberger dealt with not more than 3 years ago? Charlie Sheen became something of a meme after making ridiculous statements in an interview. He was arrested for domestic violence charges in 2009, but continued to be the highest paid TV actor until he was dismissed from the show he was the star of because he badmouthed the producers behind the show. He then went on to star in a new show which broke cable ratings records. He’s still getting work.
John Lennon was a dick who emotionally abused his son and physically abused his wife, but he’s lionized as this revolutionary figure in music. People complained about Chris Brown at the Grammys, the irony of which being that Glen Campbell, a guy who punched Tanya Tucker back in the 80s was being celebrated that same night to zero controversy or complaints.
Christian Bale has well documented temper tantrums that lead to highly charged emotionally abusive screeds against people ranging from dude’s on the set to his own family, intense enough that the police are called. But no one boycotted The Dark Knight Rises on the basis that the lead was an emotionally abusive jerk. People seem to be willing to review Roman Polanski’s films with a sense of objectivity despite their being no doubt about what he did and no consequences for him. He has well-respected actors defend him openly and this doesn’t impact their careers at all either.
Nothing I’ve mentioned is hard to track down about these guys, it just hasn’t followed them around and become part of their narrative around their careers. And I’m not even just talking about men whose behaviors were over a decade ago. A lot of this stuff *just* happened or has continued to happen. I’m not saying that Chris Brown should be given the same exemptions, but that those guys should face the same scrutiny, the same shunning, the same constant suspicion that their motives are questionable and insincere.
I can’t help but be annoyed that we can only seem to have these very necessary discussions about domestic violence and accountability and how abusers are just the worst when it’s him but silence falls when it’s almost any of the above guys. I am suspicious of the ease with which we embraced culturally the narrative of black man as horrible abuser who should be shunned in all forms, but applying the same standards to Michael Fassbender, Roman Polanski, Gary Oldman, Christian Bale, Charlie Sheen, Ben Roethlisberger is met with a lot of resistance and excuses.
Put a public poll up about who is worse Ben Roethlisberger or Michael Vick.
I have to say a whole lot more media compassion centered on those abused pit bulls versus the 3 women Ben Roethlisberger victimized.
I don’t see that the dynamic around Chris Brown is noticeably different than with other men who beat women. You might have expected it to be, given the shocking visual image of his viciousness that got circulated making it harder to deny. And given that Rihanna is more famous than him. But the dynamic seems identical. People are excusing him and blaming the victim. People are still excusing him even when he does something like this. Probably he’d get even more people excusing him if he was a white guy. But it’s hardly the case that he’s being scapegoated now.
I think you’ll find on this site, Polanski and Sheen et al are pretty much loathed and shunned as well. We had a whole thread telling each other about who the scum are a little while ago. Even when it comes to mainstream attention–it’s not like Chris Brown isn’t getting work or is being shunned by the music industry. He gets applauded all the time.
I mentioned in my post that such an attitude is not necessarily prevalent here, because I don’t want to suggest that Feministe does that.
Cagey, several of the examples you cite, as you mentioned in your post, are people who did shitty things a long time ago. For example, I had no idea any of the people you mentioned did any of those things (with the exception of Christian Bale and the guy on his set). So while I think it’s good to question why we let some of these things go and not others (racism being a likely answer), I don’t consume music and think to google “John Lennon” and “abuser.” I’m in my mid-20s and have only really become sensitive to these issues in my early 20s. Maybe the issue is our collective short attention span. Someone brought up Dr. Dre above – who I literally learned had a history of abuse from a Cracked article a month ago. It doesn’t seem to fit the narrative you mention here.
Anyway, thank you for bringing these situations up. Sean Penn especially sounds like a giant shitbag.
Right. Most of the men you mention (Sheen, Roethlisberger, Polanski) have been mentioned here, some multiple times. They’ve been shunned. But you’ll notice that they’re mentioned (along with Brown) when there’s a news hook for the story — i.e., Polanski said something outrageous about his crimes, Sheen committed another act of violence, etc. Ditto Brown. Right now there’s a news hook — this tattoo. Which is why we’re writing about him. Again. Since Chris Brown seems to do a LOT of shitty things.
I agree with the other replies thus far, and I also have another perspective to offer.
I’m not immediately familiar with all of the instances you’ve referenced, but based on those I know about, I think the nature of Chris Brown’s abusive behavior – and more specifically, the fact that it resulted in a police report and an image of an obviously viciously battered Rhianna – has a lot to do with the difference in how the media and general public have reacted to him.
When most people think of domestic violence, they have a rather narrow mental image picture in their minds that includes police intervention and obvious bruises. Short of that, many people are uncomfortable* with using the words “abuse” or “domestic violence.” The world saw the police report and corresponding image of a battered Rhianna, and I think that had a far stronger and more visceral impact than if, say, we had only heard a journalistic report about the incident after the fact. I think this laid the foundation for the stronger opinions and greater coverage that we have seen. Chris Brown has only added fuel to that fire with the things he has said and done since that incident.
Also, my John Lennon bubble has officially been burst. I had no idea.
*As an example, I was recently piled on by the local commentariat for commenting on another feminist-leaning website’s article to say that I was put off by Christian Bale’s emotionally abusive behavior. Worse yet, I have close friends who still bristle when I describe my emotionally abusive ex as abusive, because they think abuse has to involve physical violence.
The article below has a zoomed in version of the tattoo (and I feel a bit lightheaded after looking at it, so even though I never know when trigger warnings are required, trigger warning, I guess.)
I don’t think it matters if he says it’s not Rihanna. It is STRONGLY remniscient of the photos of Rihanna beaten that were all over the news. (it looks more like a bruise and less like an empty eye socket, zoomed in.) There is no fucking way he got that tattooed on himself without being aware what it would evoke. Just no way.
I actually feel ill. I have to hand it to him, he’s found an exciting and innovative way to be a disgusting human being.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/chris-brown-neck-tattoo-rihanna-face-singer-shows-ink-brutally-beaten-woman-denies-article-1.1156547
In the larger photo it looks much more like a beaten woman; the eye is bruised-looking but the eye is still present, so it’s not a zombie eye socket, and there are stitches/cuts in her lips.
According to Chris Brown’s rep it’s meant to be a woman wearing Sugar Skull makeup. Which, like, whole different can of worms but would probably explain the eye still being visible and the “stitches” (as well as the nostril painted onto the right hand side of the nose).
Still a terrible, terrible tattoo though.
Ah yes, plausible deniability. Except for the “plausible” part.
I’m a fan of a listen-to-the-music-of-terrible-people-but-don’t-pay-for-it solution (at least till their dead, then sometimes that money goes to their families).
Yup. When the music industry stops promoting douchebags like Brown maybe I won’t pay for songs so …selectively.
There is a difference between buying the work of a dead artist who was a fuckhead, knowing that they cannot benefit personally, and paying money into the pocket of a living person who can use that money to more easily get away with abusing people.
In theory there might not be a huge difference economically since the knowledge that you’re going to purchase my “art” after I’m dead makes that purchase have a positive present value, e.g. I could borrow against it using the inevitable future sales as collateral and payback. It’s much more moral just to steal their music.
I find it interesting that this is the second tattoo we’ve seen in recent times. Chad Ochocinco just got a tattoo of his soon to be ex-wife, who he apparently head butted, Evelyn Lozada.
I think Chris Brown’s tattoo does look eerily like the picture of Rhianna when she was attacked by him, the downcast eyes especially.
So, arguing that the resemblance is intentional, is this his and Chad’s way of keeping their victims?
Feministe commentators,
You have done some messed up and insensitive things. But nothing you say about “man-jewelry” or hats will ever compare to the callousness and heartlessness you have shown in attacking someone who is emulating their appearance after Dennis Rodman (without the flare, personality, and originality that lets Rodman pull it off). Can’t you see this is a cry for help? When throwing temper tantrums on twitter doesn’t work after people refuse to forget you abused your partner, when trashing your dressing room after an interviewer brings up abuse doesn’t work,when throwing a fit in general doesn’t stop people from bringing up abuse and believe that you have taken responsibility and working on changing (despite the fact you want everyone to act as though it didn’t happen which reeks of not actually taking responsibility and realizing the gravity of what you did) this is what you do.
And now that this poor child has been attacked for getting a sugar-skull or half-zombified women’s face tattooed on his neck just because he assaulted a woman, it is only a matter of time before he shows up somewhere in a glittery three-piece suit.
Shame on you. All of you.
I think I love you. Can we be friends?
Of course, so long as you do not insult Brown’s inevitable nose ring and song about how everyone who dares remember and speak on his history of abuse and violent behavior is a “hater” who just wants to “block his style” and then trashes a radio station bathroom when it gets little air play.
Not that I expect Feministe to be my source for gossip or commentary there-on, but I’ve heard on the radio that Rihanna / Chris Brown got back together and/or kissed at the VMA’s. I was wondering if Feministe was going to comment on this stuff.
It’s kind of handy, really. Provides a visual warning to people “oh, you’re that Chris Brown, the vicious domestic abuser” so they can stay clear.
Go to the World of Wonder website for a more complete explanation of what this mess of a tattoo is allegedly based on (MAC make-up design of a sugar skull ). Lots of stuff doesn’t make sense about this !:
http://worldofwonder.net/posts/2012/09/11/its-a-sugar-skull-duh/
(Trigger warning for my repost of the Rihanna bearing photo in the comments portion).
Man, if this is not a warning label about the problem that Chris Brown is, I don’t know what could be…
Maybe there needs to be a go to list of abusive men. As someone who doesn’t closely follow celebrity news I don’t always know what’s what, eg Sean Penn.
A lot of excuses are made for abusive men, there’s a lot of erasing of abusive history. I think we need to keep reminding each other of who these men are.
I don’t know if you’ve seen this or if this is what you had in mind, but this thread from earlier in the year contains a long series of comments listing celebrities who have abused people or who have defended abusers.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/02/13/the-shit-list/
I’m pretty sure it’s a sugar skull. My sister used to be a tattoo artist (much better than the artist who did that one) and they were really popular. I guess they still are. She has a tattoo (again much better than that one) on her leg of a zombie looking girl, facing a normal looking girl on her other leg. It’s actually really good, and it doesn’t represent victims of domestic violence. I think people are reaching for that conclusion because it’s Chris Brown, and I think the reason his violent act follows him in a way that it doesn’t follow other men is because of his race.
Or because his victim was an extremely famous young woman, whose beaten face was splashed all over the media and seared into our collective minds in a way that the faces of other abuse victims have not been. And/or because he continues to act out violently (see: Good Morning America), reminding all of us of his previous actions.
Also, do you really think that Roman Polanski or Charlie Sheen don’t see their violent acts following them?
Maybe Sheen’s and Polanski’s past do follow them and i just don’t notice. The websites and blogs I read don’t cover them nearly as much as they cover Brown, and I’m not talking about Feministe.
It seems like I can read something about Charlie Sheen that doesn’t include prior abuse, but I can’t really say the same about Chris Brown.
I’m sure the pictures are part of the reason, but I don’t believe that’s all there is to it.
I agree with Miss S.
Everyone keeps pointing to Sheen and Polanski.
I don’t think that Sheen gets this kind of treatment and he has been abusing women, drugs, breaking the law in general for over 20 years. He has on record abused both of his wives and other ladies, but people make jokes, “Winning!” etc. He even had a road tour where he was going to recount his wonderful life of debauchery *all chuckles*.
If you talk about domestic violence in famous people, they bring up Brown or OJ Simpson. Repeatedly. White people are still ANGRY about OJ close to 20 years later. I’m not saying that it was not a travesty, but the incredible anger that white people harbor about that domestic violence case in UNREAL to me.
Ryan O’Neal gets this treatment? Marlon Brando? Tom Sizemore who beat up Heidi Fleiss repeatedly has been on more than a few reality shows.
I’m not excusing Chris Brown. However, when people on this board say, “I had no idea about Sean Penn, John Lennon, etc” why do you think that is?
The America face of domestic violence=
OJ Simpson/Mike Tyson/Chris Brown/Michael Vick
Some men are considered animalistic brutes beyond redemption, while some others are seen as complex and multifaceted. This is not to say that the aforementioned aren’t on my personal shit list, but this image of the boogeyman is monochromatic.
Huh? Maybe I missed something, but I thought Michael Vick got in trouble for dogfighting.
As for the folks who are well-known domestic abusers, I would say the list goes something like: OJ Simpson, Mike Tyson, Chris Brown, Mel Gibson, Phil Hartman, Charlie Sheen. The face of rape: Ben Roethlisberger, Roman Polanski, Kobe Bryant.
I’m not going to argue there isn’t a racial component. But a lot of these comments seem to be extremely reductive and selective.
Yes Michael Vick = dog abuse. I was conflating two different types of violence; the poster child for domestic violence and animal abuse shares the same face.
“Reductive” and “selective”!?! Really!?! Since we both live in the U.S. I guess I’d expect that we’d both see this trend. It’s pretty clearly apparent how this image functions in popular culture/mainstream discourse. I suppose being a WOC with African ancestry makes this painfully obvious to me.
From what I understand Phil Hartman was the victim of domestic violence, unless there’s something I missed? To throw him on a list with famous abusers is a little misleading.
I just looked at Phil Hartman’s wikipedia, and I can’t see any mention of a hint of him being a domestic abuser, not even an accusation.
Also, Mike Tyson appears to have jumped categories.
I was under the impression there was a long history of relationship violence between Hartman and his wife. I may be working with bad info.
I was under the impression there was a long history of relationship violence between Hartman and his wife. I may be working with bad info.
Or maybe you read something like that and simply assumed that Hartman was the guilty party? Because, other than the kind of speculation along the lines of “he must have done something to deserve it,” I don’t remember ever seeing anything like what you suggest. The way I remember it was that she had a problem with alcohol and cocaine, he threatened to end the marriage, and she got high and killed him, and then killed herself. Which is basically consistent with this article: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20125518,00.html
I haven’t found anything suggesting a different story. If there is, I’d be curious to know about it. Because of course most cases of domestic violence between men and women are perpetrated by men. But not every one of them.
I think Mike Tyson gets the distinction of being in both categories. Before he was a convicted rapist, Robin Givens accused him of domestic violence.
Forgive me for making a comment that verges on WATM, but the Hartman thing really pisses me off. I mean, abuse against men does happen, and the fact that one of the very few cases that was discussed at great length, publicly, has been so degraded in our memories that most (in my experience) people remember Hartman himself as an abuser… its infuriating.
WHy yes, yes, Chris Brown is a far worse person than any rapist, torturer, murderer, sadist, pedaphile, bigot, racist, you can ever imagine!
I mean, soldiers who hold children over fires, SAINTS in comparison! A man who participates in the gang rape of a 15 year old girl on a cruiseship, perfect gentleman! A guy who beats the shit out of a black woman and her child because she has to know to be black and exist within his eyesight, just a normal guy who was provoked beyond all reason. No my friends, Chris Brown is DEFINITELY far worse than anyone else on the planet.
Yup.
Yes, and I have never before in my life used hyperbole to illustrate a point.
Instead of complaining that it was hyperbole maybe you should apologize and admit that you hadn’t thought through the comment. Maybe not all hyperbole gets a pass because its hyperbole. Maybe your white privilege is showing and you need to check it.
Matt, I’m not “complaining” that it was hyperbole. I am saying that it was hyperbole, and that was apparent from the post. And I did think through the post — I intentionally made it hyperbolic, which, if you read this blog regularly, you’ll see is something I do quite often. I’m not going to apologize for a post strongly maligning a domestic abuser. Perhaps you need to check your male privilege.
And frankly, 95% of your comments here are assholish, so perhaps you also need to check yourself generally.
How can you say you’ve NEVER used hyperbole to illustrate a point? Everyone has at least once.
IAOJ
There is no way she could have been literally implying that Chris Brown was the worst person in the world. I certainly think Jill keeps up with the news enough to know that Rush Limbaugh is still alive.
Azalea, Matt- your posts were, by a significant margin, the least cogent pieces of writing every produced over the grand history of human literature.
And yours the best example of snark ever devised.
Wee sarcasm AND hyperbole.
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fmusic%2Fthe-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson%2F2012%2Fsep%2F11%2Fchris-brown-tattoo-sickening-rihanna&ei=LHxSUPv8J8fQsgaOhYHIBw&usg=AFQjCNHEhv1eNGP8cPvFumCvrD6xq1vTVQ
If there is some truth to that, it isnt just Chris, its the record company whom are behind that decision, his managers, marketing etc. .
If I limited my choice of music/movies/consumption to never supporting people who have done/supported something major wrong bad…
Well I would starve in short order. Seriously people who are okay with the mutilation of infants alone would mean I couldn’t buy jack.
Fascinating that refusing to consume music would starve you to death. Do you eat your music CDs raw, or cook them lightly in a VHS sauce? I’ve been looking for a good recipe…
I prefer them roasted with crumbled cassette tapes over the top.
Maybe a cassetteroll?
People just dont care. They shouldnt buy all those products that are produced cheaply in countries where workers are denied the rights we enjoy in America or Europe, but the iphone5 sold out anyway. Its hardly surprising they dont let a woman being smacked up influence their consumer choice, when dead doesnt.
I’m against the consumption of mutilated infants.