Last week Chris Brown made the mistake of taking on WWE fighter, CM Punk, in twitterland. Marshall weighs in…
Good morning Citizens
If it had turned out that the Chris Brown/CM Punk affair of last week was indeed a PR stunt, it is a work of senseless stupidity for Brown. Because it paints him not only as an unapologetic woman-beater, but as a total and complete tool in the intellect department as well.
At least traditionally, to be considered a jock’s intellectual inferior is not something a ‘creative’ writer and performer would be proud of. Sad for Brown is that this jock in particular, one Mr Philip Brooks of Chicago, happens to be a first-class entertainer, eloquent orator and the total opposite of everything Brown could think of throwing his way.
Here’s how it started.
CM Punk tweeted a wee idea, not unfamiliar to people who are unsettled by his easy re-entry into rihanna’s life and the spotlight:
Punk cut a video in response, during which he speaks directly to the camera:
‘Chris and I come from different worlds. I don’t have an assistant. I don’t have a bodyguard. I don’t have a manager or a PR person telling me to delete tweets like Chris does, and I don’t hit women. Period…
‘In my world women are meant to be revered and respected, and I firmly believe that in this life there are consequences and repercussions for people’s actions and I think Chris Brown hasn’t paid for what he’s done. Picking up trash on the side of a highway does not make amends for repeatedly striking a woman to her face and sending her to a hospital.’
Picking up trash on the side of a highway does not make amends for repeatedly striking a woman to her face and sending her to a hospital
The interwebworld has since been abuzz with debate around whether Punk was right to bring up Chris Brown, whether the WWE was right to consequently talk about it on their website and programming (exploiting a real-world scenario has never been a problem for sports-entertainment in general), and so on.
In my view, one particular take on the whole Chris Brown scumbucket does deem meritorious: He seems unrepentant. There are many people – me included – that agree with Punk that ‘Chris Brown hasn’t paid for what he’s done’. That he seems arrogant about his subsequent success is sickening, to the point that non-wrestling fans have declared a willingness to pay money to watch Punk stick Brown in the anaconda vise, and show him how it feels to be powerless. (hehe – anaconda!)
Whether or not Punk had called him out, he needn’t have responded at all, let alone in a way that suggests that another man who criticises his actions is somehow less than his idea of masculinity. It is a classic case, for me, of the response justifying the baiting, if only to prove a self-affirming point.
…and then for Brown to just seem ignorant when the person he tried to cheap-shot is famously straight-edge (no drugs, no alcohol, no smoking, etc), and a guy who is willing and more than able to tear you apart, not just physically, but morally and intellectually, too. There’s no good place for this to go for Chris Brown. There never was.
Thank you for listening, Citizens. Carry on as planned…
In 2010 I wrote a blog about abuse against women and how it is possible that women still accept this a status quo. Check it out here [clickety click].