ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Domestic Violence

Alyssa

Kelly Rowland Sings About An Abusive Relationship And Living In Beyonce’s Shadow In “Dirty Laundry”

Given that Beyonce Knowles-Carter both had two musical partners in Destiny’s Child—Kelly Rowland and Michelle Williams—before she went out on her own as a solo act, and a younger sister, Solange Knowles, who is also a musician, it’s fascinating to hear Rowland sing about the difficulties of living in Knowles-Carter’s orbit in “Dirty Laundry.” What makes the song particularly interesting though is the way it chronicles the ups and downs of Rowland’s relationship with Knowles-Carter as it tracks with what Rowland says was an abusive relationship with an unnamed man, during which Knowles-Carter’s fame and success were both causes for resentment, a lifeline for Rowland, and something her ex-boyfriend invoked as part of his efforts to isolate her and dominate her affections. “He hittin the window like it was me, until it shattered / He pulled me out, he said, “Don’t nobody love you but me / Not your mama, not your daddy and especially not Bey” / He turned me against my sister,” Rowland sings on the track, in which she also describes feeling some relief that Knowles-Carter’s fame eclipsed hers, and describes a call from Knowles-Carter that encouraged her to leave the man who was abusing her:

Given Knowles-Carter’s obsessive curation of her own image, “Dirty Laundry” may be the most genuinely revealing look at her behavior and artistic circle in years. It certainly tells us more about Knowles-Carter than Beyonce: Life Is But A Dream, the documentary she co-directed and for which she provided much of the archival footage, that aired on HBO earlier this spring. Knowing that Knowles-Carter remains personally close to at least one member of Destiny’s Child cuts through the tabloid rumors about feuds and reunions. And knowing that Rowland survived an abusive relationship lends context to her efforts to establish herself as an artist independent of both the musical legacy of Destiny’s Child and Knowles-Carter’s considerable shadow.

In an age of hyper-produced pop stars, and given the myth that trauma creates great art, it’s easy to forget how artistic confidence and personal stability can be related. Knowles-Carter fired her father Matthew as her manager, and appears to have had a falling-out with him, but she’s also in a long-term, stable relationship with a partner, Jay-Z, who appears supportive of her career and her family. Solange Knowles, who’s found professional success by hopping genres so she isn’t in competition with her sister, finding a musical style that matches her vocal capabilities and her strengths as a small-club performer, married and had her first child at 17, moved to Idaho with her husband, and divorced shortly thereafter. Rowland, who for a time split her efforts pursuing a career in acting while continuing to make music, also appears to have had personal difficulties that weren’t widely known until now. Or, as she puts it on “Dirty Laundry,” “I swear y’all don’t know the half of this industry.”

Justice

Bleeding Ex-Girlfriend Shooting Target Discontinued By Manufacturer


Zombie Industries, the company behind an “ex-girlfriend” mannequin that bleeds when shot, announced yesterday that it will discontinue the target and redesign it to have green skin in order to make it appear less like a real woman. In an interview with the Huffington Post, the company’s CEO added that he is disappointed that “people’s feelings were hurt.”

Earlier this week, online retailer Amazon announced that it would no longer sell the ex-girlfriend shooting mannequin. Zombie Industries also makes a green zombie target that resembles President Obama.

Immigration

Texas Bill Would Protect Immigrant Victims And Witnesses From Deportation

On Thursday, the House State Affairs Committee in Texas approved a bill that would prohibit law enforcement officers from asking immigrants about their legal status when they report abuse and crime. The bill would prohibit immigration checks, but it does not grant exemptions for criminal involvement.

Advocating undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows to report crime would not only serve to bring justice to the system quicker, but empower victims to take a stand against their perpetrators. The bill passage could likely deter the ability of abusive partners who use the threat of deportation to undermine their spouses or partners from reporting their crime in a similar way that the Senate immigration bill aims to do.

It could also help improve construction site work conditions wherein one out of every five Texas construction workers require hospitalization due to job-related accidents.

The bill presents a positive shift from previous anti-immigrant House bills, such as the 2011 “no sanctuary city” bill that would give enforcement officers the authority to inquiry about legal status. Once regarded as proxies to ICE officers, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo would like this bill to help change the public perception that law enforcement officials are there to investigate crime rather than to detain people.

Justice

In Pennsylvania Town, Women Face Eviction For Being Domestically Abused

In Norristown, Pa., police threatened to evict a woman over reports of domestic violence against her. Under the town’s “disorderly behavior ordinance,” landlords and tenants are punished for three instances of so-called “disorderly conduct” within a four-month period, which includes calls to the police by anyone, even when they are to report domestic violence. Laws like this one deter victims from calling the police for fear of being evicted. And even when they don’t call the police, the calls of neighbors or others can still lead to their eviction. The ACLU’s Sandra Park explains:

After her first “strike,” Ms. Briggs was terrified of calling the police. She did not want to do anything to risk losing her home. So even when her now ex-boyfriend attacked her with a brick, she did not call. And later, when he stabbed her in the neck, she was still too afraid to reach out. But both times, someone else did call the police. Based on these “strikes,” the city pressured her landlord to evict. After a housing court refused to order an eviction, the city said it planned to condemn the property and forcibly remove Ms. Briggs from her home. The ACLU intervened, and the city did not carry out its threats, and even agreed to repeal the ordinance. But just two weeks later, Norristown quietly passed a virtually identical ordinance that imposes fines on landlords unless they evict tenants who obtain police assistance, including for domestic violence.

This sort of discrimination is one of the reasons domestic violence victims are at particular risk for homelessness, with landlords evicting tenants based on the conduct of their abuser, including when an abuser has broken into a victim’s home. “Nuisance ordinances” and “crime-free ordinances” exacerbate this problem, resulting in frequent nuisance citations for instances of domestic violence that are then used against victims in eviction proceedings. Historically, the threat of eviction was particularly grave for those in public housing . A strict one-strike rule permits eviction of tenant families in public housing if any household member or guest has engaged in criminal activity. But crucial provisions in the Violence Against Women Act amended this rule to exempt domestic violence victims. The ACLU filed suit yesterday to challenge the statute, citing VAWA and the Fair Housing Act.

Health

Texas Restaurant Sign Makes Light Of Abuse: ‘Beer Should Be Like Violence — Domestic’

An organic restaurant in Houston, Texas stirred public outcry this past weekend with a marquee sign making light of domestic violence:

The Houston Press reported that the sign was quickly brought to the restaurant’s attention and taken down within “10 minutes,” according to its manager, who identified himself as Kenneth. “Everyone makes mistakes. We completely deserved the backlash, and I can’t be mad at anyone but myself,” Kenneth told the Press.

However, the followup sign posted on the marquee didn’t reflect much remorse on the part of Roots Bistro. “Seriously, focus your energy on equal rights,” the sign proclaimed. Some have interpreted that to be an attack on those who were offended by the sign, and a call to “lighten up” over what was meant to be a joke.

But the outrage over the sign that spread on the Internet and throughout the Houston community reflects the growing public discontent over rape culture, as stories about violence against women become increasingly commonplace. According to the Texas Council on Family Violence, 74 percent of all Texans “have either themselves, a family member and/or a friend experienced some form of domestic violence,” and 47 percent have experienced at least one form of domestic violence personally. In the U.S. as a whole, one in four women will experience domestic violence at some point in her life.

(HT: Salon)

Politics

These Women Were Murdered After Their Stalkers Acquired A Gun


Every year, thousands of domestic abusers fall through the cracks of our current background check system, often with tragic consequences for the women they terrorize. The “gun show loophole,” which the Senate is considering closing as part of a gun reform package, allows violent individuals who are banned from buying or owning a gun to easily skip background checks through private sales.

Technically, under the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, people who have committed a misdemeanor of domestic violence or are the subject of a restraining order are prohibited from buying or owning a gun. Yet it is all too easy for convicted abusers looking to punish or kill their targets to get their hands on weapons. Over 90 percent of female homicide victims are killed by someone they know, and 76 percent of these victims were stalked before their deaths. Guns are the most common weapon used in these murders.

Moreover, federal gun bans are so narrowly defined that many abusers can pass a background check to buy guns legally. For instance, current federal law does not disqualify convicted stalkers from buying guns. Federal domestic abuse protections also do not extend to people who were not married, related to, cohabitated, or had a child with their abuser. A new bill introduced by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) would extend the gun ban to people who abused a dating partner, a relatively common occurrence.

Access to guns all but ensures that an abusive situation turns fatal. Domestic abusers who have access to firearms are over 7 times more likely to kill their partners. From 2009 to 2012, 40 percent of mass shootings started with the shooter targeting his girlfriend, wife or ex-wife. Meanwhile, in states that require a background check for private handgun sales, 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partners.

Behind these statistics are countless women the law failed to protect from a clear threat. Below is a sample of their stories:

Zina Daniel took out a restraining order against her husband after three years of abuse. The restraining order should have prevented her husband, Radcliffe Haughton, from buying a gun. Regardless, Haughton was able to skip a background check by buying a gun on the internet, which he used to shoot 7 people the very next day. He murdered Zina and two of her coworkers before shooting himself. In a new ad for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Zina’s brother, Elvin Daniel, makes an emotional plea for stricter background checks that could have kept Haughton from buying that gun.

Jitka Vesel was murdered by her ex-boyfriend, Demetry Smirnov, outside her office on April 13, 2011. Smirnov, as a Canadian citizen, should not have been able to buy a gun, yet purchased a handgun from a private dealer via a gun exchange website, Armslist.com. Jitka’s brother and best friend have sued the website for facilitating illegal gun sales.

Johanna Justin-Jinich, a student at Wesleyan University, met Stephen Morgan at an NYU summer program. Morgan, a fervent anti-Semite, began stalking and harassing Johanna, who was Jewish. A few months after she filed a harassment complaint with the police, Morgan shot Johanna seven times at the bookstore where she worked. Morgan did not have a permit for the gun he used.
Read more

Alyssa

Chris Brown On The Today Show And What Makes A Celebrity Apology Meaningful

Reading and writing about Chris Brown, the undeniably talented singer who in 2009 become notorious for battering his then-girlfriend, Rihanna, has been, for the last four years, a depressing experience. Whether Brown’s been tossing chairs out of television studio windows, screaming at parking lot attendants, getting a tattoo of either a battered woman or a Dia De Los Muertos figure—who at the end of the day, is still a dead woman—on his neck, or reuniting with Rihanna, he’s been a figure of profound discomfort. Whether his behavior is the response to living through the domestic abuse his mother experienced when he was a teenager, a symptom of more wide-spread issues with anger and self-control, or a result of enormous entitlement, it’s awful to watch anyone behave so self-destructively, and do so much damage to other people in public. And whether Brown has been more of a target, or whether he’s been afforded more or fewer excuses for his behavior and chances to continue working than a white celebrity with a record of violence against women like Charlie Sheen, there’s no denying that his continued presence on Emmy stages and morning talk shows is a vertiginous exercise in trying to parse how much a liability the industry thinks domestic violence and a record of fights are, and how much the market believes that Brown is repentant or that his reunion with Rihanna has absolved him.

The latest intersection of Brown’s character rehabilitation and his need to keep selling records came yesterday morning when he appeared on the Today show to promote his latest single, “Fine China.” In response to questioning from Matt Lauer, about how he’s changed, Brown said that “Most importantly, you know, knowing that what I did was totally wrong, and having to kind of deal with myself and forgive myself in the same breath, and being able to apologize to Rihanna, and being able to be that man that can be a man, you know?” I don’t really know what that means, or what it means for an overall view of gender relations for someone to believe that battering an intimate partner is wrong, but that, as Brown recently said at a comedy club “You gotta say that one thing to her… don’t make me have to tell you again, that’s my p—y, baby! so you better not give it away!…So every person in this motherf–king building, if you got a bad b—h you better say that s–t to her, or she might f–k another n—a.”

But this juxtaposition, and the strange spectacle of people going on talk shows to tout their self-improvement in service of record sales, got me thinking about what it is that we want from celebrities who do terrible things but to continue to want our dollars as consumers. Do we want them to apologize to the people they’ve harmed directly, and to promise to do it never again? Brown seems to have that box checked with Rihanna, but the reaction to their reunion has illustrated how little most people know about how frequently survivors of domestic violence return to the people who abused them. And the fact that he’s reconciled with Rihanna doesn’t seem to have stopped Brown to getting into confrontations that sometimes turn violent with everyone from fellow singers like Frank Ocean to service workers like a parking attendant he unloaded on recently. That disjunct raises interesting questions about why we treat some forms of violence by wealthy and famous men as inexcusable and as a sign that they’re deeply troubled, while others get treated like they’re routine, even when they seem like contributing evidence that someone has a pattern of behavior that’s broadly troubling. Maybe it’s condescending, but I’d like to see Chris Brown stop getting into situations that get violent for his sake, for the sake of the people he gets angry at, and for what he could contribute to the larger conversation if he got religion on a deeper level than the need to retain the ability to sell records.
Read more

Health

Steubenville-Area Women’s Shelter Receiving Donations From Around The World

The lawyer for the victim in the horrific Steubenville rape case chose to do the work pro-bono — without pay — but that hasn’t stopped concerned citizens from wanting to donate money in the victim’s honor. And so the girl, via her lawyer, Bob Fitzsimmons, has asked that anyone who wants to donate funds direct their donations to the Madden House, a victims’ services organization near Steubenville, in Wheeling, WV.

The results, says Patricia Flanigan, Program Director for Family Violence Prevention Programs there, have been staggering.

“It’s very touching. And it’s all over the world,” she told ThinkProgress. “It’s not just from the United States. We’re having correspondence all over the world — Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Singapore, Germany. I can just go on and on. Ireland. Some are coming in as donations and some are just offering support and saying keep up the good work.”

The Madden House is a part of the Family Violence Prevention Programs which operate within the local YWCA in Wheeling. Overall, the program offers services to address an array of victimization: Domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking chief among them.

The donations will fund a wide array of services: Round-the-clock staff at Madden House, a 24-hotline, supportive services including court advocacy to help victims file protection orders or go through other legal processes, teen violence prevention programs in schools, transitional housing to women and children for up to 24 months rent and utility free, and employment advocates to help women find jobs.

Though Flanigan would not say how much the organization has raised so far, she did speak emotionally about the overwhelming support. “It’s a wonderful thing,” she said, “that unfortunately has come from a tragic event.”

LGBT

GOP Lawmaker Mocks LGBT Protections In VAWA: ‘Change-Gender… How Is That A Woman?’

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has made quite the splash during his first few months back in office, including calling for President Obama’s impeachment, inviting Ted Nugent to the State of the Union, and taking bets on what his female colleagues might wear. Now, he has expressed his opposition to the Violence Against Women Act, specifically because of its protections for the LGBT community:

STOCKMAN: This is a truly bad bill. This is helping the liberals, this is horrible. Unbelievable. What really bothers — it’s called a women’s act, but then they have men dressed up as women, they count that. Change-gender, or whatever. How is that — how is that a woman?

If Stockman is interested in learning about people whose gender was incorrectly assigned at birth, he could start by learning that the proper word for this community is “transgender,” not “change-gender.” Perhaps then he could meet some trans people, listen to their stories, and learn how transwomen experiences every moment of their lives as women — not “men dressed up as women” — regardless of what conclusions he might draw if he invaded their privacy to inspect their anatomy. Then, he could study the extreme rates of discrimination that transgender people experience, including extreme poverty and rejection from domestic violence shelters. Maybe then he would not be so bothered by the language in the bill.

All people deserve to be protected from violence, particularly the communities that are particularly vulnerable to unfair treatment. Rather than mock people whose identities he doesn’t understand, Stockman might consider actually taking the time to investigate why his fellow lawmakers thought the protections important enough to include.

Justice

‘Sticks And Stones’ And Two Other Offensive Objections Utah Lawmakers Made To A Dating Violence Bill

After years of debate, the Utah legislature passed a bill Tuesday to remedy a glaring omission in the state’s domestic violence laws and allow protective orders for those attacked or threatened by a significant other, even if they are not married or living together. But while the Senate endorsed the bill by a 24-4 margin, three opponents objected to the bill on stunning grounds.

The Dating Violence Prevention Act, H.B. 50, was introduced by Rep. Jennifer M. Seelig (D) and Sen. Curtis S. Bramble (R). If Gov. Gary Herbert (R) signs the bill, it will provides “for the issuance, modification, and enforcement of protective orders between individuals who are, or have been, in a dating relationship,” in cases where there is abuse or danger of abuse.

During the floor debate, Sen. Scott Jenkins (R) objected to the bill, noting that new couples often roughhouse and shouldn’t need legal protections:

JENKINS: You make a lot of mistakes in your first original encounter and dates with this new partner. A lot of times you rough house. A lot of times you’re trying to determine limits and where your limit is and where her limit is and when you’ve gone too far and when you haven’t gone too far. And when it doesn’t work you, you walk away. Now there’s a new element in here—now, if you feel uncomfortable about something that happens, you go and you get a court order. And it’s like “how did this get introduced? I did something that I thought was in fun and jest and the next think you know, I’ve got a court order against me!”

Noting that the Gun Owners of America, far-right fringe group, opposes the bill, Sen. Margaret Dayton (R) announced that she would oppose the bill because it was a “slippery slope” that might offer protections for same-sex couples.

DAYTON: As I read this dating relationship explanation, it talks about two parties in a social relationship, whether or not they’ve had interpersonal bonding. Okay? And it doesn’t include any kind of gender issues, so the way I read it, it could be two girls and one of them thinks they’re just good girl friends and the other one thinks it’s a romantic relationship and they’re dating. When the first one finds out that they’re not dating, she thought it was girlfriends, all of a sudden, one can get angry and all kinds of concerns can get generated because this is such an ill-defined dating relationship.

Perhaps most stunningly, Sen. Mark Madsen (R) objected to the fact that potential victims need only show one threat to receive protection, rather than a pattern of abuse. “What I’ve asked and requested and has not been offered is –- at least require a pattern, at least two instances of verbal threat or verbal abuse.” Madsen lamented “I guess we’ve abandoned the old saying that sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me.”

Watch the video:

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up