NFT: Stephen A. Smith: Don't give a man "elements of provocation"

Obviously this is all in context to the Rice situation, but his general statement was what we all agree with which is that there's no circumstance where a man should hit a woman but also that women shouldn't do anything purposefully that may provoke a man to hit them. There was nothing in anything he said that gave the indication that a woman is ever at fault once a man does hit her.

woman gets her ass kicked, her response should be "that ---- hit me" and not "what did I do to deserve this?"

and if he meant something else, he needs to explain himself.

The words mean the following:

a) Men shouldn't physically abuse women, but women need to recognize that their man may not have much self-control.

b) Women need to avoid behavior that "provokes" their man's loss of self control.

c) If that means being submissive and hiding in a corner, then the woman needs to be submissive and hide in a corner, or otherwise avoid provoking him.

d) If she refuses to do that, then, well, the man's response is criminal, and is also subject to a physical attack by SAS's "boys," but the woman still has substantial responsibility. So, there are two wrongs involved, the man's criminality, and the woman's inability to avoid provocation by being sufficiently aware of how to behave in his presence.

If "provoke" has some other, hidden meaning, he needs to bring it out of hiding. I also wonder: if her man is drunk, or depressed, or gets fired from his job, does she need to hide in a closet? That part isn't so clear.

that actions like in this video of Beyonce's sister going buck wild on Jay-Z are not acceptable.

I know it will be tough, but please don't take this as me saying that Jay-Z had a right to knock her out


Link - ( New Window )

I work in an inner city school and I deal with this on an almost daily basis. I tell my boys that it is NEVER acceptable to put your hands on a girl. I also have to remind my girls all the time that if you don't want the boys hitting you, stop hitting them. In the black community especially, girls are becoming more and more aggressive. They will "drop the gloves" and go at a boy with no thought at all. He is not placing blame on the victim, what he is essentially saying is that everyone needs to keep their hands to themselves so that things do not escalate. It is a shame that he or anyone else has to say anything like this, but ignoring reality is not going to make our girls and women any safer.

In comment 11781654 Blue Baller said:

Quote:

that actions like in this video of Beyonce's sister going buck wild on Jay-Z are not acceptable. I know it will be tough, but please don't take this as me saying that Jay-Z had a right to knock her out Link - ( New Window )

But he didn't. And neither did his bodyguard. Just because you want to knock someone out doesn't mean you should.

turn it on its head. What is he telling a woman who has already been assaulted? Sorry, and good thing he's in jail, but ask yourself what you did to provoke this, maybe that'll stop it the next time around.

In comment 11781645 eclipz928 said:

Quote:

Obviously this is all in context to the Rice situation, but his general statement was what we all agree with which is that there's no circumstance where a man should hit a woman but also that women shouldn't do anything purposefully that may provoke a man to hit them. There was nothing in anything he said that gave the indication that a woman is ever at fault once a man does hit her.

That's a contradiction. If there is never a time a woman is at fault then why say women shouldn't provoke men? And again, who knows what will provoke someone?

There is no reason to ever hit a woman except in legitimate self defense (don't laugh, it could happen). On the other hand women should not take that as carte blanche to go crazy bitch on a man because he's not supposed to hit her. Now, having experienced BBI's reading comprehension, let me state clearly, even if she does go crazy bitch on him that is still no reason to hit her, just saying she in turn should not take it as a free pass to do so.

In comment 11781661 buford said:

Quote:

In comment 11781654 Blue Baller said: Quote: that actions like in this video of Beyonce's sister going buck wild on Jay-Z are not acceptable. I know it will be tough, but please don't take this as me saying that Jay-Z had a right to knock her out Link - ( New Window ) But he didn't. And neither did his bodyguard. Just because you want to knock someone out doesn't mean you should.

Wow....even though I explicitly said that he had no right to hit her you still didn't get it

he should just say "don't ever put your hands on a man". Probably the wrong time to say that anyway, because nothing she could have done with her hands could have justified his cold-cocking her and dragging her across a hotel floor. But his comment went beyond that. He addressed the possibility that a man might just be insane or full of rage such that provocation was not an issue, but then suggested there was a remainder that would not resort to violence without provocation. It certainly didn't sound like he constrained himself to instances where she struck him first.

BS. It infantilizes women and scoffs at the notion that they could be dangerous. It's more sexist than anything.

There's a reason to hit anyone, regardless of sex, if they were coming at you with a weapon, or effective punches/kicks whatever. The physical disparity in this particular case isn't always so pointed.

In comment 11781670 Blue Baller said:

Quote:

In comment 11781661 buford said: Quote: In comment 11781654 Blue Baller said: Quote: that actions like in this video of Beyonce's sister going buck wild on Jay-Z are not acceptable. I know it will be tough, but please don't take this as me saying that Jay-Z had a right to knock her out Link - ( New Window ) But he didn't. And neither did his bodyguard. Just because you want to knock someone out doesn't mean you should. Wow....even though I explicitly said that he had no right to hit her you still didn't get it

I do get it. He was provoked and still didn't need to knock a bitch out. I was agreeing with you.

He got it, you didn't.

His point is that Jay Z acted appropriately, and that this situation holds no lessons for what SAS is talking about. None. Nada. Nicht. Nein.

Comprende?

In comment 11781678 manh george said:

Quote:

He got it, you didn't. His point is that Jay Z acted appropriately, and that this situation holds no lessons for what SAS is talking about. None. Nada. Nicht. Nein. Comprende?

He was talking to the Solanges of the world

He is saying don't act like that

In comment 11781674 Nitro said:

Quote:

BS. It infantilizes women and scoffs at the notion that they could be dangerous. It's more sexist than anything. There's a reason to hit anyone, regardless of sex, if they were coming at you with a weapon, or effective punches/kicks whatever. The physical disparity in this particular case isn't always so pointed.

No, it does not infantilize women. Unless you are physically matched, meaning the woman is unusually large and strong, then the physical disparity is almost always a huge advantage for a man.

Just stay away from crazy bitches if you can't control yourselves.

either physically or mentally is pretty sexist IMO

women are an increasing share of domestic violence cases. Nowhere near on par with men, but there are women out there who are reasonably strong and at least the equal of the men they're dating or have married, especially when you account for the natural restraint that any decent man would show regarding putting his hands on a woman. Add in weapons and it's a different equation.

But that's not the issue in Rice's case, nor is it the issue, or at least the only issue, raised by what SAS said.

is saying Rice was justified.

Smith just used the story as a launching point

are the victims of domestic assault in significantly larger numbers than what is reported. men don't report it because usually the actual physical hurt is in most cases minimal relative to the flipside situation and for pride/ego reasons. but it does happen quite a bit and it's one of those double standards. the bottom line is that you don't hit back, unless you will suffer serious physical harm and need to defend yourself.

at the same time, women should not be assaulting men either (spitting on someone is a form of assault). "provoking" was the wrong term.

the analogy I used above is probably a pretty reasonable one. Provocation for getting coldcocked and dragged across a hotel is the equivalent of using a forced entry rape to start a conversation about hemlines and reasonable drinking behavior. Bad segue.

that the appropriate response for a woman to deal with a man twice her size who can't keep his hands to himself is to:

1) Generate proof of his physical aggression --e.g., a selfie--to provide to the courts.

2) Wait until he's asleep, or even spike his drink.

3) Apply a large frying pan to the side of his head, repeatedly.

#3 may require practice on a crash test dummy.

In comment 11781684 Blue Baller said:

Quote:

either physically or mentally is pretty sexist IMO

No one has said that.

charged by (understood) hatred of SAS are the particular elements of provocation that night in Febuary. Many people forget that Janay Palmer was charged that night for assault too. The report stated visual evidence from witnesses and surveillance of her striking him multiple times before Ray Rice did what is inexcusable. Those videos have been withheld. The shocking footage we saw through TMZ was sold without Revel's consent and cost an employee his job (not before a handsome payout). But that shocking footage is what has stuck with us vs. the full story. Should it soften our stance on Rice? No. Does that give Rice the right? Absolutely not and he or any man that does so should be reprimanded to the fullest extent of the law. Most men, Jay-Z included, no when to walk away, especially when it puts your career/celebrity/character on the line. But mentally all men aren't created equal. Some are very stupid, especially in heated moments. Ray Rice showed he can be one of those idiots. But violence begets violence. As much as it is common law in society that a man shouldn't hit a woman, something I stand by, doesn't mean a woman can/should do whatever they want physically, verbally, etc. to a man. It also doesn't mean that a man won't attack them physically because again, all men aren't mentally equal. Same goes for a woman going off on another woman for that matter. This is what I believe Stephen A Smith meant, even though he did a very poor job (over)articulating it. We're not talking about a case where a guy attacks a woman simply because he can, because he's a bully or because she burned the pot roast. We're talking about BOTH parties knowing when to walk away, being proactive instead of reactive and to not let things escalate to a point of no return.

If we should be angry at anyone, it should be the NFL for the light suspension.

.

In comment 11781701 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

Quote: It's not about him, then. It's about you, and here's what I mean by that. We keep talking about the guys. We know you have no business putting your hands on a woman. I don't know how many times I got to reiterate that. But as a man who was raised by women, see I know what I'm going to do if somebody touches a female member of my family. I know what I'm going to do, I know what my boys are going to do. I know what, I'm going to have to remind myself that I work for the Worldwide Leader, I'm going to have to get law enforcement officials involved because of what I'm going to be tempted to do. But what I've tried to employ the female members of my family, some of who you all met and talked to and what have you, is that again, and this what, I've done this all my life, let's make sure we don't do anything to provoke wrong actions, because if I come, or somebody else come, whether it's law enforcement officials, your brother or the fellas that you know, if we come after somebody has put their hands on you, it doesn't negate the fact that they already put their hands on you. So let's try to make sure that we can do our part in making sure that that doesn't happen. Now you got some dudes that are just horrible and they're going to do it anyway, and there's never an excuse to put your hands on a woman. But domestic violence or whatever the case may be, with men putting their hands on women, is obviously a very real, real issue in our society. And I think that just talking about what guys shouldn't do, we got to also make sure that you can do your part to do whatever you can do to make, to try to make sure it doesn't happen. We know they're wrong. We know they're criminals. We know they probably deserve to be in jail. In Ray Rice's case, he probably deserves more than a 2-game suspension which we both acknowledged. But at the same time, we also have to make sure that we learn as much as we can about elements of provocation. Not that there's real provocation, but the elements of provocation, you got to make sure that you address them, because we've got to do is do what we can to try to prevent the situation from happening in any way. And I don't think that's broached enough, is all I'm saying. No point of blame.

He kept talking himself into a corner and then needed to back up and take a different route. Only to find another corner there.

of "advanced PC". He wasn't defending the Ray Rice at all, or any guy. He was just pointing out that also, women shouldn't hit men (for example). I have always had an issue here too. I see woman hitting guys all the time and have always thought it was wrong also.

In comment 11781725 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

of "advanced PC". He wasn't defending the Ray Rice at all, or any guy. He was just pointing out that also, women shouldn't hit men (for example). I have always had an issue here too. I see woman hitting guys all the time and have always thought it was wrong also.

It is wrong for a woman to hit a man, without a doubt. But there's a whole lot more in what SAS said than just "don't hit men."

why SAS would say "don't provoke your man," if all he meant was "don't hit your man."

"Hit" would have been so much more clear-cut, under the really
twisted-into-a-pretzel assumption that "hit" is what he meant.

"There is NO reason to hit a woman!":
http://youtu.be/AlvvCYUDHrQ

I never knew this until a Dr told me. Sometimes its the women who are abusive and men lose it. Its terrible and inexcusable.

"OHHH PA-STOP-IT!!!!!"

In comment 11781764 mamamia said:

Quote:

I never knew this until a Dr told me. Sometimes its the women who are abusive and men lose it. Its terrible and inexcusable.

Not sure if serious?

my comment was about SAS, not your post.

Obviously these 2 have an abusive relationship. She married him after this incident, so there is an issue here. I bet it wasn't the first, or last, time they have come to blows.

The codependency issues are the real problem. Men who abuse women find women who are programmed to accept the abuse and excuse it. It's a sickness. They need therapy.

way to take away all agency for women, bbi's resident retard.

Nitro?

In comment 11781802 Nitro said:

Quote:

way to take away all agency for women, bbi's resident retard.

Buford might have been clumsy in how she said it, but she isn't really wrong. The stats bear it out, perhaps the most important "risk factor" for a woman being abused is her exposure to abuse (child and spousal) growing up.

if you refuse to believe that some women will stay in abusive relationships, there is no helping you. Buford never once claimed to be classifying ALL women.

You talked about "white knights" in a previous post. My guess is you've lived a sheltered life with a white picket fence and have no fucking clue about how the other half lives. If that's not the case, I apologize in advance, but that is exactly how you've come across on this thread.

Did not have to put her to sleep, hes a fucking beast he could have restrained her. He should get shot in
his ACL week 3.

Quote:

The codependency issues are the real problem. Men who abuse women find women who are programmed to accept the abuse and excuse it. It's a sickness. They need therapy.

In comment 11781795 buford said:

Quote:

my comment was about SAS, not your post. Obviously these 2 have an abusive relationship. She married him after this incident, so there is an issue here. I bet it wasn't the first, or last, time they have come to blows. The codependency issues are the real problem. Men who abuse women find women who are programmed to accept the abuse and excuse it. It's a sickness. They need therapy.

no problem, buford

you just don't do it."

yikes

I said all agency, not all women. Reading is hard, but I forget that sometimes on my Wally Beaver wunder world.

you should bow out before you expose anymore of your ignorance.

clearly buford is right in general terms, that exposure to abuse in youth increases the risk that a woman will find herself in an abusive relationship. But Nitro's point, which I take to suggest that we can deprive women of agency and make them purely passive and fatalistic recipients of male abuse, is one with which I take issue but it's not an evil or unseemly argument by any means.

I never said all women. I sure as heck would never stay with someone who was abusive. But there are women, and men too, who stay with abusive partners, and make excuses and blame themselves for getting abused. I've seen it first hand. We can't comprehend it because we don't have those issues.

Thank god.

In an interestingly-timed move, the New York Daily News is reporting that Stephen A. Smith will be leaving his ESPN Radio gig in New York and head to the uncensored airwaves of SiriusXM. And, also interestingly, he will be joining Chris "Mad Dog" Russo's stable of hosts on Mad Dog Radio.

http://deadspin.com/stephen-a-smith-leaving-espn-radio-for-siriusxm-mad-do-1611513383?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Russo and SAS on the same station?

I'd rather sit in a vat of acid