Recently a certain male entertainer with a track record of heinous violence toward women was interviewed on ABC. Then within hours of it airing, the encounter made headline news across the country due to the star's erratic bahaviour in the studio.
Of course, the entertainer I'm referring to is Charlie Sheen, the human train wreck that people can't seem to get enough of. Although you'd be forgiven if you thought I was talking about Chris Brown. After all, he was also in the news last week after he threw a temper tantrum in the green room of ABC's Good Morning America. Chris' most recent meltdown was brought on by GMA host Robin Robert's persistent questioning about the beating of his then-girlfriend Rihanna back in 2009. Apparently Brown was told in advance by the producers that the Rihanna incident would be brought up, but Roberts appeared determined to induce an angry reaction from the young singer as she repeatedly steered the conversation back to Rihanna, rather than discuss what Brown anticipated would be the focus of the interview, the upcoming release of his new album F.A.M.E. (which has since debuted at #1 in the US).
Of course there are major differences between Chris Brown's situation and Charlie Sheen's, but there are also some crucial similarities. Both appear to have serious anger issues, and both have a history of violence against women - although one of them has a much more extensive list of transgressions than the other. Charlie sheen's resume as an abuser of women dates back to 1990 when he shot his fiancée in the arm with a .22. Since then there have been no fewer than seven separate documented incidents, which range from punching one woman in the head for refusing sex, to threatening another woman with beheading. These incidents have occurred with regularity, yet none was sufficient to warrant his termination as the star of Two and a Half Men. (When he was eventually fired, it was because he had made disparaging remarks about the network executives, not his because of his violent outbursts.)
But most people don't even know about these indiscretions because they've been largely omitted from the Charlie Sheen meme that the media has cleverly constructed. The public's general feelings toward Sheen range from sympathy to admiration. For the most part, if there have been any criticisms of his behaviour it has been concerned only with the harm that he is causing to himself.
Sheen's past domestic abuse has scarcely been broached in any of the major network interviews he's granted since becoming the posterboy recklessness and indifference. Yet, given the recurring nature of his violence, and the fact that he, at various times, lives with two infant boys and two young women, any of whom could fall victim to his sporadic, drug-induced volatility at any minute, aren't these precisely the types of questions Sheen should be answering? Instead he is given a platform from which to market his brand, as deferential “reporters” lob floaters at him, so that he can knock them out of the park with one of his trademark Sheen-isms. Until he undergoes treatment for his addiction and his anger issues, Sheen is placing those around him at risk. Yet he arrogantly insists that he's in no way obligated to get help, and the media and the public are comfortable with that answer.
By contrast Chris Brown remains loathed by a large portion of the mainstream audience, even though he has apologized repeatedly (Sheen never has), he served his penalty and underwent rehab (unlike Sheen), his crime occurred only once that we're aware of (unlike Sheen), and he is at low risk for repeating the same bahaviour in the future (unlike Sheen). On top of that, Chris Brown was only nineteen (practically a boy), when he committed his crime. Although I'm disgusted by what Chris Brown did, and I in now way condone that behaviour under any circumstances, I'm also annoyed by obvious double-standard, as well as the rabid self-righteousness that had become endemic among Brown's detractors.
The mainstream public's reaction to Chris Brown has reminded me of two things. One: There is a such thing as white privilege. Especially when it comes to sports and entertainment, there are just certain things that a white man can get away with, that a black man can not. Two: People give lip service to the concept of redemption and second chances, but very few of them truly believe in it. Much like Michael Vick, for as long as he is in the spotlight, Chris Brown will be apologizing for his crime.
Personally, I believe that once you've served your punishment, you should be able to move on. If Chris Brown is ever fortunate enough to reconcile with Rihanna, then it is understandable that she would demand he continue to apologize to her from time to time. But why should random members of the public feel as though they are entitled to an apology every hour on the hour? I don't believe, as some people do, that Chris Brown should have to spend the rest of his life apologizing to me or anyone other than Rihanna, for a mistake he committed as a nineteen-year-old. But I would like to see an acknowledgment, or at least a rectification, by the media of their blatant double standard throughout this whole ordeal.
I love Rihanna!
Sheen's behaviour is also pretty funny.
I disagree. I think what hurt Chris Brown was the fact that TMZ released that graphic photo of Rihanna's mangled face. But Charlie Sheen abused Denise Richards, who was at least as famous and as loved as Rihanna. If Chris Brown had hit someone like Denise Richards, his career would be over right now.
I also don't buy the "surprise" argument. I do think image is a factor and a gangsta rapper beating his girlfriend probably wouldn't receive as much backlash as Chris Brown. But Sheen's public persona was even more wholesome that Brown's was. The guy is the star of a family sitcom (picture Bob Sagat getting popped for domestic abuse). Are you seriously trying to tell me that a womanizing rock star being accused of battery is more surprising than a sitcom dad getting the same allegations? I don't recall Charlie Sheen ever being held to the standard that Chris Brown is currently being held, even when the public was first hearing about Sheen's violence.
On top of all the things I outlined in the article, Sheen's violence against women most recently manifested itself again just months before his media blitz. Brown's shit is over 2 years old. Yet STILL Brown is the one answering for his behaviour and not Sheen. The double standard here is grotesque.
By the way, TI's situation is totally different. He was popped for posession of illegal weapons. But he had a legitimate claim to self-defense since he had been shot at multiple times. Plus he was never accused of targeting defenseless people. In spite of that he still apologized profusely in his public appearance and even starred in an entire reality series aimed at trying to clean up his image.
the double standard definitely has something to do with race-- white celebrities who behave badly are given an affectionate 'bad boy' labels while black celebrities that often do the same are labelled thugs...
but in this specific situation i think the bigger factor might be the disparity between perception of the artist and the act(s) itself. people already expected this type of behaviour from charlie sheen (and probably other actors with similar track records like keifer sutherland).
brown on the other hand, despite his tattoos was marketed more as a wholesome justin timberlake/usher type. (imagine what would happen if JT was arrested for assaulting Britney Spears). conversely, TI spends years in jail and at a time and no one seems to care.
of course the other big factor is that he hit rihanna, and people love rihanna.