Steven A. Smith suspended for controversial comments regarding Ray Rice domestic violence case

[Synthetic]

Who is Stephen A Smith?

 

 

This is what I mean when I say the NFL is more about drama in the sense of a male soap opera. These topics get a lot of responses, everything comes down to what Johnny Manziel's been doing partying and who said what about who and how this person don't agree with me on so and so, and so forth.

 

I don't even know who Stephen A Smith is or even care for that matter. We hear enough about these players and what revolves around their lives, last thing I care about is a reporter for a channel I haven't watched in years cause let's face it; ESPN sucks at what they do. Drama is more important to them than the actual sport itself. Sports media makes the E! Channel look weak. They need to step up their game when it comes to the cult of celebrity and worshiping these godly figures.

[Poster X]

i clearly said the person had no right to hit the person. But it happens. So to avoid that, you might want to stay out of their face.

[Superman]

The issue with Smith is the same issue we have had on these threads when this topic arises. Talking about how woman should not provoke a man to violence when the back drop is Ray Rice knocking out his finance is a completely out of place comment. There is no reason to bring that subject into play when the issue being discussed is a pro football player knocking his fiancé unconscious and it is also ridiculously obtuse to suggest people not provoke violent people. I think we all get that. It is the same as saying don't walk down a dark alley alone at night. The fact is the majority of women are abused without provoking and no one provoked or not should be knocked unconscious.

 

Nah, that's not what he said or meant.

 

He said he would advise the women HE cares about to be careful. So would I, because I care about them. Whether a woman deserves to be hurt doesn't change the fact that, once something happens, it can't be undone. Obviously, a man who hurts a woman (or, let's address the obvious, any person who hurts any person) is a low life. And we can blame the man, and we can throw him in jail and take away his money and his platform, but the woman I care about still got hurt. And I don't want that to happen.

 

And here's the problem, in some cases. There are women who believe that they are safe from domestic violence, because "a man's not supposed to hit a woman." It shows in their actions and demeanor. When Smith says "don't provoke it," he's saying make sure you understand that your actions affect other people. It does not justify or excuse their response, but make sure you don't incite the situation in any way. In certain cases -- and I'm not talking specifically about the Ray Rice situation, or any other woman -- the altercation is essentially a woman starting a fight. I've seen women try to fight men. You can go to Youtube and see videos of women hitting and kicking men. I'm not saying anyone deserves any kind of reaction to that, but don't do that. Because even though a man isn't supposed to hit a woman, some men will hit women. Don't pretend that it's not possible.

 

Again, doesn't excuse or justify it, and I'm not saying that any particular woman is to blame for the violence she's subjected to at the hands of a man (or anyone else). But when I tell my daughter to understand that these unwritten rules aren't protecting her, that she has to protect herself (and discretion is the better part of valor, right?), it's because I care about her.

 

That's what I thought Stephen A. Smith was saying. Not "don't provoke these men, because if you get your butt kicked, then it's your fault," which is what people took his comments to mean. And it's not often that I say anything that can be construed as a defense of Stephen A. Smith. I generally find his opinion to be worthless. But I think he's been misunderstood here, and I think the snap reaction and sensationalism actually hurts the discourse in this case.

[amfootball]

Nah, that's not what he said or meant.

 

He said he would advise the women HE cares about to be careful. So would I, because I care about them. Whether a woman deserves to be hurt doesn't change the fact that, once something happens, it can't be undone. Obviously, a man who hurts a woman (or, let's address the obvious, any person who hurts any person) is a low life. And we can blame the man, and we can throw him in jail and take away his money and his platform, but the woman I care about still got hurt. And I don't want that to happen.

 

And here's the problem, in some cases. There are women who believe that they are safe from domestic violence, because "a man's not supposed to hit a woman." It shows in their actions and demeanor. When Smith says "don't provoke it," he's saying make sure you understand that your actions affect other people. It does not justify or excuse their response, but make sure you don't incite the situation in any way. In certain cases -- and I'm not talking specifically about the Ray Rice situation, or any other woman -- the altercation is essentially a woman starting a fight. I've seen women try to fight men. You can go to Youtube and see videos of women hitting and kicking men. I'm not saying anyone deserves any kind of reaction to that, but don't do that. Because even though a man isn't supposed to hit a woman, some men will hit women. Don't pretend that it's not possible.

 

Again, doesn't excuse or justify it, and I'm not saying that any particular woman is to blame for the violence she's subjected to at the hands of a man (or anyone else). But when I tell my daughter to understand that these unwritten rules aren't protecting her, that she has to protect herself (and discretion is the better part of valor, right?), it's because I care about her.

 

That's what I thought Stephen A. Smith was saying. Not "don't provoke these men, because if you get your butt kicked, then it's your fault," which is what people took his comments to mean. And it's not often that I say anything that can be construed as a defense of Stephen A. Smith. I generally find his opinion to be worthless. But I think he's been misunderstood here, and I think the snap reaction and sensationalism actually hurts the discourse in this case.

You misunderstood my point. Smith making that point in light of the Ray Rice incident is what is inappropriate. Rice knocked her out. It is not the time or place to talk about how women should not provoke violence. His very premise and desire to push that issue was misplaced and misguided in light of the situation.

[Thewholefnshow28]

I really do not have much of opinion on what he said, I was just hoping it would get him fired and we would be rid of his and Skip's absurdity.

[Superman]

You misunderstood my point. Smith making that point in light of the Ray Rice incident is what is inappropriate. Rice knocked her out. It is not the time or place to talk about how women should not provoke violence. His very premise and desire to push that issue was misplaced and misguided in light of the situation.

 

I disagree. What's the point in discussing it at all -- and First Take is ostensibly a show designed to promote discussion -- if you're going to take part of the topic off the table? Is everyone only supposed to talk about how terrible Ray Rice is for what he did, and then move on? Is that the whole story?

 

Along those lines, it's still unknown exactly what happened. How do we know that this isn't one of those situations where the woman played a major role in what happened? Again, I'm not suggesting that she deserved anything, or that Ray Rice is justified or excused or anything like that. 

 

I'm just saying, it comes across as disingenuous when you want someone to talk about a sensitive topic, but you want them to dance around the topic and only say things that promote the PC viewpoint. And worse, it does nothing for the actual discourse. We can all trumpet headlines and sound bites, but when it comes down to it and you sit around and have a conversation about something serious like this, everything that is said isn't going to be roses and rainbows.

 

I sometimes get into conversations like this with friends, people I know well, and who know me. And sometimes someone I don't know so well will be present, and if I get the feeling that they are easily offended, I hold my tongue. That's what Smith should have done, because obviously people aren't comfortable with having a real discussion, and anything that doesn't neatly fit the narrative -- Ray Rice is terrible, the NFL is stupid for letting him off easy, #mendonthitwomen -- is out of bounds.

 

But that's too bad, because like I said, I want my daughter to understand that neat and cozy narratives are a thing of fantasy. The real world is hard. It's hard for women. It's hard for people of color. There's no sense in me pretending that she won't have to make good decisions and avoid potentially troublesome situations in order to keep herself safe. Were I to do that, I'd be crippling her. 

[Shane Bond]

This country already treats women as stupid sex objects to make money then they throw it back in our faces if a guy gets mad or turned on.

I find it outrageous to even think of complaining this country. It gets worse outside.

[Poster X]

I really do not have much of opinion on what he said, I was just hoping it would get him fired and we would be rid of his and Skip's absurdity.

Skip will just get his own show.

[DougDew]

Oops.  My previous post was incomplete.  In linking the player's situation to the political issue the media wants to inflame:

 

Rice = domestic violence

Irsay = Class warfare

Manziel = Privlege

Incognito = Bullying

Redskins = Sensitivity

Sterling = Civil rights

 

I forgot about:

 

Brazil/Gordon = Pot legalization

Richard Sherman = Profiling

 

I haven't figured out how the media can use sports to inflame the "climate change" issue, but they are looking hard I'm sure.

[Superman]

Oops.  My previous post was incomplete.  In linking the player's situation to the political issue the media wants to inflame:

 

Rice = domestic violence

Irsay = Class warfare

Manziel = Privlege

Incognito = Bullying

Redskins = Sensitivity

Sterling = Civil rights

 

I forgot about:

 

Brazil/Gordon = Pot legalization

Richard Sherman = Profiling

 

I haven't figured out how the media can use sports to inflame the "climate change" issue, but they are looking hard I'm sure.

 

Is it your opinion that sports should be somehow completely separate from the social issues (and other issues) of the day? That's what people said about Tommie Smith, John Carlos and Peter Norman. I thought this debate was 40 years behind us.

 

What world do you see where important issues are completely divorced from every other aspect of life?

[oldunclemark]

When you talk ad-lib on live TV you run the risk of saying some thing that can damage your career (or end it).

It doesn't matter what he meant or who mis understood...or didn't misunderstand,

When you do it, you have no one to blame but yourself...

......and you cant take it back

[Superman]

When you talk ad-lib on live TV you run the risk of saying some thing that can damage your career (or end it).

It doesn't matter what he meant or who mis understood...or didn't misunderstand,

When you do it, you have no one to blame but yourself...

......and you cant take it back

 

Moral of the story, don't talk about prickly subjects on TV or radio.

 

That's too bad. It's not good for social commentary that we have to pretend that all subjects are black and white only, with no room for nuance. 

[Shane Bond]

Not meaning to go off topic but this man vs woman thing exist since the human life hood started and it will continue till the end of time.

We have seen changes over generation in terms of infra structure, technology etc but the basic human nature is the same for thousands of years.

For every good man/woman there is a bad one. No matter what we discuss and debate and argue, nothing will change. Men will be men and women will be women and life moves on.

[Dustin]

This is one of the worst threads of all time.

[amfootball]

I disagree. What's the point in discussing it at all -- and First Take is ostensibly a show designed to promote discussion -- if you're going to take part of the topic off the table? Is everyone only supposed to talk about how terrible Ray Rice is for what he did, and then move on? Is that the whole story?

 

Along those lines, it's still unknown exactly what happened. How do we know that this isn't one of those situations where the woman played a major role in what happened? Again, I'm not suggesting that she deserved anything, or that Ray Rice is justified or excused or anything like that. 

 

I'm just saying, it comes across as disingenuous when you want someone to talk about a sensitive topic, but you want them to dance around the topic and only say things that promote the PC viewpoint. And worse, it does nothing for the actual discourse. We can all trumpet headlines and sound bites, but when it comes down to it and you sit around and have a conversation about something serious like this, everything that is said isn't going to be roses and rainbows.

 

I sometimes get into conversations like this with friends, people I know well, and who know me. And sometimes someone I don't know so well will be present, and if I get the feeling that they are easily offended, I hold my tongue. That's what Smith should have done, because obviously people aren't comfortable with having a real discussion, and anything that doesn't neatly fit the narrative -- Ray Rice is terrible, the NFL is stupid for letting him off easy, #mendonthitwomen -- is out of bounds.

 

But that's too bad, because like I said, I want my daughter to understand that neat and cozy narratives are a thing of fantasy. The real world is hard. It's hard for women. It's hard for people of color. There's no sense in me pretending that she won't have to make good decisions and avoid potentially troublesome situations in order to keep herself safe. Were I to do that, I'd be crippling her. 

Oh please. There are plenty of other tangential topics that Smith or First Take could have delved into besides talking about how women should not provoke violent men in lieu of Ray Rice punching out his finance. How about the domestic abuse rates among NFL players and what the NFL is doing to address it? It is no secret that these players who play a violent sport and are jacked up on roids have this issue.

 

My point being that the issue he raised has nothing whatsoever to do with the case they were discussing. In fact, he is focusing on a minor issue in the grand scheme as the majority of women who are abused are abused without having provoked it. So not only is Smith talking about a subject that is out of place given the story at hand with Rice but he is also focusing on the minority and therefore making it seem like the majority. And again, his advice was ridiculously obtuse. We all know that we should take precautions in our lives but he was making it seem like women are somehow to blame in their own abuse which he keeps back peddling on now saying he should have done a better job explaining himself. Fact is, he should have never brought it up. He is a smart man. He just missed it big time on this one and paid the penalty.

[Nadine]

 

I read some of her mentions on twitter during the day of her tweets and it was horrible. You'd be amazed with how many cruel things were said in response to her tweets. Those responses showed how many people legitimately hate women and have no problem expressing their hatred for them. It's some messed up stuff to read.

 

 

Glad I missed that and I agree that there really are a lot of people who hate women and who justify violence against them.

But, I grew up with 4 brothers.  They all will say some macho and even sexist sorts of things but, they would never hurt anyone.  In fact they would really come down on anyone who did.

 

None of the men I've ever known ever would hurt anyone.  So, I guess that's where my perspective is coming from.  I am not among the statistics of battered women.  But I have known women who are.

 

Some men, including some here, seem to put a lot of energy into justifying violence against women.  I just don't think smith is one of them

[Nadine]

I'd kick him off for good. Just like Sterling should be banned forever from ANYTHING in sports due to his racist comments.

 

I am sick and tired of people making excuses for stupid big mouthed men at times just because they are MEN. This country already treats women as stupid sex objects to make money then they throw it back in our faces if a guy gets mad or turned on.

 

I do think there is a problem with objectifying women.  I recently read a piece by a woman who designs 'very modest' swim suits.  She presented scientific evidence that whe  man sees a woman in a bikini his brain scan shows that he sees her as a tool.  And that, she says it why women should not dress that way.

 

I think that our culture plays a part in this and that is what we have to change. Raise our boys differently so they do not see women this way.

 

I mean there are cultures in the world where most people wear very little clothing and they are not attacking each other.  So, for me, truly, the difference is culture.

 

I do understand that it's important to draw the line.

 

In this case, I think my view is also colored by the fact that she married him.  I mean..........she chose to marry him after he demonstrated to her exactly what kind of man he is.

 

I do see her choosing to step into violence. I don't see her as someone who has no choice.

 

And I think that Steven's apology was genuine.........unlike Rice's

[The Old Crow]

I do think there is a problem with objectifying women. I recently read a piece by a woman who designs 'very modest' swim suits. She presented scientific evidence that whe man sees a woman in a bikini his brain scan shows that he sees her as a tool. And that, she says it why women should not dress that way.

I think that our culture plays a part in this and that is what we have to change. Raise our boys differently so they do not see women this way.

I mean there are cultures in the world where most people wear very little clothing and they are not attacking each other. So, for me, truly, the difference is culture.

I do understand that it's important to draw the line.

In this case, I think my view is also colored by the fact that she married him. I mean..........she chose to marry him after he demonstrated to her exactly what kind of man he is.

I do see her choosing to step into violence. I don't see her as someone who has no choice.

And I think that Steven's apology was genuine.........unlike Rice's

Wow , that's all I can say. Look, I'm all about protecting women, but raise our boys differently, that's like Chairmen Mao 's China . You teach all kids to respect each other, but you don't indoctrinate all boys in some kind of politically correct culture and point of view , because of the actions of a few. There is enough of that stuff going on already elsewhere. As for Ray Rice, other than this ,he has been a model citizen. He made a horrible mistake , has been penalized, and at least he made some sort of apology. As for Steven A , big deal , it's ESPN shock journalism.

[Nadine]

Wow , that's all I can say. Look, I'm all about protecting women, but raise our boys differently, that's like Chairmen Mao 's China . You teach all kids to respect each other, but you don't indoctrinate all boys in some kind of politically correct culture and point of view , because of the actions of a few. There is enough of that stuff going on already elsewhere. As for Ray Rice, other than this ,he has been a model citizen. He made a horrible mistake , has been penalized, and at least he made some sort of apology. As for Steven A , big deal , it's ESPN shock journalism.

you miss my point

Culture is responsible for this issue and only culture can change it.

For example, there is research that boys who view pornography..........develop a view of sexuality that objectifies women and once that's done........it is very hard to go back to being normal

 

We need to stop this 'boys will be boys' view that excuses bad behavior as normal and to be expected because boys are not responsible for their hormones.

 

They are responsible and generations before them were responsible.  We should increase our expectations of their control over their own behavior

 

If you think that's brainwashing then I think you may well be part of the problem

[Shane Bond]

you miss my point

Culture is responsible for this issue and only culture can change it.

For example, there is research that boys who view pornography..........develop a view of sexuality that objectifies women and once that's done........it is very hard to go back to being normal

 

We need to stop this 'boys will be boys' view that excuses bad behavior as normal and to be expected because boys are not responsible for their hormones.

 

They are responsible and generations before them were responsible.  We should increase our expectations of their control over their own behavior

 

If you think that's brainwashing then I think you may well be part of the problem

 

Of course, very good point on the cultural change. 

 

However, not sure how far in this age it can be implemented in America.

 

Do you know the most safest country in the world for women?. UAE. I will tell you why it is safe there.

 

1. Pornography is banned.

2. Dating and adult based social media sites are banned.

3. Adultery and eve teasing has death penalty.

4. Women and men both cannot wear revealing clothes in public.

 

 

Women have total freedom and are absolutely safe. The above steps helps in preventing the violence to happen in first place.And i absolutely loved the lifestyle there.

 

Its impossible to give all access to the public and ask them not to leverage them in today's world. Sometimes, preventive measures ( similar to parental control ) is required.

[The Old Crow]

you miss my point

Culture is responsible for this issue and only culture can change it.

For example, there is research that boys who view pornography..........develop a view of sexuality that objectifies women and once that's done........it is very hard to go back to being normal

We need to stop this 'boys will be boys' view that excuses bad behavior as normal and to be expected because boys are not responsible for their hormones.

They are responsible and generations before them were responsible. We should increase our expectations of their control over their own behavior

If you think that's brainwashing then I think you may well be part of the problem

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've been married 23 years, and have a son and daughter. I get hear what you're saying , and am not advocating a boys will be boys philosophy. It's a shame we can't go back to the days when boys were taught to be gentlemen, with respect and honor. Unfortunately , the rap culture these kids are brought up in today , preaches some of this violence and name calling. I don't want to get real political here, because this isn't the forum for it, but this country needs to examine the old values and culture that made America great. We know that our country has made mistakes, but there are great things to learn about it's great past, that should pertain today, but have been forgotten.

[NFLfan]

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've been married 23 years, and have a son and daughter. I get hear what you're saying , and am not advocating a boys will be boys philosophy. It's a shame we can't go back to the days when boys were taught to be gentlemen, with respect and honor. Unfortunately , the rap culture these kids are brought up in today , preaches some of this violence and name calling. I don't want to get real political here, because this isn't the forum for it, but this country needs to examine the old values and culture that made America great. We know that our country has made mistakes, but there are great things to learn about it's great past, that should pertain today, but have been forgotten.

You and Nadine are saying almost the same thing, but in a different way. No? In your first comment, it sounded like you strongly disagreed with her but this comment suggests otherwise.

[CR91]

he could have chose his words a lot better, but I think what he was trying to implement was to protect yourself and not get put into that kind of situation 

[peytonmanning18]

People now days are looking for a reason to be offended.  People totally ignored the fact that he said several times that same day, "there is no reason a man should ever put his hands on a woman", but because he used the word "provoke" everybody is freaking out.  Domestic violence is 100% the fault of the aggressor and a woman deserves no blame if she is the victim of domestic violence, but I believe women should be aware that domestic violence unfortunately happens and should takes steps to protect themselves against it.   

[amfootball]

People now days are looking for a reason to be offended.  People totally ignored the fact that he said several times that same day, "there is no reason a man should ever put his hands on a woman", but because he used the word "provoke" everybody is freaking out.  Domestic violence is 100% the fault of the aggressor and a woman deserves no blame if she is the victim of domestic violence, but I believe women should be aware that domestic violence unfortunately happens and should takes steps to protect themselves against it.   

That is why his comments were ridiculous to begin with and obtuse. Everyone knows that. Did Smith really think we needed him to tell us that it is better to stay away from certain individuals or bad situations? I mean come on. Of course people were going to take his comments to mean women are provoking the violence that is why he should not have made the point in the first place with the heinous Rice situation as his back drop.

[amfootball]

So what Smith is really saying to boot is that Rice's fiancé should stay clear of him after all he can be provoked to extreme violence. But instead she married him. A far better point for Smith to make would have been why women stay in abusive relationships as Mrs. Rice is textbook for this behavior as she not only stayed in the relationship but married him a week later.

[BOTT]

Of course, very good point on the cultural change. 

 

However, not sure how far in this age it can be implemented in America.

 

Do you know the most safest country in the world for women?. UAE. I will tell you why it is safe there.

 

1. Pornography is banned.

2. Dating and adult based social media sites are banned.

3. Adultery and eve teasing has death penalty.

4. Women and men both cannot wear revealing clothes in public.

 

 

Women have total freedom and are absolutely safe. The above steps helps in preventing the violence to happen in first place.And i absolutely loved the lifestyle there.

 

Its impossible to give all access to the public and ask them not to leverage them in today's world. Sometimes, preventive measures ( similar to parental control ) is required.

Sounds like a great place......

[Nadine]

So what Smith is really saying to boot is that Rice's fiancé should stay clear of him after all he can be provoked to extreme violence. But instead she married him. A far better point for Smith to make would have been why women stay in abusive relationships as Mrs. Rice is textbook for this behavior as she not only stayed in the relationship but married him a week later.

that's the part I reallly do not understand.  Why did she marry him?  Or at least, why didn't she postpone?

[amfootball]

that's the part I reallly do not understand.  Why did she marry him?  Or at least, why didn't she postpone?

I think in part was so she did not have to press charges. It is very, very sad. And so hard to understand. Why Smith or Bayless did not delve into that, I have no idea. As her marrying him was even more shocking then him knocking her out.

[BOTT]

So what Smith is really saying to boot is that Rice's fiancé should stay clear of him after all he can be provoked to extreme violence. But instead she married him. A far better point for Smith to make would have been why women stay in abusive relationships as Mrs. Rice is textbook for this behavior as she not only stayed in the relationship but married him a week later.

Yeah, I don't think Stephen A is really qualified to discuss that subject on national tv.

[Nadine]

Of course, very good point on the cultural change. 

 

However, not sure how far in this age it can be implemented in America.

 

Do you know the most safest country in the world for women?. UAE. I will tell you why it is safe there.

 

1. Pornography is banned.

2. Dating and adult based social media sites are banned.

3. Adultery and eve teasing has death penalty.

4. Women and men both cannot wear revealing clothes in public.

 

 

Women have total freedom and are absolutely safe. The above steps helps in preventing the violence to happen in first place.And i absolutely loved the lifestyle there.

 

Its impossible to give all access to the public and ask them not to leverage them in today's world. Sometimes, preventive measures ( similar to parental control ) is required.

I don't believe control needs to be external

We can all control ourselves

It's the assumption that we cannot........or should not be expected to that's the problem

We certainly don't need threat of death

 

People are going to mess up and do things.  I don't want to kill them for it

[CR91]

that's the part I reallly do not understand.  Why did she marry him?  Or at least, why didn't she postpone?

 

its green and you buy things with it

[BOTT]

When you talk ad-lib on live TV you run the risk of saying some thing that can damage your career (or end it).It doesn't matter what he meant or who mis understood...or didn't misunderstand,When you do it, you have no one to blame but yourself.........and you cant take it back

Actually it does matter what he meant or if somebody misunderstood

[Nadine]

its green and you buy things with it

I tend to agree

Either that or she really don't not understand the seriousness of what happened

or both

 

Most of us women live out our entire lives never being knocked out by our husbands.  It's not normal at all

[amfootball]

its green and you buy things with it

That is far too simplistic.

[CR91]

That is far too simplistic.

well then give me another reason you would stay with someone that put his hands on you

[CR91]

I tend to agree

Either that or she really don't not understand the seriousness of what happened

or both

 

Most of us women live out our entire lives never being knocked out by our husbands.  It's not normal at all

 

and thats how it should be, but this world isnt perfect unforunately

[Shane Bond]

Sounds like a great place......

Yeah def not for you.

[Shane Bond]

I don't believe control needs to be external

We can all control ourselves

It's the assumption that we cannot........or should not be expected to that's the problem

We certainly don't need threat of death

 

People are going to mess up and do things.  I don't want to kill them for it

Yeah i know but its not easy to control yourself when your environment is different.

 

You switch on TV, its bad. Go to internet its bad. People do all kinda stuff in public. I mean where are you going to hide. You are immuned to it.

 

Society has to play its part.

[Superman]

Oh please. There are plenty of other tangential topics that Smith or First Take could have delved into besides talking about how women should not provoke violent men in lieu of Ray Rice punching out his finance. How about the domestic abuse rates among NFL players and what the NFL is doing to address it? It is no secret that these players who play a violent sport and are jacked up on roids have this issue.

 

My point being that the issue he raised has nothing whatsoever to do with the case they were discussing. In fact, he is focusing on a minor issue in the grand scheme as the majority of women who are abused are abused without having provoked it. So not only is Smith talking about a subject that is out of place given the story at hand with Rice but he is also focusing on the minority and therefore making it seem like the majority. And again, his advice was ridiculously obtuse. We all know that we should take precautions in our lives but he was making it seem like women are somehow to blame in their own abuse which he keeps back peddling on now saying he should have done a better job explaining himself. Fact is, he should have never brought it up. He is a smart man. He just missed it big time on this one and paid the penalty.

 

First you say that his comment was basically off topic. Then you say how much you disagree with his comment. Kind of shows that your main objection to what he said is not that it was somehow misplaced, but that you think he was wrong.

 

Here's what Stephen A. Smith was trying to say: Women should not provoke violence by being violent themselves. At the same time, he was trying not to accuse Ray Rice's wife of provoking Ray Rice, because that would have been in poor taste (even though there's some subtext to this whole story that suggests that the violence went both ways; but that's conjecture). So he personalized the statement, and tried to relate it in a way that he would say it to the women he cares about.

 

And unfortunately, all people like Michelle Beadle heard was "women who get hit are to blame because they must have somehow provoked the man." (And I like Beadle; she's been subjected to a lot of sexism herself, so I understand why she tunes right in to anything that sounds sexist.) That turned into "women are to blame because they didn't have dinner ready," and on and on and on. And that's the sensationalized and buzzword-driven conversation we've been having since then, which is in no way productive.

 

By saying that women should not provoke violence by being violent themselves, it is not justifying violence against women. It is not excusing the actions of the man who responds violent. It does not turn the discussion into one of simple self-defense. It doesn't promote a violent response from men. It doesn't undermine the seriousness of the issue. It is a simple reminder that the things you do affect other people.

 

Again, I relate it to my daughter. For example, there was a situation at school where another girl was being mean to her. My wife is talking to her about it, and tells her that you can't control what people say and how they act, you can only control what you say and how you act (in so many words). Then she tells her 'but if someone hits you, you hit them back.' I interjected. The wife says 'what's wrong with that?' My objection is that, when it's another little girl that might incite a situation, I'm not so worried if my daughter were to actually get into a fight (she's usually one of the tallest girls in her age group). But what if it's some knucklehead boy that maybe jokingly but inappropriately puts his hands on her, and my daughter hits him back? What if he then responds by trying to beat her up? End result, I wind up in jail. Long story short, you have to be smart in the way you respond to prickly situations. The girl is only 8, so this isn't that big of a concern right now, but I relate the story to show what a husband and father is concerned about.

 

It's not about guilt, blame, or justifying wrong behavior. It's about keeping ourselves safe. I think what Stephen A. Smith said was practical, and if we could tone down the moral outrage for two seconds and actually think about what he was saying, maybe we could make some progress. Maybe he could be corrected on where his expression came across as tone deaf, but maybe others could acknowledge that, in fact, what he said has merit.