Deadspin: First Take Discusses A Woman's Responsibility To Avoid Being Beaten

[Sticksboi05]

Funny thing is I suspect we are pretty much on the same side, sticksboi, but when you ask who's trying to lay out justification and then follow it with several paragraphs in which you attempt to show when it may be justifiable I think your question doesn't need answering.

 

You're not understanding how the word justified is being used in this thread.  That's all I can surmise from what you've posted in this thread.

 

What people are trying to say to you is  that the responses aren't justified but just because they aren't morally justified doesn't mean they won't occur.  At no point did I say what the bus driver did was justified, in fact I said what he did was unjust and that he deserved to be fired.  The point is, when you initiate a violent altercation, man or woman, you are risking the other person responding in a dangerous way.  That's not saying if they do, it's justified, which is what you keep trying to imply.  It's saying it's a possibility because that's how humans are.

 

When you spit in someone's face and punch them, you are putting yourself in a dangerous position to be retaliated against.  His retaliation wasn't right, as I said, he should've just called the police or kicked her off the bus, but in the heat of the moment, like many people, a rational response is not what you get.

[Destino]

Throwing a glass of water in your face ist provocation, waving your hands in someone's face is provocation, being obnoxious is provocation, even slapping someone is provocation, but in my book none of these rises to the level of provocation where you are entitled to strike someone.

If you want to get Hamurabi on me, I could accept a slap for a slap possibly, but don't close that fist.

Slapping and throwing water is, IMO, striking someone. If you do that to an already emotionally compromised person you are throwing a match at a powder keg. It might not go off but you are supplying a trigger. If you've made someone upset or see that someone is upset, it's always a bad idea to engage in any sort of aggressive physical contact. Being a woman does not excuse anything in that situation. Being smaller and weaker does not in any way entitle a person to hit another. Any such arguments are absurd.

[Burgold]

Slapping and throwing water is, IMO, striking someone. If you do that to an already emotionally compromised person that you've been arguing with you are throwing a match at a powder keg. It might not go off but you are supplying a trigger. If you've made someone upset or see that someone is upset, it's always a bad idea to engage in any sort of aggressive physical contact. Being a woman does not excuse anything in that situation. Being smaller and weaker does not in any way entitle a person to hit another. Any such arguments are absurd.

Ah, so Israel is completely and absolutely justified. Any counter arguments to the expectation of how to counter violent provocation is absurd?

[Destino]

Ah, so Israel is completely and absolutely justified. Any counter arguments to the expectation of how to counter violent provocation is absurd?

The actions of nations in conflict compared to individual confrontations is comparing apples and automobiles.

[Burgold]

The actions of nations in conflict compared to individual confrontations is comparing apples and automobiles.

I don't know if corporations can be people then why not nations.  The Palestinians knowing that the situation was very tense and Israel was very emotional kidnapped and murdered three teens and proceeded to launch 250 rockets at Israel before Israel reacted.  In your scenario, if a weaker entity throws water, slaps, or strikes at a bigger entity in a heightened situation it is an absurdity not to expect a reaction.

 

Well, there ya go.  I guess you can have it both ways, but it leaves you in a moral quagmire.

[The 12th Commandment]

Reading this thread leaves me surprisingly happy in the fact that free speech is alive and well in our country despite rumors of its untimely demise.   

[Burgold]

Reading this thread leaves me surprisingly happy in the fact that free speech is alive and well in our country despite rumors of its untimely demise.   

Yeah, it's one of the reasons I rarely tell people to shut up despite sometimes wanting to

[ZRagone]

you don't realize that it is more often the case that provocation is not needed for domestic violence to take place.

And you state I don't realize that based on...what exactly?

I understand fully that when it comes to domestic violence often there is little to no actions taken that one could reasonably suggest exacerbated the situation and increased the risk of negative action occurring. I also FULLY understand the dependance aspect of it that can come about in cases of severe, long term, domestic abuse.

However, simply because that is the case OFTEN doesn't mean it's the case EVERY time and it doesn't mean that it's unreasonable to suggest it's actually OKAY to want to get all the information about a situation.

It IS a serious problem. My issue however is that I believe this continual act by some in society to make this into an absolute black and white issue is actually a DAMAGING thing. A woman whose being beat by her husband because she didn't have dinner on the table before 5:01 PM is being made out to be the EXACT SAME as a woman who gets slapped after throwing things at a guy, screaming obscenities at him, and threatening to slander him. That to me is problematic, and unfair to someone in that first situation. The reality is this is NOT black and white, and treating it like it is actually causes problems because it disallows society from addressing or discussing it honestly. It IS a serious problem, but it seems that problem is SECONDARY to a lot of people to the generalized broad political issues regarding men and women.

Yes, if a woman just got raped I wouldn't suggested you IMMEDIETELY start sitting there talking about possible actions she did that increased her risk. That's tactless and ultimately unhelpful to the far more pressing matter of her emotional well being.

But I'd ABSOLUTELY use the story to go to my own son and daughter, if I had them, to remind them how horribly unacceptable that kind of action is AND how one needs to be aware of what they do and how that may increase their risk of danger, and how to use good judgement on how to balance living a life with that risk.

[Dallsux]

And you state I don't realize that based on...what exactly?

 

I wasn't trying to be insulting. I actually originally said that you are forgetting, but thought that the wrong thing to say based on the fact that I don't know you or your intent. I guess that was also the wrong thing to say. My apologies. It seemed that you were omitting certain truths without realizing it.

 

But I'd ABSOLUTELY use the story to go to my own son and daughter, if I had them, to remind them how horribly unacceptable that kind of action is AND how one needs to be aware of what they do and how that may increase their risk of danger, and how to use good judgement on how to balance living a life with that risk.

 

Let me be clear. I believe it is an absolute injustice for a woman to cry rape when no rape has occurred. You are right, it isn't a black & white issue. There are times when the situation is so convoluted & twisted up that the truth escapes us all. Women provoke through violence, then cry domestic abuse when that violence is rendered. However, to me, this is not the issue at hand. We're discussing the actions of a football player who routinely bench presses 225 lbs. in multiple reps knocking his girlfriend (now wife) out cold & dumping her out of an elevator like garbage. And the reactionary response from a sports analyst who made a very vague comment about women not provoking the violence in dirtbag "men".

 

I don't disagree with you that there are ways of preventing certain actions & doing things that are smart. I guess I just read his comments in a light of him "justifying" a "man" beating a woman when he is provoked in domestic violence cases. But like I said, you are right that it is not a black & white subject & there are so many grey areas, it's ridiculous. I have heard of cases where the man was the victim & beaten senseless by the woman & then she calls the cops on him for the abuse & the cops haul him off to jail, bloodied & battered when she doesn't appear to have a mark on her. I just think what he said could have been said a might better than it was instead of making it seem like Elroy has the right to beat up his wife for not taking the garbage out. 

[skinsmarydu]

I've heard a similar criticism about the slogan "Don't tell me what to wear, tell them not to rape." The argument is that we should teach girls how to prevent rape (what you wear sends a message, don't get too drunk, use the buddy system, avoid situations where you are alone with men,be mindful of your body language/surroundings, etc.).

People get upset by this because it sounds like victim blaming, but I think it is a good idea to teach young ladies how to prevent being a victim. You wouldn't say, "Don't tell me to lock my doors, tell them not to rob."

I imagine Stephen A. Smith meant to be make a similar argument. There are things women can do to protect themselves from domestic violence, the most important being not to get involved with an abuser (know the signs) and not to stay involved with one (seek help). It's also a good idea not to provoke violent people, which seems to be the crux of his statement.

All that said, I think you have to be aware that this type of argument is very likely to come off as a statement that "she deserved it" or "she was asking for it." Nobody should say that.

I do think it is a good idea to teach ladies strategies to protect themselves though (if we can do it without making excuses for crimes against them). We can approach issues like domestic violence from two sides, teach people how to avoid becoming victims AND prosecute the victimizers severely.

I'm afraid people will take me to be blaming the victims here, but I really don't mean to do so. I just want to point out that it's not completely outrageous to suggest we teach potential victims how to prevent crimes against them.

You're a very wise person, LOL

I totally understand both your recommendations, and the intent with which you send them.

[Hunter_R]

Would this be as big of an issue if Rice had done this to one of his buddies? I doubt it, and that's a shame. His actions would be equally as unacceptable (your average man is no different than your average woman compared to Ray Rice), though I suspect people would be wondering what his buddy did to deserve getting knocked out. I imagine the media would also handle it differently. That's not justice, and that's not fair.

If you'd hit a man, but, under the exact same circumstances, you wouldn't hit a woman, there's something wrong with you. If you think that means I'd hit a woman, you'd be wrong, and you're projecting. I don't think it's right to hit anyone if it's not self defense. Everyone deserves the same amount of respect. If you wouldn't hit a woman for spitting on you, don't hit a man for doing the same. If you try to justify it with some stupid statement like, "A man should know better," that's even worse.

Perhaps Smith didn't say it eloquently enough, but you shouldn't deliberately do things that may provoke violence (emotional abuse, assault, threats, etc.). Doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman. It's not fair to assume people will sit there and take it without eventually lashing back. Before you even get started, I'm not saying that's what happened with Rice, and this is not the same as an abuser that will attack to assert power and control (you probably shouldn't be with a person like that).

[Sticksboi05]

I have to disagree, hitting a woman or child is not the same as hitting someone who can defend themselves. 

[Hunter_R]

I have to disagree, hitting a woman or child is not the same as hitting someone who can defend themselves.

You're comparing a woman to a child. I would venture a guess that most women would find that insulting, and more than a little degrading. It's sad that mentality is so prevalent in society.

[twa]

You're comparing a woman to a child. I would venture a guess that most women would find that insulting, and more than a little degrading. It's sad that mentality is so prevalent in society.

 

Well I also compare some males to women and children  , my rule of thumb is not to attack the weak if avoidable.

 

no honor in beating those ,that is simply sadism

[Burgold]

If you'd hit a man, but, under the exact same circumstances, you wouldn't hit a woman, there's something wrong with you.

Under what circumstances?  What did the woman do?  Aren't we projecting guilt on her?  Do we know that she acted in a way that would make any reasonable man react in the same manner?

 

This is exactly the problem with the Smith line of thinking.  It assumes a degree of guilt on the woman.  It may be true, but it may not be.  More, was whatever this woman did so egregious an act that it deserved not only only a blow from Rice, but knocking her out and bodily dragging and dumping her body?  Remember, as near as we can tell Rice had not a mark on him.

[Sticksboi05]

You're comparing a woman to a child. I would venture a guess that most women would find that insulting, and more than a little degrading. It's sad that mentality is so prevalent in society.

 

In that they are both physically weaker than grown man, yes.  That's not degradation, that's fact.  Obviously the degree to which they can defend themselves is different but they are still at a greater risk of harm when being assaulted by an adult male.  That's common sense.

[dfitzo53]

2. Nobody is justifying violence, here.  Nobody.  And that includes Stephen A Smith.  For as inarticulate as he was, he did repeatedly say quote "it is never okay to hit a woman, period".  That is you putting words into people's mouths.

My thing is if you really believe "it's never OK to hit a woman, period" then that's pretty much the end of the conversation or TV segment or whatever.  Nothing else needs to be said.

 

I'm not coming down on one side or the other, but you can't legitimately try to position yourself at one end of the spectrum and expect people to respect or believe that when you begin to open conversation about the gray areas.  Edit: And again, I'm not saying the gray areas don't deserve to be discussed, but the only way you can possibly adopt a position that includes the word "never" and be intellectually honest is to stick to your guns and not even consider what may or may not have happened in the elevator (or insert other gray area here) relevant.

[Hunter_R]

In that they are both physically weaker than grown man, yes.  That's not degradation, that's fact.  Obviously the degree to which they can defend themselves is different but they are still at a greater risk of harm when being assaulted by an adult male.  That's common sense.

When you say that women can't take care of themselves and they're little more than children, you're being degrading, not chivalrous, I'm sorry.

The average man may be bigger than the average woman, but that doesn't mean every man is bigger than every woman. Far from it. That doesn't even take into account woman that know how to fight. Take a female MMA fighter. She'd embarrass the average male, no questions asked. Not to mention somebody like Ray Rice is going to knock out the average male just as easily as his wife.

Under what circumstances?  What did the woman do?  Aren't we projecting guilt on her?  Do we know that she acted in a way that would make any reasonable man react in the same manner?

What's not to understand? Equal circumstances. The man and the woman do the exact same thing to you.

[Sticksboi05]

When you say that women can't take care of themselves and they're little more than children, you're being degrading, not chivalrous, I'm sorry.

 

 

Luckily you're the only one in the thread who took my post as absolutely literal as possible.  Congratulations.

[Zguy28]

There is a difference between bullying and masculinity that sometimes expresses itself in non-lethal (also non-hate driven) violence. Its the reason we have boxing and MMA.

[grhqofb5]

Man, all I can think about is that 9 year old girl from the movie Orphan.  He should have walked away, much more quickly than he did.

[MattFancy]

And of course ESPN is teasing Stephen A's apology today on First Take. Gotta milk this.

[DM72]

I'm kinda glad that this has happened to Stephen A and I'm sure a lot of black athletes are too. He has come off as holier than thou on many occasions and has chastised black athletes for making stupid mistakes plenty of times.

 

Now he's on the hotseat.

[MattFancy]

So sounds like no discipline for SAS. Pathetic.

 

http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/video-stephen-a-smith-apologizes-for-domestic-violence-comments.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=video-stephen-a-smith-apologizes-for-domestic-violence-comments

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Smith apologizes by claiming he mis-spoke when he said the thing that he has often said and then lied about how he has always believed the exact opposite of the thing he said that he has often said.

 

http://deadspin.com/espns-first-take-opens-with-horse****-apology-from-step-1611984786