So Stephen A. Smith gets suspended from ESPN for saying women shouldn't hit men

[Ronaldo7]

This all stems from the problem of women using their gender to get advantages that they wouldn't otherwise have. How is it that feminism is so rampant and women still declare that they feel less compared to their male colleagues? They demand equality, but have no problem using their gender to bamboozle things. The bus driver, who gave an uppercut to that women on the bus, was the best example of giving a fair treatment to women who think it is okay to assault a man and get away with it. If someone assaults me, i am going to defend myself regardless. It is called SELF-DEFENSE.

 

[zekko]

Danger, you are an eloquent spokesman against misandry and feminine bias in society and the legal system, and I find that admirable. But I don't think you would be doing the cause or the message any good by suggesting guys should beat up girls when provoked.

A lot of people would hear that as being too extreme and stop listening at that point. The main message is eminently logical and reasonable on its own, it simply isn't necessary to add this beating clause into it. Clouding it with something controversial like this will likely only get us labeled as crazies and dismissed as hate mongers, even among people who might otherwise be receptive.

I don't find females threatening myself. I would suggest that for guys who do, maybe they should take the classic DJ advice "Get in the gym", and then maybe they will feel capable of dealing with the situation in a less deadlier fashion than knocking the b!tch out.

Regarding the bus driver incident, I'm not saying I agree with the fact that charges were pressed against him. But I do think he was big enough to have thrown that woman off the bus without cold c0cking her with that uppercut first. That's why the judge ruled he used excessive force.

 

[speed dawg]

A guy who thinks he should be able to beat down a woman as if she were another man is betraying himself as a pvssy - because he is saying the woman is equivalent to himself physically: "That mean little girl might huuurrt me. I'll teach her - I'll knock her out!". Pfft.

This is EXACTLY what the liberals want. At least the good parts of it.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Danger, you are an eloquent spokesman against misandry and feminine bias in society and the legal system, and I find that admirable. But I don't think you would be doing the cause or the message any good by suggesting guys should beat up girls when provoked.

A lot of people would hear that as being too extreme and stop listening at that point. The main message is eminently logical and reasonable on its own, it simply isn't necessary to add this beating clause into it. Clouding it with something controversial like this will likely only get us labeled as crazies and dismissed as hate mongers, even among people who might otherwise be receptive.

I don't find females threatening myself. I would suggest that for guys who do, maybe they should take the classic DJ advice "Get in the gym", and then maybe they will feel capable of dealing with the situation in a less deadlier fashion than knocking the b!tch out.

Regarding the bus driver incident, I'm not saying I agree with the fact that charges were pressed against him. But I do think he was big enough to have thrown that woman off the bus without cold c0cking her with that uppercut first. That's why the judge ruled he used excessive force.

He uppercut her to send a message. That woman WILL think twice before she pulls that stunt on any man ever again. The bus driver has done a service to gender equality. Excessive force or not, if you let someone hit you and you do not retaliate, they WILL DO IT again. Stand up for yourself or forever hold your peace.

 

[mrRuckus]

My big strong friend in college didn't have "go to the gym" work for him when he tried the restrain tactic and ended up gouged all over his face and forearms by the fingernails of member of the gentler sex for his trouble, and then proceeded to get an assault charge along with the woman who initiated and led the entire incident while he merely defended himself in as gentle as a manner he could manage.

 

[zekko]

My big strong friend in college didn't have "go to the gym" work for him when he tried the restrain tactic and ended up gouged all over his face and forearms by the fingernails of member of the gentler sex for his trouble, and then proceeded to get an assault charge along with the woman who initiated and led the entire incident while he merely defended himself in as gentle as a manner he could manage.

1) Sorry your friend is such a pvssy.
2) While I don't personally believe that hitting women is a good idea, I certainly don't agree with the way a lot of these cases are prosecuted. Especially since it sounds like your friend made an attempt to not use excessive force.

 

[Die Hard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KgBVedec_0

 

[dasein]

1) Sorry your friend is such a pvssy.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, you must be joking here. I don't get it. What in that poster's post makes you think his friend is a pvssy? that he got assaulted and hurt? Interested to hear your reasoning here because it's a big part of the problem.

@ thread generally, back to the topic, all members should watch and understand the Molyneux video Die Hard linked. It describes the problem and current cultural bias very well.

A. In the OP incident, a man hit his wife, knocked her down/out.
B. In a hypothetical incident, a women hits her husband with a heavy purse, knocks him down/out.

What instant response to A? "It's never OK to hit a woman," despite we all know that is not true. It's perfectly permissible, moral and legal to hit a woman in self-defense, or if she is threatening grievous injury to another person. In lots of cases, hitting her is the only right choice. It's perfectly permissible to hit a woman committing assault, out of control, weapons nearby, yet people instantly accept the validity of the rigid "never OK" rule. Why? Gynoculture mixed with male ego. "I will merely stop the little woman's hands and grab her with my strong body, incapacitating her without hurting her, if you cannot do that you are a weak and small child, not a stronk man like me!.. AHhhnnn... AhhNNNN... give these people AIR!!" LOL, egregious BS. Would you "stop the little woman's hands" if you knew the last time you did that she waited til later and stabbed you in the neck with a steak knife? Would you "stop the little woman's hands" if the last time you did it, she burned the kids with a cigarette? Or would you -make a clear statement- after a point and stop playing defense?

Moreover, we know little facts. If a husband abuses a wife over time, she is allowed to 1. attack him, 2. mutilate him, 3. KILL him, under the defense of "battered wife syndrome." Few in our gynoculture will start up the "guilty til proven innocent" talk until more facts when the perpetrator is female ("but but women are more gentle, there must be some misunderstanding here!" WATCH the f-ing video). As an aside, imagine for a moment that George Zimmerman was a woman, and how that single change affects your view of that case instinctively. Be honest. Even though we know little of this couple's history, we instantly assign blame to the man in the outcome. That is wrong.

Let's say you are married to a woman who has a history of attacking you in the home with whatever is at hand, losing control, screaming and making a scene. Once she threw hot coffee on you. Another time she bruised you with a thrown plate that broke against a wall and then cut you. Another time she was threatening to harm or take your children. Every time she did that, one of her eyes rolls up in her head, her right hand starts trembling. You are on vacation and she is mad about something, you get on an elevator with her, she starts to escalate, you see the eyeroll and the shaky hand. She has a purse and you have NO IDEA what is in it.

What would YOU do?

The point of that is that ALL SCENARIOS HAVE CONTEXT. All fact patterns have necessary operative facts. People who apply rigid, absolute rules... of any kind... to a scenario before knowing all the context and operative facts are in error. If they persist after being shown this error, they are garden variety assclowns that cause misery and bad outcomes for all of us every day. Don't be an assclown.

Now, after all that what instant response to B? where the woman knocks the man out? "Wonder what he did to deserve that?" OR even worse, "what a pvssy to get handled like that by a woman," or worst of all, "LOL that's funny." Why? Gynoculture.

But really, the response to B is "crickets chirp," and if one tries to make an issue of it, replies will be uniformly some variation of "yeah, but what about domestic violence against women?" Anyone who denies this in our current culture should find someone else to think for them, as they are impaired. Anyone who thinks that "yeah but what about women?" when male issues are raised, is a legitimate discussion tactic is an assclown.

I can't understand how a rational person doesn't see the above factors at play, and that they are inconsistent double standards.

To summarize, if you are one of the posters who instantly assigns blame to the man in this case due to "knocked down/out woman = always bad," I want to ask your honest answer to one question, "if mitigating circumstances came to light in this case, would you be willing to change your assessment of 'man at fault' here?" and what level of mitigating circumstances would those be? IMO, people who can't conceive -any- mitigating circumstances, and are rigidly fixed on an opinion of ANY legal-criminal matter based merely on a couple of articles and a video, despite that many more facts are likely at play, are just as large a part of our societal problems as domestic violence.

 

[Fatal Jay]

I could care less about Stephen A. Smith. He is a uncle tom coon who stays talking down on blacks.

Now he is getting a taste of his own medicine.

 

[dasein]

I could care less about Stephen A. Smith. He is a uncle tom coon who stays talking down on blacks.
Now he is getting a taste of his own medicine.

I see, so your first impulse is to evaluate this situation as a function of your personal racist views? Interesting. Am curious to hear how that kind of "uncle tom" analysis came over time to supplant a reason-based analysis in your mind. Has that obvious cognitive flaw affected other areas of your life to detriment? Maybe you were joking, if so, sorry for not getting the joke.

 

[Jaylan]

I could care less about Stephen A. Smith. He is a uncle tom coon who stays talking down on blacks.

Now he is getting a taste of his own medicine.

I hardly find the brother to be an uncle tom. I may not agree with the bs he talks on tv half the time, but hes one of the most true, down to earth, and real black men in the media. Hes not afraid to tell it like it is. Especially considering how many minorities of all races in the media, seem to be very cautious about saying what's really on their mind.

Sure he takes the black community to task at times, but he also defends the black community and take others to task when need be. If youre missing that, you need to watch the show more, and not only pay attention when he says something you dislike.

Stephen A Smith definitely isnt an uncle tom in my eyes. And tbh bro, you need to get a grip and come off it. Throwing slurs at your own people is pretty weak, especially when Stephen A Smith definitely isnt some boot-licker. Dude speaks his mind and eats his ridicule and punishments when he has to.

I always have to call into question the viewpoints and opinions of people who attack their own kind when disagreements arise. I mean, this is no different from an asian person or gay person calling someone a ch!nk or f@ggot because they disagree with their viewpoints. You can disagree someone without disparaging them in a way you wouldnt want outsiders to disparage you.

 

[Fatal Jay]

Stephen's problem was that he was a victim to the hierarchy I posted some time back.

Women sit closer to the "most protected" group than blacks do and he was punished for it.

The only possibility which could have saved him was if he was also a homosexual thus granting him two layers of "protection". Instead, he was clearly wronged in another form of increasing occupational terrorism.

I like this post a lot, which is strange cause most of the time we are not agreeing.

What he said wasn't wrong to start, but the blonde calling him out and getting frustrated was really letting smith know that, you can talk down on blacks all day, but you still just a black yourself at the end of the day.

That's my opinion.

The reason why I am saying this because of his statements about Donald sterling.

His response to Donald sterling was that blacks need to dress better, and act this way so people like Donald sterling and people like him would stop judging blacks.

Lol which is the biggest piece of horse**** on the planet, that had nothing to do with the price of tea in china.

Jaylan also I'm going to ignore your post, I'm the only dude on this forum defending blacks, check my post in any thread.

So I'm going to ignore you and digress to the next subject, cause you don't have any clue about what I'm saying, I have watched enough Stephen a smith on controversial topics to know his agenda. Sports center is owned by white execs.

Which mean most of the time a black man that is an anchor on the show won't be able to say what is on his mind, without someone getting offended or you getting kicked off the show.

 

[zekko]

Giving the benefit of the doubt, you must be joking here. I don't get it. What in that poster's post makes you think his friend is a pvssy?

That was half a joke, but in his story the guy tried to restrain a woman and ended up with his face all scratched up. Yes, I confirm that I think that a man should be able to physically control a woman better than that. What the heck was he doing while her hands were in his face? And why was he allowing it? I'm no super he-man or cage fighter by any means, but come on man, we're talking about a GIRL here. Unless she was some huge fat wildebeest, but then why is he with her?

B. In a hypothetical incident, a women hits her husband with a heavy purse, knocks him down/out

What instant response to A? "It's never OK to hit a woman," despite we all know that is not true. It's perfectly permissible, moral and legal to hit a woman in self-defense, or if she is threatening grievous injury to another person.

I certainly have never said "It's never OK to hit a woman". In your example B, she is using weapons, which is an entirely different case.

But the key words in your point here are "grievous injury". Can a woman, WITHOUT weapons, physically impose her will on a man to the point where she can cause "grievous injury"? I'd say rarely. On the other hand, as we saw with Ray Rice, a man can knock a woman unconscious without much effort. If a guy gets a superficial scratch or a tiny bruise, no I don't see that as a major tragedy. You can get worse than that working in the yard.

My point has never been "It's never OK to hit a woman". It is that a man hitting a woman, and a woman hitting a man, is not equivalent. And that you should keep that in mind when acting. I don't think that the answer to domestic violence is ramping up the violence, that's what I'm saying.

Let's say you are married to a woman who has a history of attacking you in the home with whatever is at hand, losing control, screaming and making a scene. Once she threw hot coffee on you. Another time she bruised you with a thrown plate that broke against a wall and then cut you. Another time she was threatening to harm or take your children.

Why the hell would anyone stay with such a woman?

 

[zekko]

The latest in occupational terrorism.

And this is just for responding to a slap with another slap.

That is some BS right there. Suspended for telling a story that was several years old even? What garbage. I wonder if some chick announcer would get suspended for telling a story about her slapping some dude?

 

[dasein]

Yes, I confirm that I think that a man should be able to physically control a woman better than that. What the heck was he doing while her hands were in his face?

Right there is the problem. You don't know what he was doing, nor do I, yet you are willing to effectively blameshift to the man for not being strong and in control. Could be the case, but you don't know, yet you are willing to make assumptions you wouldn't make if it were two men of ANY size and strength differential.

A woman I was dating cracked me across the nose on purpose out of the blue with her elbow when I was half asleep for "moving around too much" in bed. Came real close to breaking my nose, looked like I'd been in a fight for several days after. I left angry, broke up with her two days later. What if we had been married? shared assets? children? Many abuse victims can't just up and leave. Patterns of abuse escalate over time, starting with words, then minor physical abuse, then worse and worse. Run to the divorce court or move out onto the street at the first sign of it? Well we would, but most victims aren't as focused on or aware of gender relations as folks here are. We live in a gynoculture of "happy wife, happy life," where a man complaining to family of abuse is likely to get no help, and if he calls the cops? HE will go to jail nearly every time.

Do you think abusive people of any gender telegraph all their physical abuse? Do you think they swing their fist around in the air for a few seconds before swinging? Apparently you think that. You realize the physical defense classes that many people are aware of today consist of "distract him by scratching at his face (with your long sharp fingernails) and kick him in the nuts." You think that stuff is only put to rightful use? Do you have an iron nutsack? I don't.

I certainly have never said "It's never OK to hit a woman". In your example B, she is using weapons, which is an entirely different case.

That's why I split the post into addressing the thread generally. We've ALL heard that "never OK" BS though, and heard it in this case specifically. The situations in A and B are exactly equivalent for anyone who is with women who carry purses, wear shoes or have a host of other weapons available. If you only date barefoot women in bathing suits who wear gloves over their sharp nails at all times, well good for you I guess.

But the key words in your point here are "grievous injury". Can a woman, WITHOUT weapons, physically impose her will on a man to the point where she can cause "grievous injury"? I'd say rarely.

Horsecrap. Do you have eyes in the back of your head? Can you catch a bullet, a thrown plate or hot coffee in the air? dodge pepper spray? I guess you don't ever sleep. Would you instantly leave somewhere a woman was out of control if other factors were in play, valuable personal property, older family members, children? You and others with this attitude act like these incidents always or almost always unfold in a visible, predictable, controllable way. Go sit in a law school torts or crim law class and you will be disabused of that notion real fast.

Why would anyone stay with such a woman? It's a well known phenomenon of abused staying with abusers, and men who may be faced with "stay or poverty" have much more reason to stay than the average abused female. They do share -some- blame for that, but past a point, your stance becomes blameshifting to the victim... and curiously based on gender alone.

My point stands. A large % of the population is willing to make wrong assumptions about abuse and victims of it based on gender alone. That's a big part of our cultural problem as men today.

 

[zekko]

Horsecrap. Do you have eyes in the back of your head? Can you catch a bullet, a thrown plate or hot coffee in the air?

Dude, I specifically said that weapons were a seperate case. I even specifically said "WITHOUT weapons" in the quote you were responding to. Learn to read, or get a grip.

Why would anyone stay with such a woman? It's a well known phenomenon of abused staying with abusers, and men who may be faced with "stay or poverty" have much more reason to stay than the average abused female. They do share -some- blame for that, but past a point, your stance becomes blameshifting to the victim... and curiously based on gender alone.

I'm not blameshifting at all. If a woman assaults her husband, she is in the wrong. Period. And should face consequences. I've said repeatedly here that I don't agree with the way the legal system handles this stuff. In fact I am outraged at the way the legal system handles this stuff.

However, I still wonder why any guy would stay with such a woman. That doesn't mean he is to BLAME for being attacked, but I think if he would post on this forum, the overwhelming advice he would receive would be to NEXT. And that advice would be correct.

 

[dasein]

Dude, I specifically said that weapons were a seperate case. I even specifically said "WITHOUT weapons" in the quote you were responding to. Learn to read, or get a grip.

You get a grip. As far as "learn to read," interesting from someone who utterly ignores my main points in preference of nitpicking tangents. You are the one forwarding idiotic, unrealistic propositions here, probably to bolster a particularly PC political mindset. I have 100 weapons within ten feet of me where I sit right now and at almost all times. So does anyone, and so does the average woman. "Ohhh Ohhh I said no weapons!! I said no weapons." Whatever, Corky. Almost everything is a prospective weapon.

I'm not blameshifting at all.

That's EXACTLY what you are doing, and anyone can read your last several posts and see that with their own eyes.

However, I still wonder why any guy would stay with such a woman.

Jesus, you really are a headcase. I spent much of my last posts describing EXACTLY why a guy would stay with such a woman. Of course you ignore all that and just repeat your initial ASSUMPTION that an abused man is at fault, first because he didn't control the situation, second because he didn't instantly leave.

You have a real tendency around here to facilely sliiiiiide in those feminist/PC dogma talking points, then try to backpedal off them when called on it, but not in any sincere way because you end up repeating the PC dogma with different words.

 

[Jaylan]

^Lol, dasein trying to tell others about nitpicking tangents. I found that pretty rich actually.

Jaylan also I'm going to ignore your post, I'm the only dude on this forum defending blacks, check my post in any thread.

So I'm going to ignore you and digress to the next subject, cause you don't have any clue about what I'm saying, I have watched enough Stephen a smith on controversial topics to know his agenda. Sports center is owned by white execs.

Which mean most of the time a black man that is an anchor on the show won't be able to say what is on his mind, without someone getting offended or you getting kicked off the show.

Are you fvking serious? Youre the only one defending blacks on this forum? Are you blind or do you not read my posts ever? What about Maximus Rex or backbreaker? And it doesnt stop there. You arent the only black guy here, and you certainly are not the only one who stick up for blacks or other minorities in conversation here.

Get the hell over yourself.

The latest in occupational terrorism.

And this is just for responding to a slap with another slap.

Considering all the backlash the NFL has been getting for being lenient on domestic violence, and considering how the Stephen A Smith situation went, Kellerman was pretty stupid to cause even more bad PR for ESPN.

I can see why they suspended him. People may not like it, but they are trying to save face and dont need some dude blabbing about how he hit his wife. He's being suspended for saying something stupid at the wrong time, hes not being punished for something he did 20 years ago.

 

[dasein]

^Lol, dasein trying to tell others about nitpicking tangents. I found that pretty rich actually.

That's cool, prissy, no love lost on this side either.

 

[zekko]

You are the one forwarding idiotic, unrealistic propositions here, probably to bolster a particularly PC political mindset.

You're accusing ME of supporting political correctness? That is truly hilarious. And what idiotic proposition have I made? That men shouldn't hit women? I stand by that. If you think it's idiotic, then we'll agree to disagree.

I have 100 weapons within ten feet of me where I sit right now and at almost all times. So does anyone, and so does the average woman. "Ohhh Ohhh I said no weapons!! I said no weapons." Whatever, Corky. Almost everything is a prospective weapon.

I never said that women could not use weapons. That doesn't mean they necessarily will use weapons, however. If they do use weapons, then you may have to use greater force to take them down. This isn't rocket science, it isn't that difficult to understand. Come ON, people.

I spent much of my last posts describing EXACTLY why a guy would stay with such a woman. Of course you ignore all that and just repeat your initial ASSUMPTION that an abused man is at fault, first because he didn't control the situation, second because he didn't instantly leave.

You're using a strawman here, because nowhere have I said an abused man is at fault. Yes, I said he should not put up with an abusive woman. I think anyone else on the forum would say the same. I don't see how that is controversial. Sure, there may be reasons for him to stay, but that doesn't mean that he should. There are reasons to be AFC too, but guys here are encouraged to put that behind them, and toughen up.

What if the guy's wife had cheated on him? What would guys here tell him? They'd say LEAVE HER, don't put up with that. It's the same with a woman who assaults you.

You have a real tendency around here to facilely sliiiiiide in those feminist/PC dogma talking points, then try to backpedal off them when called on it

I've backpedaled off of nothing. I entered this thread to express my displeasure with Stephen A. Smith's suspension. Yet for some reason you're accusing me of being feminist and PC. Again, read the whole thread, before you fire off half ****ed with your wild accusations.

What usually happens is I will say A. Then some jack@ss comes on here and says "You believe A, so you must believe B". I then explain that I do not believe B. Then they accuse me of backpedaling, when I never said B in the first place.

And this happens becaue a lot of posters on here don't understand a nuanced point of view, they don't have the IQ. All they understand is black and white - that someone is either completely pro male, or completely pro female. So if I say I don't believe that a man should hit a woman, then I must be completely pro female, and a feminist, and a politically correct leftist (when the opposite is very much the case). I've really come to realize in the past few months that there are some woefully stupid people on this forum.

I don't believe in hitting women because I DON'T BELIEVE THE SEXES ARE EQUAL. How the fvck does that make me feminist and PC?