Screamin A with his idiotic take on the Ray Rice debacle talked about a woman's responsibility not to provoke a man into hitting her. When you're on screen with Skip Bayless and he's not the dumbest man in the shot, it's time to get off of television.
Link - (
New Window )
Since when has that been a bad thing to say?
Awesome alliteration.
Of course, due to the nature of the way he speaks, I could be wrong.
He's brutal.
As cluttered as Screamin's statement is, prevention advice does not equal victim blaming.
Assuming the person your talking to is capable of this, act accordingly. Whether they should or shouldn't be this way is irrelevant.
Now, a few comedians making the same point, since this is the only way you're actually allowed to voice this sort of opinion:
Jim Jefferies
Chris Rock - Don't hit women - ( New Window )
He was all over RR and talked about being raised by his mom and 4 older sisters. The full context isn't being given, in this case.
Being a gangster has pretty much always been cool.
It implies that women are at fault for domestic violence because they provoke men. While that may be true in some cases, most abusers are 'provoked' by things like not having goat for dinner.
As cluttered as Screamin's statement is, prevention advice does not equal victim blaming.
Assuming the person your talking to is capable of this, act accordingly. Whether they should or shouldn't be this way is irrelevant.
Now, a few comedians making the same point, since this is the only way you're actually allowed to voice this sort of opinion:
Jim Jefferies Chris Rock - Don't hit women - ( New Window )
Double standards exist. I get the point about equality but it's just how it is. Especially when the example is a pro football player built like a tank and his wife who is half the size of him.
If you actually felt physically threatened by a woman, I can atleast understand where you're coming from if you hit her. If Ronda Rousey went insane and attacked you, ok I get punching her to protect yourself from having your arm ripped off. If a woman tried to stab you with a knife, I understand if you punched her.
But you can't hit a woman for talking shit and getting under your skin. Double standard or not, it's just not a valid enough excuse for a man to hit a woman.
And there's just no way Ray Rice could ever feel physically threatened by his wife unless she pulled a weapon out on him, and heels don't count.
Quote:
and putting the quoted snippet in context - there's nothing contraversial about what he said. Men shouldn't hit women, and women shouldn't provoke men. I'm not sure where the wires are getting crossed for some of you.
It implies that women are at fault for domestic violence because they provoke men. While that may be true in some cases, most abusers are 'provoked' by things like not having goat for dinner.
His comments don't imply that at all.
Quote:
In comment 11781460 eclipz928 said:
Quote:
and putting the quoted snippet in context - there's nothing contraversial about what he said. Men shouldn't hit women, and women shouldn't provoke men. I'm not sure where the wires are getting crossed for some of you.
It implies that women are at fault for domestic violence because they provoke men. While that may be true in some cases, most abusers are 'provoked' by things like not having goat for dinner.
His comments don't imply that at all.
Yes they do. What provokes each man? How does a woman know if she is provoking? What is provoking? Again, it places the onus on the victim in this case.
said poorly - think wt he was trying to get across - if you try to take advantage of the fact that men should not hit women and spit in someone's face, kick them in the nads, etc. it may precipitate a violent act, and any consequences the man receives will not undo the damage his violent act committed.
He needs to make it clear that they don't include words. Even then, no excuse, but you can add back a few IQ points. As it stands, I don't think the SC would permit him to be executed, based upon highly diminished capacity. Maybe he is aiming for that.
Quote:
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.
WTF... I think the man has talked himself stupid.
And as a pathetic postscript to this story, SAS's Twitter faithful are besieging Michelle Beadles with all manner of cursing and garbage for pointing out the blatantly obvious.
we know they are criminal
we know they probably deserve to be put in jail
referring to anyone who puts their hands on a woman
Dunedin81 : 3:07 pm : link : reply
...
Because everything that followed is on par with what follows:
"I'm not a racist, but..."
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.
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 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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Smith just used the story as a launching point
at the same time, women should not be assaulting men either (spitting on someone is a form of assault). "provoking" was the wrong term.
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.
No one has said that.
If we should be angry at anyone, it should be the NFL for the light suspension.
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.
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."
"Hit" would have been so much more clear-cut, under the really
twisted-into-a-pretzel assumption that "hit" is what he meant.
http://youtu.be/AlvvCYUDHrQ
Not sure if serious?
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.
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.
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.
his ACL week 3.
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
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
I'd rather sit in a vat of acid