Do Stephen A. Smith's words have any truth to them?

[Mighty NorCal]

So NorCal, do you honestly believe that women should always be cautious of what they say, and how they say because if said in the wrong inflection it could provoke a man into a punch happy mood? Where do we draw between victim blaming and retribution? I would rather live in a world where people take responsibility for their own actions instead of a world where people ask "Did the victim deserve being knocked out by their spouse?"

Its funny you say you want to live in a world were people take responsibility for their actions, and yet, everyone in this thread wants to hand every woman a free pass to act/say any insane thing they want to with no chance of reprecussion, like that is in any way how human beings work.

EVERYONE should be cautious not to cross certain lines of provocation or run the risk of receiving an ass beating on the end of it, like I said earlier. What Mr.Smith was getting at, is that regardless of the provocation, the level of punishment that will come down on a man for a domestic altercation will be one thousand times worse, so its not really fair for the woman to have escalated the situation. I will use the sister you spoke of as an example. She destorys some guys precious belongings, I dont know, pisses on something that the guys dead father gave him, calls his mother a worthless ****e, and slaps him, calling him a little bitch. Because she is being vindictive, for whatever reason. This has gone on and on, over the course of hours. He finally snaps, momentarily, our of frustration, and knocks her to the floor. Now HE is going to jail, after YOU pay him a visit and break his kneecaps with a baseball bat. No one would fault you for your justified actions, nor the cops for arresting him. Is it not fair to say hey, maybe she could have just said her peace and ended the situation? Did she not do everything in her power to escalate things past a normal conversation? Is it not partially her fault for escalating things FAR passed the point they needed to go, and into places were it is generally understood, that violence could be the result? 99% of the gas on the fire was on her, and she did so by being emboldened by the magic force field that we place around girls because guys cant use violence....Is the above scenario really fair though? If we are all considered equals, as humans, of course it isnt fair at all.

THAT is what he was saying. No matter HOW the situation happens, the results for the male involved will be the same. So, as women, as adults, you should hold up your end by ensuring you are not crossing lines that are GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD to result in violence. If its something a girl would whoop a girl over, or something a guy would whoop a guy over.....Well? Are people supposed to be all the sudden not human anymore because the genders are now mixed? The emotions and aggression remain the same.

I think anyone with a shred of common sense can draw proper lines of distinction in the situation. All of you seem to be leaping to the worst possible scenario, were some woman says she doesnt like pickles on a sandwhich, and a guy proceeds to cut her face off with a chainsaw.

Its not at all what Mr.Smith was getting at, and it was abundantly clear to anyone who can take a rational, unbiased approach to the conversation, and does not let knee-jerk emotional reactions govern their logic.

 

[Gelgarin]

What Mr.Smith was getting at, is that regardless of the provocation, the level of punishment that will come down on a man for a domestic altercation will be one thousand times worse, so its not really fair for the woman to have escalated the situation.

Beating someone into unconsciousness inside an elevator probably counts as "escalating the situation" considerably more than anything that came before.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Beating someone into unconsciousness inside an elevator probably counts as "escalating the situation" considerably more than anything that came before.

You know I love you, but this is what I mean when I say this thread is full of ignorance.

When Mr.Smith made the comments that he did, it was not specifically in reference to the ball player and the situation with his wife in the elevator. If you watch the video, this is abundantly clear. His comments are not specific to the situation, but about domestic violence in general. The conversation about mr.rice made a segway to a larger conversation about domestic violence on a larger scale.

 

[Gelgarin]

But the point is transferable, I merely used that as an example since it's the topic.

You shouldn't deliberately wind people up.
You also shouldn't kick the ever-loving shit out of people who can't readily defend themselves.

Both of those are good general pieces of uncontroversial advice, but one of them sure as fuck supplants t'other, and the fact that we so often end up discussing the former in incidences of the later is unhelpful, unnecessary and serves only to distract from the real issue at hand.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Both of those are good general pieces of uncontroversial advice, but one of them sure as fuck supplant the other

No one, including mr.smith, has ever intimated otherwise.

 

[Tastycles]

I understand where they are coming from, but it's the most pointless thing to say. Sure, people shouldn't provoke violence, but it's still the violence that is far worse and this idea perpetuates a culture of apologists. I'm sorry, but there are already too many battered wives that blame themselves, and this kind of thinking exacerbates that problem.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I think Stephen Smith is a jerk in general but I understand what he was saying in this case. Of course, in this politically correct world, he was a fool for saying it....and is paying the price. So be it.

But when a girl goes out with a guy, he's usually bigger and stronger than she .....and in continuing relationships, the gal often knows exactly what buttons to press to aggravate the guy.

Should she be able to say anything she wants without worrying about being physically brutalized for it? Sure, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. She can mutter: "That MFer better not hit me" but that doesn't guarantee he won't. In fact, she knows her guy and probably has a better idea than anyone else what he's capable of if she pushes him hard enough.

In this football player's case, the woman was his fiance; I doubt this incident was the first time he'd hit her.....and afterwards, she married him, right? (so much for getting out of abusive relationships) She knows he's a privileged, pampered pro athlete who, whenever he does anything.....including smacking around the "bitch" he goes with......hears: "Hey baby, you da man" from his buddies. After years of being fawned over because he can catch a goddamn football, is it so surprising he would use his physical advantages to get his way?

No, I'm not condoning or defending Rice's actions in any way, but after years of going out with guys twice my size, I learned instinctively that discretion is often the better part of valor. Yes, we should be able to say whatever we want to a guy, but if we know it might incite him to violence, wouldn't it be better to soft-pedal it? That's what Smith was saying.

Yes, it stinks.....but it's there.

 

[HBK-aholic]

In terms of not being a dick to another person, that's a generic piece of advice that any man or woman should take. Being polite and respectful to others isn't a victim blame, it's a human trait I'd hope we all take on board and teach our children.

That said, there's nothing a man or woman could say that would mean they should be beaten by someone else. Sure, there are some things someone could say which would make me want to hurt them, but if I went through with that suddenly it's my fault, and what someone says verbally can not be used to rationalise or okay a physical beating. Male on female or female on male doesn't matter as much as people act like it does. It's general advice to live by. It doesn't mean someone deserves to be beaten if they go against it, or that domestic violence is ever okay.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

There is certainly truth to what Smith was saying, I don't think he was trying to excuse Rice's actions in hitting his fiancee but he was pointing out that people have red buttons and its best not to press them which I agree with. Certain things set certain people off, that happens with everyone but no one should go straight to violence because someone said something they didn't like, these situations can be taken care of in more civil manners. I agree people shouldn't go out of their way to push a persons buttons but it doesn't excuse knocking your spouse out because a button may have been pressed, Rice is an asshole for doing so and should learn to control himself, unless his fiancee is coming at him with a knife or something there is no good reason to strike her and its no ones fault but Rice that he can't control his emotions. I hope the fiancee doesn't blame herself for this as that would be a true shame.

All in all I have no issues with what Stephen Smith said, I feel it was blown out of proportion and I don't have an issue with his suspension either. Was it a shitty thing Rice did? Damn straight but I've never been much of a fan of punishing players for things that happen in their personal lives, that's a matter for the courts to decide but the NFL does have to think of their image so I have no issues with suspending Rice for a few games.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

I was taught never to put my hands on a woman. It's a good rule if men and women treat each other with respect.

The problem is many women have no respect for men and seem to have this belief it's okay for women to spout off their fucking insults and physically attack men without any consequence and that is WRONG !!! If a woman is stupid enough to think she has no responsibility to exercise self control, she will get what she fucking deserves and no sympathy from me. BTW, if she wants to get physical with some one and that person retaliates, imo, she's not a victim she's an instigator a willful combatant and should be expecting retaliation.