• 32 of the dead are female.
• 21 of the dead are male.

Last year, in other words, 40 percent of people who died in Maryland as a result of domestic violence were male. Right about now, men's rights activists are surely waiting in the wings, ready to pounce on this statistic as irrefutable evidence that men are victimized by domestic violence at nearly the same rate as women. The truth is much more complicated.

Let's look at the numbers on the female side first (courtesy of the MNADV's extensive research).

Of the 32 females who died as a result of domestic violence last year:

• 3 were children.
• 29 were adult women.

Of the 29 adult women:

• 28 were victims of domestic violence.
• The one remaining woman was a domestic violence aggressor who committed suicide. She is the sole occupier of the category of "females who killed themselves or were killed after committing murder/attempting to commit murder."

Of the 28 adult female victims:

• 10 were wives or ex-wives of the offender.
• 17 were girlfriends or ex-girlfriends of the offender.
• One was a domestic violence victim who committed suicide.

And on the male side of things:

Of the 21 males who died as a result of domestic violence last year:

• 2 were children.
• 19 were adult men.

Of the 19 adult men:

• 9 were victims.
• 10 were domestic violence aggressors who died as a result of their own domestic violence—"males who killed themselves or were killed after committing murder/attempting to commit murder."

Of the nine male victims:

• 2 were husbands or ex-husbands of the offender.
• 3 were boyfriends or ex-boyfriends of the offender.
• 3 were killed by their current partner's ex.
• 1 was killed by his ex's current partner.

Of the ten men who killed themselves or were killed after committing murder or attempting to commit murder:

• 1 man was killed by the police.
• 3 were killed by their partners in self-defense.
• 6 committed suicide.

Of the 53 total dead:

• 27 were killed by gun or rifle.
• 12 were killed by knife.
• 5 were killed by strangulation.
• 4 were killed by vehicle.
• 2 were killed by "physical force/hands."
• 2 were killed by burning
• 1 cause of death was unknown.

Domestic violence kills in many ways. When it comes to male deaths by domestic violence, men are more likely to be killed as a result of attempting to murder their own partners than as a result of their partner's aggression. Men who are victims of domestic violence are almost as likely to be killed by a partner's ex than by their partners themselves. "Domestic violence is not as simple and straightforward as people think," says Michele Cohen, MNADV's Executive Director. "The work that we do attempts to capture the full picture of all the individuals who die as a result of domestic violence—both victims and offenders."

Tonight, the MNADV will hold its 22nd Annual Memorial Service for all the "women, men, and children" who died over the past year from domestic violence. Find more information about the Annapolis, Md. service here [PDF].

But what he lacks in specificity, Englebert makes up for in offensiveness! Here's what Englebert has to say on the subject of domestic abuse: “When Woods and his wife decided to go clubbing at 230am in the morning this turned into domestic abuse . . . They apparently couldn’t decide between using the wood (tree) or the iron (fire hydrant)."

Full press release is after the jump.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Outfit of Rachel Uchitel, the 1st alleged mistress Tiger Woods to be auctioned off !!

A New York City nightclub owner has the VIP Hostess outfit of Rachel Uchitel, the 1st alleged mistress of superstar golf player Tiger Woods. Club owner JE Englebert will announce a press conference soon showing off the garment and announcing his plan to auction it off on Ebay.com to donate the funds to a domestic abuse charity. “When Woods and his wife decided to go clubbing at 230am in the morning this turned into domestic abuse” ”They apparently couldn’t decide between using the wood (tree) or the iron (fire hydrant)” says Englebert. Englebert received the garments from one of his waitresses who want’s to keep anonymous whom worked with Rachel at TAO Las Vegas where Rachel was a VIP hostesses. Reports state that Rachel Uchitel was offered hush money from the Woods camp to keep quiet about her affair in the amount, between $1 and $3 million dollars.

For all press and media inquiries, contact:
Floyd Beniot at Recognition Public Relations
recpr@yahoo.com

MTV reality sensation Jersey Shore (the Real Word, but with guidos), is only two episodes in, but it's already infamous for a moment that hasn't yet aired. Next week, Snookie, one of the show's self-described "guidettes," will get punched in the face by a man in a bar. Judging by the show's trailer, Jersey Shore is positively built upon its cast members getting into drunken bar fights. So why do we only care about one woman's hit to the face?

The punch, which MTV previewed in a trailer for the upcoming season, has inspired both excitement and disdain from commentators. One Web site delighted over an image of Snookie getting punched over and over again, calling it "the most gratifying animated gif you will ever see"; Jezebel, which framed Snookie's punch as an incident of violence against women, called the "the clip and commentary chilling."

This week, MTV responded to the concern. According to NY Daily News, next week's Snookie-punching episode will be a Very Special Episode of Jersey Shore:

MTV will air a public service announcement after next week's episode of the controversial series "Jersey Shore" because it includes an incident of violence against a woman.

. . . The PSA, set to air following the Dec. 17 episode, reads: "Violence against women in any form is a crime. If you or someone you know is being abused by a boyfriend, family member or total stranger, please call 911 or log on to www.loveisrespect.org for information and help. You can also call The National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline at 1-866-331-9474 for immediate support."

Violence against women is a crime. Then again, violence against anyone is a crime. And in the two-minute preview for Jersey Shore, we see a lot of violence against everybody:

Ronnie forcefully pushing Sammy on the boardwalk:

A woman grabbing a man's neck to force his face into her breasts:

Several brawls:

JWow throwing punches at Mike:

And of course, Snookie getting punched:

The violence on Jersey Shore started early. In the first episode, Pauly punches a stranger in the face in a bar, citing the fact that the stranger had been "looking at him." Later, Pauly gleefully tells the camera that he knows the exact amount of pressure it takes to break a nose. So why do we only care about Snookie getting punched? I have a few theories:

a) Snookie is one of the most obnoxious television characters ever. No character is particularly charming on this show, but Snookie is the worst. In the two hours I have observed Snookie, she has a) passed out within hours of arriving at the Real World house; b) complained about not being the center of attention while MTV cameras were filming her for a reality show about her life; c) vomited in the sink instead of showing up to her first day of work; and d) threatened to go home after two days because she thought everyone was talking about her behind her back.

Viewers hate Snookie enough to get excited about seeing her hit in the face. They only dislike the other characters enough to not give a shit one way or another when they get pounded.

b) Snookie is more annoying because she is a woman. Let's face it: There are plenty of gender-neutral things to hate about Snookie. Still, some viewers hate Snookie more because she's a guidette. Check out this helpful comment:

Well chicks want equal everything, so here ya go Snookie. Equal being what it is when guys talk a bunch of shit they have to back it up or get knocked the fuck out.

Welcome to being equal Snookie. I'm guessing I won't see you lined up to collect any combat pay anytime soon.

Snookie does a lot of things in the first two episodes—she twirls her hair despondently, gets naked in the hot tub, becomes confused at a telephone in the shape of a duck, calls her dad, and misses her first day of work. What she doesn't do is go off on some sort of feminist tirade about women being equal to men. Positioning Snookie as a women's libber who got what she deserved is completely off-point. It's also pretty sexist.

c) Punching a woman in the face is more taboo than punching a man. Did you see how many people got victimized by violence in that trailer? Like every character, practically! So why does only Snookie get the PSA treatment? A couple of the incidents showcased in the trailer could be seen as legitimate examples of domestic abuse (Ronnie pushing Sammy; JWow going after Mike). After all, these people do live together and have relationships with one another.

Snookie getting punched, on the other hand, is not a particularly gendered form of violence. The guy in the bar wasn't her boyfriend or family member who trades off between affection and abuse. Furthermore, Snookie's punch in the face was an entirely public act—domestic violence against women is so problematic because it is hushed up, excused, covered with a coat of foundation and a tale of "falling down the stairs." Snookie was punched in the face by a drunk guy in a bar, a type of violence which is far more likely to target a guido than a guidette.

Was it right to punch Snookie in the face? Of course not. Was it a necessary side-effect of women's liberation? Hell no. But as long as we're talking equality, how about we start giving a shit about women punching women, men punching men, and women punching men, too?

The "Cheetah," as you surely now know, is a variety of female human who is sexually aggressive, but too young to be labeled a "cougar." In other words, she is a pathetic and gross specimen of female who must be re-branded as a feline, lest she begin to suspect that desiring sex makes her, you know, human.

Men despise and fear the cheetah for her uncanny ability to prey on drunk dudes for sex, engage in a behavior known as "cock loitering," and appear "dreadful without her makeup on" the next morning. But Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown and I are more concerned with her uncanny ability to act suspiciously like a different class of sexual predator!

"We’re all familiar with the scenario of someone isolating you when you are too drunk to give informed consent and forcing sex on you," Sady noted on Feministe. "We’re so familiar with it, in fact, that we already have a name for people who do it. And it’s not 'cheetahs.'”

In this edition of Sexist Beatdown: Do men re-code sexual assault as "beer goggles"? Will a patronizing feline persona actually help us talk about male victims? Has Tiger Woods ever been so relevant to a discussion? Find out, after the jump!

SADY: hi! sources inform me it is CHEETAH TIME!

AMANDA: you are mistaken. cheetah time is around last call, which situates it around 2 a.m. here in washington d.c. although i am ignorant to the exact hour of cheetah time in new york.

SADY: well, i kind of hope that no time is cheetah time? because the new york observer informs me that the "cheetahs," this new and playfully named subgroup of ladies, are actually kind of engaged in some QUITE UNETHICAL behavior, possibly.

AMANDA: what are you going to do about it? round up all the cheetahs and put them in ... some sort of zoo?

SADY: THE JAIL ZOO.

AMANDA: i have determined that the only way to deal with the very rapey behavior of these "cheetahs" is to jokingly incorporate them into some sort of homosocial masculinity-building exercise, in order to not have to think about women sexually assaulting people.

SADY: oh, good! i think some people have already started this project, potentially!

AMANDA: grrreat!

SADY: i mean: i don't actually think that we are meant to think that the cheetahs as described in the observer article are out date raping people. i should say that. i think it's just an unfortunate combination of language choices and hyperbole, intended for humorful effect, that leaves one with that unmistakable impression. but still: i think it's worth noting that the language choices and hyperbole went unnoticed as "accidentally coming together to describe a serial date rapist" because the serial date rapist in question was a lady. because if it were a dude behavior pattern this article was talking about? people would PROBABLY NOTICE. and not give it cute animal names and a tongue-in-cheek article treatment.

AMANDA: well, it's interesting, because whenever i write about sexual assault, particularly DRUNKEN sexual assault, i always get the same comment from men: "how is this different from the time i totally got beer goggles and woke up next to a super ugly chick i instantly regretted fucking?" and i can say, well, i know the difference between having sex and then saying, 'oops. bad idea," and, you know, rape. but this article made me question whether men really have a way to talk about sexual assault experiences as something OTHER than the beer goggles

SADY: yeah. there's a crucial difference between "i shouldn't have wanted to do that but at the time i seriously did want to do it, OOPS" and "i did not want that to happen and then it did because i was unable to resist or know what was going on." and in this article, one blends in to the other in a way that disturbs me. because i seriously do wonder if the conversation we have around rape – which is a conversation i take part in, a lot, and which i'm happy with on a number of levels – does us a disservice in that it doesn't stress that informed consent is necessary no matter WHO you are. so the possibility of a dude being taken past the point of informed consent, bullied, abused, coerced, intimidated, etc. doesn't register as serious for us. it registers, if at all, as FUNNY.

AMANDA: yes, and the men express a lot of discomfort with this situation in the piece, but it's all carefully divorced from non-consent—it's discomfort with her not looking good without makeup on, discomfort with kissing a cheetah IN THE LIGHT OF DAY, discomfort with her totally wanting to marry him. nd the idea in the story that these girls have tried to coerce these drunk men into DATING them seems pretty off-base to me. it seems almost like a stand-in for the experience of the women coercing the drunk men into having sex, honestly. i mean, if the "cheetah" (OK. I am going to use the word) is only propositioning the guy anytime she happens to see him drunk in da club at 2 am, and not over the phone on the weekend looking for a dinner date, it seems pretty clear that the lady is looking for sex.

SADY: right. there's a discomfort there that's probably meant to be just standard "don't let 'em stay for breakfast"-ness but given the details of ladies waiting until a guy – ANY GUY – is wasted past the point of no return and then isolating them from a group under false pretenses and then employing their sex/boyfriend-nabbing maneuvers? it seriously comes across as more sinister than that. and again, so that it doesn't come across as me randomly accusing some person i don't know of sexual assault based on a clearly-meant-to-be-funny essay: i don't think that's EXACTLY how it went down. i think those elements were played up to make it funnier. but if you knew anyone who operated this way in the actual world, that would be cause for serious, serious concern. but maybe even my urge to be cautious about this is indicative of something.

AMANDA: well, i know that i usually don't hesitate to point out that behavior like this, while not necessarily rape—who knows what happened after they stumbled into the cab—it's still something we should address in the larger context of sexual assault. but again, given the obvious hyperbole of the piece, it's hard to know what's honest and what's exaggerated

SADY: yeah. ultimately the only people who know what happened are the people involved. but i definitely don't think it's out of line to talk about it in the CONTEXT of sexual assault behaviors. because seriously, all those "accidental" rapes we keep hearing about where the person WHOOPS just up and raped someone? could really be avoided by adopting a measure such as, "don't pick out piss-drunk people who can't even form a coherent sentence as sex partners." but it's hard to even see it in this case – it almost slips under the radar – because we have the idea that men are unrapeable. always being willing and ready and able to have sex is a big part of our idea about how the male sex drive works.

AMANDA: you pointed out in your piece on Feministe that the joke doesn't work, but if it DID WORK it would be because a. men want to have sex with everything! and b. it's absurd that a woman could force a man to do something he didn't want to do. and it's interesting to think of the expectation that men are always up for sex in the context of sexual assault, because that traditionally masculine requirement basically translates into a constant state of consent. but the morning after, when the Observer writes a humorous essay about the situation, the perceived damage isn't that the man had sex when he didn't want to, but that he had sex with the wrong woman when he did want to, and had there been any hotter, younger, less desperate girl at the bar that night, there wouldn't have been a problem at all.

SADY: righto. and, i mean, i don't think it's out of line to point out that the MAJORITY of rapes, as far as i've ever been able to gather, are of women. and that may, in fact, feed into our perceptions of men as unrapeable, because we're just not used to imagining the victim as of the male gender. but sometimes these things are hard to measure because societal expectations and biases are getting in the way of people (a) naming their experience, or (b) having people pay attention to their experience. like, it's been really hard for me to find statistics on domestic violence in same-sex relationships, because most people are measuring the rate of violence by straight men directed at straight women. or sometimes, the other way around. but that doesn't mean domestic violence in same-sex relationships is nonexistent, it just means we aren't out there looking at those stories enough. sorry, LONG. and also we're not used to the idea that women are capable of violence? PS? like, gender stereotypes tell us that ladies don't do violent badness, that is a Male Thing.

AMANDA: right, and I also think it's very much a reflection on who we will accept as a victim. two boyfriends getting into a fight is perceived differently than a boyfriend and girlfriend—first, because people don't like to talk about gay relationships, AT ALL, and second, because people have a hard time seeing a "true" victim in male-on-male violence

SADY: right. like lil' wayne and the lady who sexually abused him as a kid! i mean, he was A CHILD at the time, and it's been spun as "wow, you got lucky at a really young age, HILARS."

AMANDA: and they're also so bent on seeing a woman as a victim in a domestic dispute that, in cases where women do beat up on their partners, it's sometimes ignored, because men don't want to be seen as victims, either. and so—I know you didn't want to talk Tiger!—but Tiger Woods' wife's club-wielding will be announced publicly by Woods as an "act of courage," no matter what actually happened that night. meanwhile, he's getting a lashing in the presses over having sex with a lot of women, which is pretty standard, but also just very tiring to me, because the very serious ALLEGED CLUB WIELDING INCIDENT MY GOD has been all but excused by his infidelity

SADY: yeah, precisely. and maybe part of that has been about the fact that we don't fully know what happened, too, because i know that there are already people who are like, "this would never be so readily excused if the victim were A WOMAN," and it's like: hello, i would like to introduce you to The Many Conversations About How Rihanna Deserved It And Also The T-Shirt To That Effect And Also Basically A Shit-Ton Of Other Incidents Of Domestic Violence And Victim-Blaming.

AMANDA: (I had forgotten about the t-shirt!)

SADY: i mean: yes, it would be excused by some. but also: i think it's really important to say that this shit is unacceptable no matter who you are or whose car you are beating with a golf club. NOT. COOL. and i think sometimes we, as women, forget that we can be guilty of shittiness to our partners that is just as damaging as a dude being shitty to a lady. i mean: i think the notion that women can't be abusive or that men can't be victims of abuse is actually pretty sexist.

AMANDA: it's extremely sexist. and i think it often actually encourages women to be abusive, because there is the sense that you can't "really" hurt a man. and that's awful.

SADY: it relies on this concept of us as impotent, and that our little fits are just womanly irrationality and kittenishness, and that men are always stronger than we are and in control of the situation. and, i mean, i've caught myself being shitty with my anger, and seriously had to ask myself if i would ever accept this scenario if it were a dude doing it. answer: sometimes, no. granted, i've never gone at someone with A FUCKING GOLF CLUB, but still. the idea that women are weak and men are strong becomes a lot less plausible (if it ever was) when the woman in question is armed with a large metal object.

AMANDA: haha. right. but even if not! i remember, a while back, sort of forcefully slapping my boyfriend's shoulder in frustration. no golf club! and it took a couple of times for him to tell me that that hurt him and it wasn't acceptable. and i was confused and then really ashamed about it, because i sort of didn't realize that it hurt him. which is terrible. :(

SADY: right. and that is the thing! like, everyone in the world should be taught how to identify when they're being abused, but they should also be taught how to identify when they're being abusive. Not that we all will be abusive or go around beating each other, but we shouldn't teach only one population to examine and control themselves. and i actually think the concept of An Abuser, as this super-human monster freak who is always only one way in his (note the "his") lifetime ever, prohibits people from that. the same way that saying, "that thing you did was sexist" is hard because people hear, "you are a sexist," and how those are different things, really, but our concept of A Sexist is so scary to us that accepting we are BEING sexist and need to deal with that is hard. like, i think the fact that men are taught to express anger in certain ways may in fact (and does in fact) lead to more men being violent to their partners. but. that doesn't mitigate the possibility of women as abusive as well.

AMANDA: i can attest to people freaking out by being associated with being A Sexist, since I have gotten many confused, angry phone calls from people who have been featured in my column who believe that the name of my column, The Sexist, is a reflection of their personal character. it's really a bit of a problem! what a stupid idea for a column name!

SADY: i find it hilarious and charming!

AMANDA: of course, a lot of the people I do feature are A Sexist. Which is probably why they get so mad about it!

SADY: oh, well. THAT CAN HAPPEN.

Photo by Tambako the Jaguar

Chris Brown appeared on the Wendy Williams Show on Friday, where he talked about his anger management classes, explained that his posture has been misconstrued by the media, and basked in the excessive fawning of Williams' female audience.

The whole interview was weird. Williams opens the segment by describing Brown in strangely passive language: "Our first guest has faced a firestorm of criticism for the past several months after a widely-publicized domestic violence incident which occurred with his former girlfriend, Rihanna." But the low point of the interview comes at segment's end, when William asks Brown if he's dating anyone. Brown responds, "Of course. I love women." And the crowd goes wild.

I hate "I love women."

Let's see what other illustrious male stars also "love women":

Tucker Max loves women:

I hate a lot of things, (stupid people and Duke basketball, for instance) but nowhere on that list is women. I LOVE women. Now, do I treat some women like shit? Yes, sometimes, but I treat EVERYONE like shit, not just women. Sexism is treating one sex differently from the other(s). I treat people as individuals.

Mel Gibson loves women:

I love women. They're the best thing ever created. If they want to be like men and come down to our level, that's fine.

Tom Cruise loves women:

Interviewer: You seem to have a real respect for women. What is it that you like so much about them?

Cruise: They smell good. [Laughs]. They look pretty. I love women. I do.

Silvio Berlusconi loves women:

"I think Italians recognise themselves in me. I am one of them. I was poor, I am interested in the things that interest them, I love football, I smile, I love others and, above all else, beautiful women," he said to loud applause.

Christopher Walken, as the eternally skeevy dude in the SNL sketch "The Continental," loves women:

You look so lovely. It is as though Michelangelo sculpted you by hand . . . then kept you for himself.. in a closet . . . to visit on lonely nights. Would you care for a glass of champagna? I knew you would. I knew you enjoy champagna. How do I know this? Because I love women. I can read their mail . . . I mean, mind!

Why is "I love women" the worst thing you could possibly say?

(a) It assumes that all women are the same. I'm a heterosexual woman with plenty of men in my life. I love my father, my brother, and my boyfriend. I do not love Tucker Max, Tom Cruise, or the skeevy guy in The Continental. How could this possibly be? Because I understand that even though my boyfriend and Tucker Max share a couple of pronouns, they have little else in common. Men who announce that they "love women" fail to recognize us as individuals.

(b) When you say "I love women," you really mean, "I love having sex with women."

(c) The phrase is almost always evoked defensively. Accused of calling a female police officer "sugartits"? Just say, "I love women." Convicted of beating up your girlfriend? "I love women." Accused of frequenting underage prostitutes? "I love women." Rumored to have brainwashed a beloved female star in order to make her into your Scientology baby factory? "I love women." This statement is the misogynist's answer to the racist's "I'm not racist but," and the homophobe's "some of my best friends are gay."

(d) Note the context. "I love women" is almost always prefaced or followed by some seriously sexist shit. You love women because they smell good? Great. What about women who don't smell good? Possibly the most annoying "I love women"-related commentary is the sentiment that "women are better than men" (See: Gibson). When Gloria Steinem said that “A pedestal is as much a prison as any small, confined space," she was talking to all these skeezes, who hold women up to a high standard of fuckability, then degrade all the females who fail to live up to that standard.

"Russian Roulette" has been branded Rihanna's "comeback single" in order to mark her first solo effort since being assaulted by then-boyfriend Chris Brown in February of this year. Following the assault, the feminist blogosphere exploded with criticisms, defenses, and theories relating to the R&B singer's personal tragedy. In the following months, Rihanna became a staple on feminist blogs.  The pop star has been consistently mentioned in discussions of sexual assault—but she's just as often been invoked to fawn over her clothing choices and speculate about her love life. In places like Jezebel, where feminist issues and pop culture obsessions both receive heavy coverage, Rihanna's abuse has only fueled interest in her more traditional pop-star duties, like carving out a unique style and churning out catchy songs. In 2009, Rihanna's public identity has emerged as a conflation of high-wattage pop star and domestic abuse survivor.

Rihanna herself, on the other hand, has felt comfortable only playing the pop star part—and has remained extremely tight-lipped about her abuse experience. She has never publicly identified as a feminist or an advocate for victims of domestic abuse. As I prepared this post, I realized with amazement that I had never actually read any full interview with Rihanna. (And, full disclosure, I really like Rihanna, and tend to follow the domestic abuse coverage alongside potential Justin Timberlake hook-up news). The pop star has managed to maintain an extremely high profile in feminism without saying much of anything at all. Rihanna is certainly no Lady Gaga, who has positioned herself in the center of the gay rights movement, even as she releases decidedly apolitical pop tunes (largely about heterosexual sex). It's not so strange for a pop star to opt out of discussing politics (and her personal life). But it is an odd formula for crafting a feminist idol.

Recent critiques of "Russian Roulette" have made clear that feminists are yearning for Rihanna to step into that role. After hearing the song, Alyssa Rosenberg wrote about her personal wishes for Rihanna's career. "When 'Silly Boy' leaked as a Rihanna track a couple of months ago, I thought it was a perfect career move for her: upbeat, vocally playing to her strengths, and by far most importantly, a rebuke to a guy who would treat his girlfriend badly," she writes. "I do understand that it's extremely difficult to leave an abusive relationship, and I respect that.  But I thought it would have been terrific for someone to overcome such a relationship in public.  Instead, Rihanna is using a song about embracing being terrorized as her comeback single." Jezebel's North was similarly creeped out by the song, writing: "What I'm actually most worried about is her label's thinking on this song . . . if anyone pushed a domestic violence victim to record a comeback song about gunplay, that's something to get angry about."

But the disappointment and anger over the subject matter of Rihanna's new single has also been accompanied by concerns over aesthetics. Rosenberg admits that the song "isn't much good"; North writes that it "kind of sucks." Perez Hilton, writing exclusively on the track's artistic merits, expressed that he was "shocked and saddened" by the lackluster production (though apparently unconcerned with the overtones of domestic violence). Rosenberg and North disclose the song's suckiness as if it's beside the point, but I wonder if the double expectation that Rihanna be both a successful pop star and a model survivor of domestic abuse is responsible for the perceived feminist failure here. The song's aesthetic problems extend to its lyrics, which, while "dark" and "edgy," don't appear to mean anything in particular, and certainly don't qualify as a clear "defense" of domestic abuse. Couplets like "As my life flashes before my eyes / I’m wondering will I ever see another sunrise" and "So many won’t get the chance to say goodbye / But it’s too late too pick up the value of my life" clearly connote violence. But I can't agree with Rosenberg that the song is about "embracing being terrorized"—the main problem with the song is that the lyrics don't convey any specific perspective on the darkness.

"Russian Roulette" may not have succeeded as Rihanna's "comeback single," but it's important to make clear which comeback we're talking about—is it her return to the world of pop, or her recovery from an abusive relationship? Rosenberg "thought it would have been terrific for someone to overcome such a relationship in public." But why does Rihanna's return to music have to come only after she's ready to announce that she's "overcome" domestic abuse? And given Rihanna's obvious reluctance to make her private life public, how could anyone expect her to live up to the feminist obsession that's been brewing over her life and career for the past nine months? Perhaps she isn't ready to play the public role of empowered survivor, and perhaps she never will.

I doubt that Rihanna's critics would be raising the same concerns over her missed feminist opportunity if she had released an infectious club jam like "S.O.S." or "Disturbia" which completely steered clear of an abuse theme. Problematically, both Rosenberg and North argue that the lyrics of "Russian Roulette" do evoke issues of domestic abuse—and go on to suggest that Rihanna is either doing it wrong, or being coerced by her handlers to do it wrong. I don't think we should expect Rihanna to incorporate her new-found feminist fame into her pop songs—like Perez Hilton, I'm more disappointed that the song isn't so hot. But when Rihanna does decide to make a public nod to her experience with domestic abuse, shouldn't we refrain from suggesting that she's not expressing herself correctly as a victim?

Rarely am I moved by a feat of advertising, but this Amnesty International anti-domestic violence ad managed to resonate with me. The bus poster is equipped with a camera which uses some sort of futuristic technology to know when it's attracted your eye. The gadget aficionados over at Gizmodo are moved as well, in their own way:

Amnesty International has installed a new anti-domestic-abuse ad fixture in Hamburg, Germany which is equal parts clever and shocking: when you look at the photo, it's a smiling couple; when you look away, it's a dude punchin' a lady.

The high-tech ad, which is unlikely to make it to a bus stop near you, succeeds on an "ooh, shiny" tech geek level. But the new technology helps Amnesty's Ad register a more basic achievement: conveying a simple truth about domestic violence cases in a moment's glance.

Hollaback D.C., which has chronicled countless incidents of harassment on D.C. public transportation, appreciates Amnesty's effort as well —but rightfully wonders if the ad campaign would help anything if installed on the D.C. streets. The short answer is: Probably not. But it's nice to know that intelligent copywriters and cutting-edge technology are being put to use for more than just selling candy bars—and that the problem of domestic violence is worthy of attention from brilliant minds.

In Wurtzel's latest essay, "Failure to Launch: When Beauty Fades" (published in this month's Elle), Elizabeth Wurtzel is depressed again. This time, because she is "old" (41)—and also, maybe, secretly, because she's spent the greater part of those years getting shit thrown at her face by epic douchebags. While aging has brought Wurtzel fame, book deals, and a J.D. from Columbia, it has also stolen the precious glint of youth from her eyes, and left her pining for her Original Epic Douche—the beautiful peppermint-flavored-foot-massaging, bottle-chucking graduate student douchebag GREGG. The essay is, in typical Wurtzel fashion, funny, sad, honest, and problematic.

AMANDA: hello!

SADY: hello lady. your beautiful dream of talking to me while i'm all hopped up on the cough syrup is about to come true. and also we get to talk about how wacky elizabeth wurtzel (still) is! is she not wacky?

AMANDA: she is, Sady. I was introduced to her wackiness at a tender young age, when my mother bought me Prozac Nation. I was maybe 13, so I loved it.

SADY: yes. I recall reading Bitch in junior high. and hiding it from my mom, due to its provocative cover!

AMANDA: looks like she hasn't "aged well," though! ha ha ... hmmm.

SADY: well... she still has mermaid hair! actually, this article is weird, because it is like, "i am old and ugly now. i should have settled down. however, i am neither old nor ugly, and still have lots of dates and sex." so, when you're reading it, it's like... "sad! umm... happy! umm... happysad?"

AMANDA: but those dates want her for what she used to be (young and not ugly), which leads me to believe, you know, it may be a personal problem. but i think she admits that throughout.

SADY: yeah. i think she still misses gregg. can we talk about how gross gregg, the perfect boyfriend, sounds? is that cruel? "sensitive, an inveterate graduate student who used to rub my feet at the end of the day with a lovely pink peppermint lotion from the Body Shop."

AMANDA: yeah, who was surprised when he threw a bottle at her face?

SADY: that was a shocking twist! he also pronounced that he was "her only chance at happiness," and that she would now fail at life, due to not dating GREGG. GREGG is a witch! He laid a curse on her!

AMANDA: i found that part really interesting. a few of the commenters were chastising her for "bragging" about her looks, but i thought she made an interesting point about societal expectations for young women ... i definitely identified with that, not with the "beautiful" part, but with the "smart young woman" part. not that i'm old and ugly or anything, but it was always like "you're so smart, why are you [with him]?" or you're so smart, why [aren't you happy]?" stuff like that. and in her case, it turned out to be, you're so smart and beautiful, why aren't you with someone like GREGG who doesn't fucking understand you at all and who does not make you happy? (and throws bottles). (like all your other boyfriends).

SADY: yeah, seriously. i mean, i get that she felt like the world was offered to her – and it was! she was elizabeth wurtzel! – and it still didn't make her happy, and that would be enough to send anyone into a tailspin. i can identify with that. but also: tying it to your looks seems to gloss over sooooo many of the other problems. like, there's this undercurrent of abusive bottle-throwing (or lamp-throwing, or frying-pan-chasing-with) relationships that i think it would be worthwhile to get into. yet she seems to blame herself for MAKING the dudes be all abusive, like so: "Now that I am a woman whom some man might actually like to be with, might actually not want to punch in the face—or, at least, now that I don’t like guys who want to do that to me—I am sadly 41." Ummmm... maybe they did that because they were jerks? Also: maybe it's good that you DIDN'T STAY WITH ANY OF THEM? Due to the jerk thing?

AMANDA: yeah man. i'm not sure she takes away the same lesson from GREGG—beautiful, perfect, peppermint foot-rubbing, complete jerk—that we might, either. Surely, she can't be serious that she ACTUALLY THINKS her one chance of happiness was with GREGG?

SADY: Right? I mean, she's all like, "if only I had stayed with GREGG – a dude i was so unhappy with that I cheated on him, multiple times, and also he broke into my computer, and also he threw a bottle at my face – I would be happy." Um, probably not. Probably you'd be begging him to throw away his damn hemp necklaces. And then banging the mailman. Interesting fact: Elizabeth Wurtzel passed the BAR EXAM! She became a LAWYER, for a LAW FIRM! I find it interesting that this whole "I wasted my life" thing does not take into account the fact that she has had two separate careers that require a pretty tremendous amount of work and intelligence to pursue. Apparently, if you're not with GREGG or a GREGG analogue, it's all for nothing.

AMANDA: points for honesty i guess

SADY: yeah, and wurtzel always gets those points. i just think it's weird that we have this narrative for women – and you see these pieces ALL THE TIME, it's not just her – that are like, "i once thought i could date around and not settle down and pursue my career, but now I know I should have SETTLED. For I am SAD, SAD, SAD."

AMANDA: yeah, but based on her earlier work, i mean, she's been sad throughout. the essay is just a sequel: "Sad at 40." that's not to belittle it — i like her work — but given what we know, i can't say that 40 has much to do with it.

SADY: exactly. i like a lot of what wurtzel has done, too. yet: it doesn't make sense to position oneself as a cautionary tale about regret and wasted youth, if your youth was also spent feeling sad. i guess it's just the positioning of this piece – as a one-more-lady-regrets-not-settling thing – that i have a problem with. that and the "i've finally learned how to make dudes not punch me in the face, because before it was my fault that they did that" thing.

[youtube:v=3Mr4kXW6mOU]

By now, we're all pretty accustomed to the exploitation of Rihanna's injuries to feed public curiosity surrounding the high-profile attack (and yes, blogger obsession is guilty, too). Is that exploitation excusable if it feeds our hunger for voyeurism in the name of raising awareness? Of course, DoSomething.org can draw from whatever public record it chooses in its campaigns. But by elevating Rihanna's real-life problem into a Hollywood-size drama, don't we risk making it almost less real? The reenactment is disturbing, but it's also dramatic, sensational, and almost too watchable.

[via Broadsheet].