The NFL Fumbles the Ball

[Derec]

What Derec doesn't realize is that it isn't really a double standard in the way he thinks. An NFL player who engages in violence against a woman is less appealing as a player than one who engages in non-consensual violence against another man, hence the NFL will come down especially harsh on the former.

That is the very definition of a double standard! Women are considered, just like the pigs in Animal Farm, to be "more equal". And it's certainly not just the NFL that engages in the double standard here. It's also the federal government with the overtly sexist "Violence Against Women Act" and with Obama administration commenting on this case as to how horrible violence against women (but not violence against men) is.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the players are a key part of the brand of the NFL - certain actions that the players engage in off the field can damage your brand and lead to a loss in the number of fans. It's not just performance on the field but also how much the fans enjoy the players and their personalities.

And yet the NFL took Michael Vick back. He shouldn't have been allowed to coach Pee Wee football, much less have any other involvement.

 

[Axulus]

What Derec doesn't realize is that it isn't really a double standard in the way he thinks. An NFL player who engages in violence against a woman is less appealing as a player than one who engages in non-consensual violence against another man, hence the NFL will come down especially harsh on the former.

That is the very definition of a double standard! Women are considered, just like the pigs in Animal Farm, to be "more equal". And it's certainly not just the NFL that engages in the double standard here. It's also the federal government with the overtly sexist "Violence Against Women Act" and with Obama administration commenting on this case as to how horrible violence against women (but not violence against men) is.

The double standard isn't on the part of the NFL. It is on the part of those who find a player who engages in violence against a woman less appealing than those who engage in violence against men. It's related to the sexist culture that women are fragile and defenseless (thus, violence against them is especially bad) and that men are macho and strong and can take a beating. I'm not disagreeing with you here. I am disagreeing that the NFL is engaging in a double standard, however, since it is a fact that the NFL doesn't want players who are unappealing to the fans.

 

[Derec]

Imagine if she got divorced, who would date her (him as well of course) a woman who will rev up her boyfriend like that. No one needs that drama. Maybe she can change, but people are risk averse for dating women like that for a reason.

Given that the Savannah woman who murdered her boyfriend by shooting him in the back (i.e. the female violence against men that doesn't matter in our society) got a new boyfriend by the time for trial (and disastrous acquittal even though there was no doubt as to her guilt) I am sure there is at least one dumb and self-destructive guy who will date/marry her.

- - - Updated - - -

The double standard isn't on the part of the NFL. It is on the part of those who find a player who engages in violence against a woman less appealing than those who engage in violence against men. It's related to the sexist culture that women are fragile and defenseless (thus, violence against them is especially bad) and that men are macho and strong and can take a beating. I'm not disagreeing with you here. I am disagreeing that the NFL is engaging in a double standard, however, since it is a fact that the NFL doesn't want players who are unappealing to the fans.

They didn't do it because of an outrage by the fans but because of the outrage by the media, especially feminist commentators that think hitting a woman is the worst crime immaginable.

 

[Derec]

2. She allegedly hit him first... the original claim was that she hit him inside the elevator but now that we have video evidence that she didn't the claim has shifted to before they entered the elevator

We all know that it is the Goddess-given right of every womyn to hit her male partner without him being allowed to defend himself or retaliate. [/FEMINISM101]

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Does a man have a right to defend himself?
Yes, he does.
Can that defense include hitting a woman?
Yes , it can.
Was that defense necessary in this case?
Hmmm.
Professional football player vs. Much smaller woman.
I don't so.
And with the release of video inside the elevator where, yes she rushes him and he knocks her out with one blow, causing to fall and hit her head on the railing of the elevator, and then calmly stands there like nothing has just happened, not bothering to revive her or call 911, I don't think he thought he was ever in any danger from her or in any danger of any retaliation for what he had just done to her.

Not because he was a man, but because he is professional jock and used to teams of all kind running interference for him.

 

[Sabine Grant]

By Axulus : She admits some portion of blame. Is it your belief that she is lying or that she is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/trauma-and-violence/battered-woman-syndrome

Though some similarities with Stockholm Syndrome, BWS is diagnosed differently and falls under a separate category. There is no indication at this point that she would or would not fall under the DSM-IV-Criteria for PTSD. Such assessment would be conducted by a mental health care professional. Meaning not by folks on this thread.

Are you expecting anyone on this thread to assess whether she is suffering of "Stockholm syndrome" or the specific designation of BWS?

To note however that abuse victims tend to blame themselves. Some will go as far as protecting the abusive party. To be noted also that physical abuse is always escorted by mental and emotional abuse. The mental and emotional aspects of DV are the root cause of the victim experiencing a loss of self esteem and resulting self blaming. Convinced "they made the abusive party do it".

The above also addresses Derec's previous remark where he blames the victim for staying with the abusive party.

 

[Sabine Grant]

2. She allegedly hit him first... the original claim was that she hit him inside the elevator but now that we have video evidence that she didn't the claim has shifted to before they entered the elevator

We all know that it is the Goddess-given right of every womyn to hit her male partner without him being allowed to defend himself or retaliate. [/FEMINISM101]

Any reason why this important detail,

By Athena rofessional football player vs. Much smaller woman.

which anyone with adequate eyesight can observe on the video tape,

keeps escaping your attention?

as to "defend himself"versus "retaliate" : defense, certainly, however the level of defense force is to be proportionate to the threat. Retaliate, non!

Or are you suggesting that escalation into pursued physical violence is the right course in view of this "retaliate"?

 

[untermensche]

When you are much stronger than the woman pawing at you you do have the right of self defense.

But you must use restraint. You have no right to inflict bodily harm unless your life is in danger.

Your life, not your pride.

 

[scombrid]

We all know that it is the Goddess-given right of every womyn to hit her male partner without him being allowed to defend himself or retaliate. [/FEMINISM101]

Defend? You are muscular and more than 2X the weight of somebody that is hitting you with little effect. Knocking that person out is not defense.

It is retaliation though. Even here in Florida retaliation is not legal, irrespective of the target. I don't care if it is a 130lb woman or a 130lb Mouthy Melvin. If they are in my face and I lash out and hurt them, the judge is going to look at me and say "you are going to pay medical bills and restitution and spend a little time in the clink". And, as per my contract with my employer I would be fired immediately for conduct unbecoming...

Back in Virginia, over a decade ago, a friend of mine at the gym shattered some dude's face in a bar fight. The dude pulled a knife on my friend. My friend took the knife and then put the dude in the hospital. My friend is still paying those bills. The guy that pulled the knife needed beat but the law said my friend should have disengaged once Mouthy Melvin was disarmed. My friend pounded the guy into hamburger and the result has not been good for him.

 

[bigfield]

When you are much stronger than the woman pawing at you you do have the right of self defense.

But you must use restraint. You have no right to inflict bodily harm unless your life is in danger.

Your life, not your pride.

(emphasis added)

That's an unreasonably high standard. You are justified in inflicting bodily harm on anyone who threatens to do the same to you.

But Rice's response was simply over the top. He could have restrained her in a multitude of ways; there is a huge strength and size difference between them.

My suspicion is that is how he typically deals with confrontations.

 

[untermensche]

When you are much stronger than the woman pawing at you you do have the right of self defense.

But you must use restraint. You have no right to inflict bodily harm unless your life is in danger.

Your life, not your pride.

(emphasis added)

That's an unreasonably high standard. You are justified in inflicting bodily harm on anyone who threatens to do the same to you.

But Rice's response was simply over the top. He could have restrained her in a multitude of ways; there is a huge strength and size difference between them.

My suspicion is that is how he typically deals with confrontations.

No. That's the standard. You can attack when a reasonable person believes their life is in danger.

But you have to consider the ability of the other person to actually do harm. Just because a person is being threatening does not mean they pose much of a real threat to you.

From this kind of attack you can defend from the blows, even push the woman away, but you are not permitted to punch the woman as hard as you can in the head.

I have no idea if this represents some pattern but I wonder if alcohol was involved. He had a lot of trouble getting her out of the elevator. She was dead weight but he is a professional running back. Was.

 

[Derec]

Any reason why this important detail,

By Athena rofessional football player vs. Much smaller woman.

Then she shouldn't have attacked him in the first place. If a much smaller man had attacked him nobody would be defending his decision to attack or had blamed Rice for clocking him. But make it a womyn, especially a womyn romantically involved with Rice, and suddenly she has the Goddess-given right to physically attack him whenever she wants.

as to "defend himself"versus "retaliate" : defense, certainly, however the level of defense force is to be proportionate to the threat. Retaliate, non!

Retaliation that goes beyond defense is wrong as well. Operative words being "as well", meaning shared blame with the initial attacker, rather than sole blame that everybody keeps assigning him. But everybody (ironically except the wife herself) is acting as if she did nothing wrong by attacking him and that 100% of the fault lies with him. And when she acknowledges her portion of the blame everybody is acting as if she is just a victim of "Stockholm syndrome" or "battered woman syndrome" or similar sexist psychobabble.

Or are you suggesting that escalation into pursued physical violence is the right course in view of this "retaliate"?

I am not sure there was much escalation as she went down after the first punch. If he continued beating on her after she stopped attacking that would make it much more clear cut.

 

[bigfield]

No. That's the standard. You can attack when a reasonable person believes their life is in danger.

You are not allowed to inflict bodily harm on someone who is using non-lethal force on you? I don't agree with that.

I'm not arguing the fact of the legal standard - I'm saying that it's wrong to expect the defender to exercise that much restraint.

 

[untermensche]

Then she shouldn't have attacked him in the first place. If a much smaller man had attacked him nobody would be defending his decision to attack or had blamed Rice for clocking him. But make it a womyn, especially a womyn romantically involved with Rice, and suddenly she has the Goddess-given right to physically attack him whenever she wants.

It's not that at all.

It's a recognition that attacks vary by who is carrying them out. Not all attacks are the same thing as your method implies.

If a six year child was attacking him and he knocked the kid out you would be complaining about the outrage saying it is only because the victim was a chyld.

 

[untermensche]

No. That's the standard. You can attack when a reasonable person believes their life is in danger.

You are not allowed to inflict bodily harm on someone who is using non-lethal force on you? I don't agree with that.

Then you may end up in jail. If force can be used to fully defend from the blows you are not permitted to use potentially lethal force as a punishment for trying.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Any reason why this important detail,

Then she shouldn't have attacked him in the first place.

WHAT!?!?

If a much smaller man had attacked him nobody would be defending his decision to attack or had blamed Rice for clocking him.

That much smaller man would have sued and he would have won.

But make it a womyn, especially a womyn romantically involved with Rice, and suddenly she has the Goddess-given right to physically attack him whenever she wants.

who said that?

Oh that's right.

NO ONE.

as to "defend himself"versus "retaliate" : defense, certainly, however the level of defense force is to be proportionate to the threat. Retaliate, non!

Retaliation that goes beyond defense is wrong as well. Operative words being "as well", meaning shared blame with the initial attacker, rather than sole blame that everybody keeps assigning him.

and we thank you for pointing out the injustice of blaming 240lb man, who knocks down and/or runs over other 240lb men for a living, for hitting his fiancee so hard she was knocked out cold. At what point did she grab his arm and swing his fist at her face? I missed that in the video.

But everybody (ironically except the wife herself) is acting as if she did nothing wrong by attacking him and that 100% of the fault lies with him. And when she acknowledges her portion of the blame everybody is acting as if she is just a victim of "Stockholm syndrome" or "battered woman syndrome" or similar sexist psychobabble.

These where women who say "If my husband didn't hit me, I wouldn't think he loved me." women who too often wind up being loved to death. But you don't think that's a mental issue?

Or are you suggesting that escalation into pursued physical violence is the right course in view of this "retaliate"?

I am not sure there was much escalation as she went down after the first punch. If he continued beating on her after she stopped attacking that would make it much more clear cut.

You don't get to hit the kid who's smaller than you. if you do, you are bully and bullies are scum.

I, and most kids, learned that on the playground.

Why didn't Ray Rice and his loyal defenders?

 

[doubtingt]

Any reason why this important detail,

Then she shouldn't have attacked him in the first place.

She didn't attack him. She was backed up against the wall and he was leaning in yelling at her. She put up her forearm to get him to back off, and he cold cocked her in the face, knocking her backward. Then he stepped back and she walked toward him without any raised fists, then he punched her again with enough force to drop her to the ground.

 

[bigfield]

You are not allowed to inflict bodily harm on someone who is using non-lethal force on you? I don't agree with that.

Then you may end up in jail.

I'm aware of the legal position.

If force can be used to fully defend from the blows you are not permitted to use potentially lethal force as a punishment for trying.

It is wrong for the law to place that burden of fine judgment on the party that did not initiate the violence.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Some food for thought

When we solely focus on whether a survivor stays with or leaves their abusive partner, we place all the responsibility on the survivor rather than holding an abusive partner accountable,” Chai Jindasurat, the programs coordinator for the Anti-Violence Project, told ThinkProgress. “Intimate partner violence is about power and control, and leaving can be an extremely dangerous and frightening option for survivors.”

In fact, according to research conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, the victims who leave their abusers are actually in even greater danger than they were before. Statistically, separating from an abuser increases a victim’s risk of being killed by 75 percent. Black women specifically account for a disproportionate number of intimate partner homicides, and half of these victims are killed while they’re in the process of leaving their abuser.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/09/09/3564896/janay-rice-cycle-abuse/

I am not saying that Ms. Rice knew those stats, but I'll wager dollars to donuts he threatened her if she tried to leave.

And she believed him, and still does.

 

[dismal]

Then she shouldn't have attacked him in the first place.

She didn't attack him. She was backed up against the wall and he was leaning in yelling at her. She put up her forearm to get him to back off, and he cold cocked her in the face, knocking her backward. Then he stepped back and she walked toward him without any raised fists, then he punched her again with enough force to drop her to the ground.

She clearly hit him outside the elevator, and she clearly was aggressively moving toward him when he dropped her. There are also reports the full video shows her spitting in his face multiple times.

I am not here to defend the guy's actions, but there is a very strong case to be made she is the initiator of the violence.