When Kellogg's dropped bong-loving merman Michael Phelps, their spokeswoman stated "we decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model." Though some called the decision hasty, it certainly sent a message: when you violate the law, the companies that use your image to peddle cereal or subs or what have you will reprimand you. Publicly.
Which begs the question: Why is Wrigley being so quiet about dropping Chris Brown?
Like Phelps, Brown acted as a spokesman, though in this case for Wrigley's Doublemint gum, And like Phelps, Brown has violated the law--though I would argue, in a far more serious way. This past weekend, its been reported Brown violently beat his girlfriend, fellow popstar Rihanna. Brown turned himself in to the police Sunday evening and was booked for making criminal threats. Rihanna has canceled all of her upcoming events, including her 21st birthday party.
So what does Wrigley have to say about all this? "We believe Mr. Brown should be afforded the same due process as any citizen. However, we have made the decision to suspend the current advertising featuring Brown and any related marketing communications until the matter is resolved."
Translation: Though suspended, his contract has not been dropped. And hey, people make mistakes! We'll just see what happens.
Chew on this Wrigley: why don't you stop trying to double our pleasure and instead double your response to these allegations against Brown? If Michael Phelps' mild drug use can stir a company to call him out on what a disappointment he is, Chris Brown assaulting his girlfriend should absolutely warrant a strong response. When a company uses a young star specifically to promote their aging products to a youth market, it is socially irresponsible to not condemn the star for morally reprehensible behavior. You can't say "Hey kids, watch your role model sing a song about our gum!" and not call him out on his non-role-model-like actions. Using this "...until the matter is resolved" rhetoric implies that there is a way to resolve a domestic violence charge, like Brown can do a sad-faced tour of the talk show circuit in a month and tell America how sorry he is, how it'll never happen again, and promptly wander back into the product-shilling spotlight. What's one way to stop that impending media tour from happening? By having his sponsors send a clear message that his actions are unacceptable and have serious consequences.
Want to call Wrigley out? Contact their Communications department and let them know it's time to start communicating a stronger message about violence against women by calling 312-645-4754.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Wrigley: Double the Response.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11900
I would argue that a photo was taken of Phelps and right now, all of this stuff with Chris Brown is "alleged." According to everything I'm reading on Jezebel, it's pretty obvious what happened, and if it's true, yes, beating a woman is much worse than taking a bong hit, and I don't think anyone would argue that. Perhaps they are waiting to find out what actually happened before making any serious anouncements until it's clear how serious the crime was. It's a more emotional, intimate, and private stituation than one that a company might want to quickly become a part of and if I were a public figure, I might not want major corporations handing down official pronouncements about what they think of my situation. Maybe they're trying to do the sensitive thing, you know?
Yeah, I agree with you. Although I personally don't doubt that Chris Brown is guilty, he hasn't been convicted of anything (and there was photographic proof of Phelps smoking a bong - not that I think Kellogg's should have reacted the way they did, but that's a different issue...). Presumably Wrigley's doesn't want to come off as judge and jury before the case has gone to trial. Hopefully, should Brown be found guilty, Wrigley's will accept that as "resolution" and choose not to pursue any further contracts with him.
I completely agree. While I understand why Phelps is being so targeted for his drug use (drugs are bad, mm kay), I think it's less about the drugs than it was his drug use was seen by many people, thanks to the published photograph. He did it. He admits it. He's paying for it.
With Chris Brown, it sure does look like he did it. However, there is no photographic proof (like there is with Phelps) and he's not admitting anything yet (unlike Phelps). I'm actually quite heartened that Wrigley is dropping the contract based on the arrest. However, I'm not expecting them to come out and castigate Brown when nothing has been proven or admitted. First, they might be setting themselves up for a slander/libel lawsuit if (in the highly unlikely case) it turns out that something else happened that night. Second, I don't really think it's their place to comment on it judgmentally. I find Kelloggs extremely tacky for doing so against Phelps.
This may be the case, but I still don't think the proper steps are being taken to make the public really understand the seriousness of domestic violence, whether or not he's guilty.
Hell, I even watched Jay Leno make a joke about it last night.
A company like Wrigley's has a huge influence in the way the media covers this. That being said, I think they should make a statement about domestic violence now as a very serious issue, whether or not Chris Brown is guilty, before it fades into yesterday's news.
I agree 100%. Now, if there'd been pictures of Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna, and then he admitted to doing it, you'd have a valid point to make in your post about Wrigley's not taking a strong enough stance. But its all just alleged at this point. They can't come out and say "Chris is a scumbag, we're firing him" without the courts proving it, first.
I don't think it matters whether or not there were pictures evidencing that violence had taken place. This is, in part, the reason why domestic violence and sexual assault continue to be the number one killer of women in this country; the fact that all too often when a woman makes a report of domestic violence she isn't believed by law enforcement, and sometimes even by her family and friends. Trust women! Trust them to make competent, just decisions for their own lives.
And as far as California state law goes - having a higher charge for "suspicion of a criminal threat" than for domestic violence. For shame.
This is, in part, the reason why domestic violence and sexual assault continue to be the number one killer of women in this country
Not to diminish the seriousness of domestic violence, but I think it's important to be accurate about the scope of a problem for purposes of efficacy and credibility: According to the CDC, in 2004 (the most recent year for which comprehensive calculations are available), the only non-natural cause of death for adult women among the ten commonest was accidental injury - the number one killer is heart disease.
I do agree we need to "be accurate about the scope of the problem," and with that said, I would mention that the top cause of homicide for women in the U.S. is domestic violence. The same could not be said for men.
Taken directly from NCADV:
61% of female homicide victims were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers.
More than 9 times as many women were murdered by a man they knew than were killed by male strangers.
My friend was telling me today that, oh Chris Brown can't be guilty, he's christian...and she cheated on him...and it's alleged anyway...a guy like him wouldn't do that.
All i could do was laugh in frustration and utter amazement.
Perhaps the reason for the disparity is that there were pictures of Phelps with a bong. It's not just an allegation, he was caught on camera!
Right now in Chris Brown's case, as is the case most of the time, we just have the report and beginnings of a criminal investigation. If he'd been caught on camera hitting his girlfriend, Wrigley would probably have a different response!
There IS a way to resolve a domestic violence charge, just like any crime. Police determine whether or not to press charges, the suspect determines which plea to enter, the judge or jury determines whether he's guilty or not and what his sentence is...anywhere along the way you can reach a stopping point where it's "resolved" and not all of those stopping points involve letting him off.
Wrigley is saying they don't want to play the role of judge, jury, and executioner. I don't know where you're getting "And hey, people make mistakes!" from.
jinx!
Wow, we must have been having a mind-meld there!
I was also going to add, after hitting 'submit', that Phelps also came out and said that yeah, he did something stupid. His own confirmation of the crime (I so hesitate calling smoking pot a 'crime', but it is what it is, I guess) was enough for Kellogg to make their decision, too.
After reading this article, I asked myself, "Why would Wrigley's responses be so disproportionate-- stronger for a bong hit than for domestic abuse?" Then I looked at the language they used-- "Michael... disappointed so many people." Chris Brown, apparently, did not disappoint. WHY? Is it because we expect black men to be violent and abusive?
Additionally, there is no police and/or court involvement in the Phelps case-- it involved a picture of him toking on a bong, end of story. With Brown, there are allegations and an investigation underway, but no picture of him smacking Rihanna circulating online or elsewhere. So there is some justification for the "due process" comment.
Having said that, though, Wrigley should have taken the opportunity to make a statement about the egregiousness of domestic violence.
Michael Phelps was caught on camera using a bong. Using bongs isn't illegal - smoking pot is illegal, and it could have been tobacco in that bong, so the drug use is as alleged as Brown's violence. The only way one can claim that Brown's actions are more alleged than Phelp's is if one believes that women routinely lie about domestic violence. If instead we assume that women routinely tell the truth about domestic violence, then Brown is a woman beating bastard whether he's convicted or not.
Except it wasn't just a picture of Phelps with a bong. It was also that Phelps admitted he was smoking marijuana. Brown hasn't admitted to anything yet.
Well, he didn't really admit to smoking pot. He admitted "bad judgment" and "regrettable" behavior.
He did, however, "turn himself in." What did he confess to the LAPD about? (btw, that's not sarcasm or rhetorical... lol it's a real question)
"Turning oneself in" is not confessing. If the police are looking for you to charge you, you can turn yourself in to face the charges, yet still completely deny them. It's a show of good faith in that it doesn't then take the police time and effort to come find you in order to charge you.
but the woman reported to the police that Brown had assaulted her.
is that not as legitimate as michael phelp's confession? does Brown have to be the one to say it really happened in order for it to be true?
it would make a lot more sense if the woman was telling the truth, and the man was re
fusing to admit to it to stay out of trouble. it really makes me sad that nowadays people dont believe women who have been raped or beaten. those women need all the support they can get, but everyone just tells them they are liars.
btw i read an article that said she had visible injuries.
if i can find it i will post a link.
but the woman reported to the police that Brown had assaulted her.
is that not as legitimate as michael phelp's confession? does Brown have to be the one to say it really happened in order for it to be true?
it would make a lot more sense if the woman was telling the truth, and the man was re
fusing to admit to it to stay out of trouble. it really makes me sad that nowadays people dont believe women who have been raped or beaten. those women need all the support they can get, but everyone just tells them they are liars.
btw i read an article that said she had visible injuries.
if i can find it i will post a link.
Has anything about Rihanna accusing Brown come out? I haven't seen anything. So far I've heard a lot of speculation and I would bet my savings that it's what happened, but as far as I've been able to tell, "the woman" hasn't said anything publicly yet, nor has anything been released that shows she's accused Brown.
If she does, I'll believe her. However, there still is some difference in a person admitting to wrong and another person accusing someone else (no matter the crime or the genders of those involved). Wrigley has already acted in a way that I think is appropriate. I believe that if Brown ever admits or is convicted of wrongdoing, Wrigley making a statement that "Violence against women is bad" is not going to add anything to this situation.
"but the woman reported to the police that Brown had assaulted her.
is that not as legitimate as michael phelp's confession?"
Um, no. It's not. That's what we have investigations and trials for. She (or he) said does not = definitive proof.
Surely you aren't serious. The day that an accusation carries as much weight as a confession is the day we shut down the court system.
Don't get me wrong here: punish him all you want, once he's convicted. And given what I've heard so far, it seems likely to me that he did it. Let's just not leave out the rather critical step.
My opinion of Wrigley's actions is that they are trying to walk a fine line that balances the rights of the victim, the rights of the accused, and their own PR. If he turns out to be guilty, it will have been a great embarrassment to Wrigley to have been running ads featuring a criminal for the duration; so the campaign has been suspended. On the other hand, he hasn't been proven guilty yet, so it would be wrong of them to cancel his contract outright and start denouncing him publicly. Again, both of those are entirely appropriate once a conviction is obtained -- or for that matter, once enough evidence is made public, in the case that the jury miscarries justice, as often happens in celebrity cases.
It will be entirely appropriate of Wrigley to publicly fire Brown and make a statement about DV once things have been properly examined. It is equally appropriate for them to play things close to the vest this early in the process. Let's not take things out of order.
Well, has Rhianna actually come out and said "My boyfriend Chris Brown abused me"? The only evidence that is public information at this point is that she is bruised and made a 911 call. Whereas, Phelps was photographed doing the smoking. I think Kellogg's was wrong to make the statement that they made (not wrong to cancel his endorsement though). Even if it was tobacco as an Olympic athlete, he shouldn't be smoking anything.
I don't think the two crimes are comparable, nor do I think that Rhianna (or any domestic violence victims) often lie. However, Chris Brown is still not found guilty of any misdoing yet.
Just because I think Wrigley's position was appropriate (I think Kellogg's statement was premature) that doesn't mean I think that Brown's behavior was okay or that I think Wrigley's thinks it was okay.
You'd have to be really, really idealistic to assume that he was using the bong for something other than pot-smoking.
It'd be like saying to a picture of Chris Brown hitting Rihanna, "Maybe he was just swinging his arms around and accidentely connected with her face."
Let's not be naive here.
>>The only way one can claim that Brown's actions are more alleged than Phelp's is if one believes that women routinely lie about domestic violence.
No, this is NOT the "only" way to make that claim. I doubt that any of the women who have posted on this topic so far "[believe] that women routinely lie about domestic violence," and to imply such a thing just to make a point is disingenuous, to say the least.
In the case of Michael Phelps, it was a compromising photo-- pot or no pot, the dude was pulling a tube. No one made any allegations that he was in possession of marijuana, no one charged him with a crime, no one filed a police report. For Phelps, it wasn't a criminal matter-- it was an image matter.
In the Chris Brown case, it *is* a criminal matter, involving allegations, charges, and (presumably) an upcoming trial. Hence, as I said before, there is some justification for Wrigley's statement regarding due process.
This isn't letting Wrigley's off the hook. As I also said before, they should have taken the opportunity to speak out against domestic violence or even offered public support for Rihanna. They could have done this in a way that doesn't assume Brown is guilty until proven innocent.
Okay, just to play a little Devil's Advocate here... (And btw, this is the view of me - Lilith - and not necessarily the entire ESC).
Isn't it a little unfair to judge two completely separate, unaffiliated companies (Kellogg's and Wrigley's) on their responses to two different incidents? If the same companies had treated the two situations so differently, then I would say we have cause for concern.
However, I think Wrigley's response is appropriate. Chris Brown has not been convicted of anything, all the crimes are still "alleged", there is no photographic evidence (pictures of Rhianna with bruises does not prove how they got there). I'm not suggesting he's innocent, but the fact is, we do not know what happened and neither does Wrigley's. I think suspending the ad campaign is a good idea, but it's not necessary to speak out against Brown until they have the facts. In fact, I think it would be inappropriate to do so.
On the other hand, one could argue that Kellogg's behavior was excessive. (I'm not necessarily taking that stance, but you could definitely make the point).
As for the "disappointed" comment. Again, they were made by different people from different corporations. If Kellogg's is disappointed in Phelps, that doesn't necessarily mean that Wrigley's is not disappointed in Brown. We should not assume that their lack of explicitly expressing their disappointment means that there is a lack of disappointment.
And while I do agree that both men are treated as role models... I think that as an Olympic athlete, Phelps may indeed have higher expectations when it comes to health-related behavior (such as drugs) than another celebrity. That doesn't mean that drug use is better or worse than domestic violence/violence in general. It also doesn't mean that a black man - or a musician of any race - is expected to be violent.
"I think suspending the ad campaign is a good idea, it's not necessary to speak out against Brown until they have the facts."
Despite what anyone says about the fact that Chris Brown has NOT been found guilty, they SHOULD have taken this time to speak out against domestic abuse/violence, and they didn't.
I don't see why you are so quick to jump to the defense of the company. Companies should be up for scrutiny, so no, I don't think it's unfair to judge two "separate, unaffiliated companies" in this situation.
Well, I don't think it's unfair to hold one company up to the same standards as another. But I do think it's unfair to suggest that Wrigley's response means they don't think domestic violence is important just because Kellogg's made a big stink about Phelps. Edansmommy's response seemed to imply that both responses came from Wrigley's, which isn't true.
You can say that you're unhappy with Wrigley's response - which is fine - but you can't suggest that they think domestic violence is less important than drug use, because they haven't had a drug use incident recently.
But as I said, I was playing devil's advocate.
Yes, they could have used this opportunity to make a statement about domestic violence... but don't you think maybe they found it wise to establish that this was, in fact, a case of domestic violence before doing so? (Not saying it wasn't, but like it's already been said: allegations).Other people have made it seem as though they are condoning violence, which I don't see at all. I think we should encourage the company to use this as the opportunity that it is, but I don't think we should condemn them for not doing so prematurely.
I am curious what the response will be after the matter is "resolved".
-Lilith
I agree completely. Two separate companies are entitled to react differently. Maybe it's the criminal defense attorney in me, but I think Wrigley's got it right. They DID suspend the Brown campaign almost immediately, before any concrete details emerged. Maybe now that we know more they will choose to drop him, but I think they played it right for such an early point in the saga.
The public is entitled to judge Brown without knowing the details--that's the court of public opinion. But I don't see anything wrong with holding out for more information when a commercial contract is on the line. Even when there are no allegations of a lying victim, rumors can get blown out of proportion. I'm a huge fan of due process in the appropriate degree, so I was actually pleased by Wrigley's decision. I'm confident that they'll make another appropriate statement at the appropriate time.
The devoted Rihanna fan in me, however, wants Brown to rot in jail.
I'm in no way saying that I think Wrigley's condones Chris Brown's behavior, I'm just saying I don't see why companies shouldn't have more responsibility when it comes to speaking out against serious crimes like domestic violence, especially with a celebrity they openly endorse.
I was thinking more along the lines of the company making it clear to the public that while they will hold off judgment of Chris Brown until his guilt/innocence is determined (though based on coverage, I'm pretty damn sure he's guilty), this doesn't undermine the seriousness of his actions.
What it comes down to is that I, personally, am not very satisfied with the way they worded their statement. I'm not specifically comparing it to the Kellogg's statement, either, though it's hard not to compare the situation a little, considering all the hoopla surrounding the Phelps picture. In general, I am not happy with the way the media is covering this.
Again, I think it's the defense attorney in me that puts my opinion at odds with yours. I don't disagree that the company should take responsibility for speaking out on serious crimes like DV. But when Wrigley's spoke out we didn't know if there had actually been a crime committed. An arrest and charge do not always mean there's been a crime. Of course that doesn't minimalize Brown's actions, but it does justify a more cautious response, I think.
A call for more responsibility is appropriate, but a call for readers to complain to Wrigleys was not, IMO.
"I was thinking more along the lines of the company making it clear to the public that while they will hold off judgment of Chris Brown until his guilt/innocence is determined (though based on coverage, I'm pretty damn sure he's guilty), this doesn't undermine the seriousness of his actions."
Well, how exactly are they holding off judgment of him if they are going to discuss the seriousness of his actions? By deeming his alleged actions to be serious (and to be actually his actions) they are not withholding judgment. What if Chris Brown is found innocent and it turns out this has all been more rumor than fact?
I think perhaps what you mean, is they should not discount the seriousness of domestic violence. However, we still do not know if that's in fact what this is and cannot judge any of his actions until we can verify what they are/were.
-Lilith
Yes, I do mean the seriousness of domestic violence, whether or not that's what happened.
I'm also very curious what the response will be after the matter is "resolved".
We're not talking about throwing Chris Brown in jail without a trial. We're talking about holding someone out for a celebrity endorsement who just put his girlfriend in the hospital. Of that there is no dispute.
There is a difference between this and Phelps - it's not a victimless crime. Wrigley should use this opportunity to make a statement - hitting your girlfriend is not okay. Ever. Suspending an ad does not say that loud enough.
I'm just saying, how do you know they won't be saying that after Brown has actually been convicted of hitting his girlfriend?
-L
Exactly! Wrigley's has the opportunity to make a statement.
If it turns out he's innocent, that's wonderful, but Wrigley's wouldn't be doing any harm to make a statement against domestic violence in general right now.
Now, I know they are trying to protect their company and Chris Brown, but I'm just saying it would benefit more people to come out and make a statement against domestic violence then to just be sort-of hush hush about the whole situation.
If it turns out he's innocent, that's wonderful, but Wrigley's wouldn't be doing any harm to make a statement against domestic violence in general right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
yeah, it'd be wonderful except his career would be over and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty would take another blow
Maybe I'm just not understanding, but I don't see how it should be any corporation's responsibility to make Public Service announcements. I don't think Kellogg's should have done it with Phelps and I don' think that Wrigley's should do it with Brown.
I just don't see this making a big difference, especially in the Brown case. Wrigley suspended his contract, which is good. However, I can't see how a statement about DV or relationship violence is going to add anything to the public discussion. The fact that two pop stars are involved with relationship violence is putting a spotlight on the issue. Wrigley has made a definite statement by suspending the contract with Brown. Words about "Don't hit your girlfriend 'cause it's bad" are just window dressing. I appreciate that their actions show that they don't tolerate intimate partner violence even if they don't pay lipservice to the evils of IPV.
Could they be doing more to highlight injustices in our society? Sure. I do think that people should stand up to injustice and violence whenever it happens. However, I don't see anyone stating that Wrigley should come out and say that racism is wrong, or that you shouldn't drink and drive, or that we should so something to stop the violence in Darfur. I personally don't think they should be doing that, either. It'd be nice if they did, but it's not exactly what they're in business to do.
Oh and for the record, Chris Brown was not even arrested for assault or domestic violence. He was booked on "suspicion of making a criminal threat". He is currently under investigation and they will determine what other charges are actually warranted. That doesn't mean they don't think he did anything, but even the D.A.'s office isn't moving to charge him with assault (yet)... so why should Wrigley's?
The reason why the D.A's office isn't charging him with assault is because you can get a maximum of 9 years time for making criminal threats, yet only 4 for assault. As a D.A, your responsibility is to charge someone with the gravest offense possible.
Well to be clear, the D.A.'s office isn't charging him with anything yet. He was booked on making criminal threats. But the D.A.'s office apparently wants further investigation before any formal charges are brought up.
So I think any speculation on our part and on Wrigley's would still be premature. Therefore I agree with Wrigley's current actions and look forward to how they will handle further developments.
-Lilith
Allow me translate your post: Due process rigthts get tossed when the charge involves a woman as a victim. Let us be perfectly candid. I do not see such a rush to judgment for any other alleged crime. It is unpardonable to posit that Wrigley's attitude is simply, "And hey, people make mistakes!" Never did the company remotely suggest that, and it says volumes about you that you have read that into its wholly proper response.
Yes, domestic violence is terrible, but refusing to presume innocence without a scrap of evidence being offered in a court of law, is downright unAmerican. Such a response is all-too predictable where gender plays in the charge. I, for one, hope that he did not beat up a woman. I am sure you share that hope.
Again, paying a celebrity a healthy sum to profit on his status is completely different than the criminal justice system. A system, by the way, that lets down women seeking to press charges against their abusers in many ways.
I'm really shocked that on a web site called feministing people are reacting this way. What do you want? The victim to display her bruises and busted lip? That will get his contract yanked for sure. Wait for Chris Brown to have his inevitable public mea culpa and media forgiveness frenzy? You forfeit your whatever role model status you have once you lash out in violence or otherwise hurt another person.
I for one am not going to chew any Wrigley gum in the near future.
They suspended the campaign and all related marketing communications. Most likely they will pull the contract permanently. The only thing they have not done is publicly condemn him yet. What exactly would make you continue to chew the gum?
-L
Wrigley's lukewarm reaction to one if its agents, an agent hired solely for his public appeal, beating on his girlfriend to the extent that she was admitted to a hospital does not exactly motivate me to use their products.
While the wheels of justice turn slowly and, sadly, many times not at all for survivors of abuse, consumers have the opportunity every day to make themselves heard with their pocketbooks. Wrigley's reaction to this disturbing incident taints their product. I think it's a poor business decision not to terminate the contract entirley and a missed opportunity for a major corporation to make a statement around abusive relationships.
For the record, just because I'm sort of defending Wrigley, does not mean that I am defending Chris Brown. I think he probably did do it and if so, he deserves whatever he gets and more. I'm just trying to make a point.
Honestly, I'm almost 100% sure that Wrigley will not continue Brown's contract regardless of whether the allegations are proven. I think it's good that they have suspended the campaign. I just also respect the fact that they have chosen to afford him the same due process that we all deserve by not slamming him based on allegations.
Because he's a celebrity, his alleged crimes are super public and prone to lots and lots of gossip/exaggeration/speculation. He will have a hard time getting a fair trial and even if he is exonerated, he will always be guilty in the public eye (as he is already guilty in the public eye). Whether or not that guilt is deserved (probably is) is not the issue here. The issue is that as a corporation Wrigley is not in the position to play judge and jury to Brown and I'm glad they have not. Doesn't mean they should keep the campaign going, but as I already said, they haven't.
And again, I'd like to reiterate that these are my views (Lilith) and should not be used to judge the entire EvilSlutClique who is not participating in my comments.
Wrigley is not responsible for Brown's actions. For what it's worth, from the information I've heard, I think that Brown did it and should pay for his crime to the fullest extent possible. As far as I've heard, Rihanna has not made any public statements about what happened, nor has any been released by police, so it's not an issue of me believing HER or not believing she's been beaten.
I also resent the implication that because I think Wrigley has done enough in this instance to show that they abhor DV and IPV by discontinuing their contract with Brown, that I don't fully understand the horrors of violence against women. I work with survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence. I've seen firsthand the terror, sadness, betrayal, and aftermath that it causes.
Wrigley acted. You say that they could have said something about it. To me, saying that violence against women is bad is just talk. It wouldn't do anything in this situation. Instead, they suspended their contract which hurts Brown in a place he'll probably feel in the most: his pocket. Could they flap their lips and add almost nothing to this situation? Sure, but I think more of them that they aren't passing judgment and paying lipservice. They're acting. This is what is important to me.
Seriously. I do not understand why a gum manufacturer is suddenly responsible for sagely explaining why domestic violence is wrong, or do anything other than stop paying an abuser money. I just looked it up, and all over their website they have information about the causes and initiatives they support. None of them are domestic violence, and I think that's fair. I'd be pretty pissed off if one of my employees set a forest fire and I was suddenly responsible for forest fire prevention, when all of my life I've given all I can to Planned Parenthood, and other non-profits that are specifically important to me.
OK, several things here.
1- As of today, Rihanna's PR people and/or reps have said that she complained of Chris being physically abusive of her in the past.
2- There are photos of Rihanna's injuries
3- People, go back up and read the post again- Chris Brown's Wrigley contract HAS NOT been dropped, but the ads FEATURING him have supposedly been suspended
"Translation: Though suspended, his contract has not been dropped. And hey, people make mistakes! We'll just see what happens."
4- Although the ads have supposedly been suspended, I saw a Doublemint/Chris Brown ad that aired Wednesday morning (after the news about the incident was out) and I believe it was aired on either VH1 or MTV- during morning video hours. So apparently (though Wrigley had already stated at that time that they were "suspending" the CB ads), the ad was still running on young peoples' TV stations! Today I saw one with Julianne Hough for Juicy Fruit instead- maybe MTV Networks couldn't pull the ads soon enough, but that seems highly doubtful to me.
5- I understand and agree with the whole innocent-before-proven-guilty thing, and this is a definite trial by media, but most contracts like this have a morality clause that allows the company owners to drop a promoter if he/she does something *bad*, whether or not it's illegal. So Brown hasn't been convicted by a jury of his peers- that could take years! But Wrigley has a responsibility that they are not living up to, especially considering their target market of youngsters and advertising on youth-centric stations.
Hey, we all make mistakes and have done things we're not proud of, that is for sure. But I have the feeling Wrigley is not going to look good in this picture, and let's face it that that is one thing businesses are most concerned about (right or wrong).
So because you have Daddy issues - you think it's acceptable to hate on all fathers? Well, you know what? My life wasn't perfect either. My mom used to beat the crap out of me. I wasn in care by age 10. My brother was beaten with an organ leg, and moved out by age 11. My Sister also was gone by age 11. I was the youngest. We all suffered. When he slaps had no effect on me any more - she resorted to using weapons, canes, shoes bedroom furniture, whatever she could find.
So because you have Daddy issues - you think it's acceptable to hate on all fathers? Well, you know what? My life wasn't perfect either. My mom used to beat the crap out of me. I wasn in care by age 10. My brother was beaten with an organ leg, and moved out by age 11. My Sister also was gone by age 11. I was the youngest. We all suffered. When he slaps had no effect on me any more - she resorted to using weapons, canes, shoes bedroom furniture, whatever she could find.