Much has been written (too much, some might suggest) about the legacy of Michael Jackson since his unfortunate death in June. As is true whenever someone famous passes before their time, there is enormous conjecture about what was and what might have been. Their lives, already under the microscope, are further dissected, often with the intent of uncovering the more sordid details of their history.
In Jackson’s case, few would question his contributions as a musician; the man, however, is not so easily categorized. By all accounts, he was a gentle soul, contributing generously to charities—most notably by writing “We are the World” with Lionel Richie to help famine-relief efforts in Africa. Conversely, he was accused of abusing young boys at his Neverland Ranch. Jackson settled one case and was acquitted in another, but revelations during that trial—compounded by his often quirky behavior—left many of us feeling uncomfortable.
Jackson’s father allegedly abused him physically and emotionally beginning at a young age, and if we have learned anything during the past two decades it is that child abuse is damaging. Abused children often drink and take drugs to excess, develop eating disorders and other body issues, and can be developmentally delayed—staying childlike in many behaviors and decision-making processes, while progressing normally in other life areas. The effects of early trauma, as we now more readily understand, can be lasting—it is in many ways a small death, often leading to increasingly destructive behaviors over time.
If his allegations about being abused are true, as most people close to him believe they are, Jackson may indeed be the poster child for the need to more effectively intervene when children are being mistreated. Yet rarely, in the weeks that have passed since Jackson’s death, have I heard the issue of his alleged abuse during childhood (or his alleged victimization of others) discussed in relation to the need to break the cycle of child abuse that permeates our communities.
So what on earth, you might ask, does this have to do with sexist remarks? One only need look at the language that is used when violence occurs against women and children to consider that a sexist and patriarchal perspective has influenced our response to abuse. We ask why women stay with their abusive partners, even as research tells us that they try to leave—often numerous times—despite the financial and cultural difficulties they encounter when they do. Supposedly well-educated judges have publicly questioned the clothing and demeanor of very young girls who were sexually abused by adult males—as if to suggest that they provoked the attack. “Provocation” is in fact often mentioned when women and children are the victims of abuse.
How we discuss child abuse impacts our ability to create effective prevention, intervention, and treatment approaches, and quite obviously blaming the victim is not the answer. When all the hoopla that has surrounded his passing subsides, perhaps Jackson’s real legacy will be to cast a light on the need to change the way we talk about and address child abuse in this country. If we are wise enough to learn that lesson, we might be ready to explore how sexist language helps to perpetuate some of the other destructive elements of our culture.
Cynthia
