It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Hypocrisy of Domestic Violence in America

page: 1
34
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+28 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Everybody by now has seen enough about the Ray Rice domestic assault fiasco and the resulting circus to know where this thread is coming from. As is usually the case with modern humanity, a current issue is hitched onto and whipped in the media until it is run into the ground and lies dead, which is what we're seeing right now.

What bothers me isn't Rice's indefinite ban, whether the NFL saw the video or did not see it, or even anything directly addressing this specific case itself. What bothers me the most is the hypocrisy we're seeing not only manifested, but endorsed and groomed to the point where anyone who disagrees with it is immediately set upon by the wolves as well. Case in point, two news items from today:
sports.yahoo.com...
sports.yahoo.com...

Insensitive comments? Wait... when did "insensitivity" become a crime? I mean the Ted Robinson thing is beyond ridiculous right out of the gate because he's a radio personality who is paid to generate discussion and provide opinionated commentary. Stating the damned obvious "Who in the hell would marry a man who just cold cocked her in an elevator?" is not insensitive, it is in fact the question EVERYONE probably had pop into their head upon reading the story in the first place. Paul George, on the other hand, made a similiar point from the flip side, and I think it was a valid statement: "If his wife won't take beef with getting beat up, why is it anyone else's business?" "Insensitive" or not, there is legal groundwork for that stance in about half of the states... Those states require charges be pressed BY the victim and do not allow the state to press the charges directly. Paul George is to be criticized and made to appologize for an opinion which alligns with half the nation's legislative logs? Really?

Then there's this hypocrisy:
12 years ago Cardinal's pitcher Chuck Finley was beaten severely by his wife, Tawny Kitaen. This beating occurred because Finley didn't strike her to defend himself, then he filed charges. What was the aftermath?
espn.go.com...
Jokes were made at Finely's expense, of course!

He, meanwhile, faces constant heckling for the rest of his career and the distinct possibility that despite nearly 200 wins and more than 2,000 strikeouts, he will be forever remembered as the 6-foot-6 pitcher who got beat up by the chick in the Whitesnake videos.


Top three things Finley might have said to so enrage his wife: 3. "I feel so happy for Halle Berry. Now there's a player's wife who could actually act." 2. "No honey, I don't think that dress makes you look fat. I think it makes you look fatter." 1. "Oops! Sorry, dear. That must have been the video from my bachelor party."

Now, imagine if the assholes at ESPN started cracking even the slightest of jokes about Janay Rice... Can you fathom the backlash if Stewart Scott had said "Hmm, I wonder if Ray caught Janay picking Adrian Peterson in her fantasy draft?" But tell me that "joke" wouldn't allign perfectly with "No honey, you don't look fat."

This blends perfectly into hypocrisy number 3, which is likely to be fairly controversial because it lays humanity's warts bare for the world to see. Gender equality is a social and physical impossibility. This is a clear cut situation of having to choose between either having a beautiful cake to show off or eating the cake and enjoying its taste, and you cannot do both. Either women are the equals of men physically and emotionally (as NOW would often have us believe) or there is a clear "inequality" which requires laws and positions to compensate for these differences (as NOW would also have us believe... only sans the real underlying rationale being expressed) espn.go.com...

The bottom line here is this, if you're opposed to gender inequality, it MUST go both ways. If you'd get suspended or fired for cracking a Janay Rice "joke", you should lose your job or be suspended for cracking a Chuck Finley "joke"... At the same time, if you believe a male domestic abuser and his defenders should see real punsihment, then you should feel the same way about a Tawny Kitaen or an Emma Roberts or a Whitney Houston (who admitted once that she routinely beat the hell out of Bobby Brown, who in turn was emotionally abusive). Where was the outrage when Jay Z was hit by his sister in law in an elevator and caught on camera awhile back? Oh, that's right... the "outrage" came in the form of late-night talk show hosts cracking jokes about him and his manhood.

Now, just in case I haven't stirred the pot enough, I will close with a New Testament passage.
Matthew 7:5

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


I'm not suggesting that it is wrong to have a negative viewpoint on Ray Rice, or even to feel he has no place in the NFL. That incident goes above and beyond a mote (mite) in the eye. I am, however, suggesting that most of the peripheral jabbering circulating around this issue is hypocritical nonsense and will remain such until society as a whole cleans their own house... then let the mote removals commence.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
As the laws increase for womens fair pay we should also see an increase of women pallbearers. If we are truely eaqual.


+4 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Your under the assumption that genders are treated equally. Ask any man that has been through a divorce whether or not he was treated equally.
Same can be said for race. Cops shoot white guys to but that's not news is it.
Ever saw a black man charged with a hate crime?
Why do feminist protest at abortion clinics but overlook a mosque?

Hypocrites run in every part of society. This situation is no different.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Political Correctness, Emotional Correctness, these are the paths of constant turmoil that we are preached too on a daily basis as to what NEEDS to be done.

The TRUTH of the issue is that when emotions and beliefs become a crime in the minds of a certain political ideology versus common sense and morality, we have lost the battle of the most important thing that mankind can hold as it's most valuable right! FREEDOM!



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
It has nothing to do with political correctness, or gender equality. It has to do with media owners not wanting to deal with controversy. The firing of personalities has nothing to do with laws or violations of free speech, it's a business decision. If anyone has a problem with such, I suggest you follow the lead of the people who write in, call in etc... to express their displeasure at something a personality said... and stop whining about it. I also suggest that if you wish to see speech protected from being an offense that you can get terminated for, you either get it added to the 1st Amendment or start fighting to increase employees rights, something you right-wingers tend to do the opposite of.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Im with you for the most part, but id like to point out one thing:


Wait... when did "insensitivity" become a crime? I mean the Ted Robinson thing is beyond ridiculous right out of the gate because he's a radio personality who is paid to generate discussion and provide opinionated commentary.
He's not being charged with a crime. Just about any company can suspend any employee for any comments that could be deemed harmful to the brand.

I dont know that I agree with it, but they are well within their rights to suspend him.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Well, the people in both links are coming from two complete different angles. That Paul George bloke is a total idiot. He’s basically saying that it’s all right to knock a female unconscious and drag her across the floor, if she hits you first. He’s a parasite, as low as they come. He needs to grow a pair and I’m Glad he’s been hounded about it.

Robinson’s comments are spot on, she is pathetic for staying with him. But it doesn't take a genius to work out that he was digging a hole for himself by wording it like that in public.

Either way, their both grown adults who have gone out of their way to poke an angry bear with a pointy stick.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
If they don't preemptively punish someone they are going to get bad publicity. This is an easy way to put out that fire before it even starts.

I think it does have something to do with political correctness. Most of society is screwed up and thinks only men should be taken seriously as an abuser. It's cute when the little lady does it. It's incorrect political correctness. As the OP pointed out, woman hitting her husband, make jokes. Man hitting his wife, react swiftly so certain vocal people don't rally against you.

Domestic violence shouldn't be joked about. It should be taken seriously and discouraged no matter who is committing it.

I feel especially bad for the broadcaster if that's all he said. It's so hard nowadays to keep up with what's OK to say, what's victim blaming and what's not. I think he was trying to actually be supportive of the woman but chose to do so in a poor way.

There is a lot of hypocrisy about domestic violence. Again, it should be taken seriously regardless of who commits the crime. Same with rape.

Here's a video I watched no too long ago that deals with the subject.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Isn`t it about public figures who have a responsibility ?

To me it look likes the public figures making those remarks get punished for not being aware of the the influence they have on public moral. Because they have such a big audience it`s good they are not allowed to say everything. It sets too many precedents if they are allowed to say such things.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You're nibbling around the edges of a great political truth here. I think you'll find that the political wing in the United States often known as Progressive or Democratic, or Liberal, does not have a logically consistent base of principles. They do not believe that "hypocrisy" is a criticism of a Liberal policy. You've identified one example in domestic violence.

One principle in the Liberal program is that minorities must be protected against males, especially white males. The clear choice in domestic violence cases is to sympathize, protect, and accept the wishes of the female. Law and consistency are far less important, if they even enter into the calculation. You might remember that Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor emphasized the role "empathy" was going to play in her judgments.

But even protecting the minority isn't the trump card. How many people say that Black failure is due in large part to inferior education? But rather than allow parents the choice to put their kids in better schools through vouchers, the desire to sustain teachers' unions overrides the desire to help minorities.

And in colleges, freedom of thought is supposed to be a value. You can see a thread elsewhere on the site remarking on the terrible plight of a man who had his offer of employment withdrawn by a University after they had discovered anti-Israel comments he had sent on social media. Five thousands professors have signed statements supporting him against the University.

But pro-Israel, and conservative professors are denied tenure, fired, not hired for their expressed opinions every month. Freedom of thought isn't the liberal principle, it's freedom of liberal thought and elimination of conservative thought. It's not even about campus diversity. As Thomas Sowell wrote:


The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.


In business, you remember the case of Brandon Eich the CEO and co-founder of the Mozilla project. Shortly after he was named CEO it was discovered that 6 years before he gave $1000 to the California Proposition 8 campaign. That was at the same time when Obama was saying he was all for traditional marriage, too. For that reason alone, Eich was fired.

The firing was legal, of course, but consider what would have happened had it been reversed. Someone holding to alphabet sexuality (GLBTQ and many others, at least 25, check Wikipedia) donates money regularly and publicly to their favorite campaign on the issue. That person is part of a teeny tiny nimority, and has managed to get included into a protected class, so he couldn't get fired legally for his donations. (As I understand the laws of California.)

You'll find this in so many areas. Is the Constitution an important principle to the current president? It depends on whether it supports or opposes what he wants to do at the time. There is really no idea that opposes Liberal thought, because if it exists, it is ignored or ridiculed. A group that has no restraint on itself can do whatever it wishes, especially if it controls the enforcement power.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Absolutely the hypocrisy runs deep in politics, on all sides, in fact.

If a woman has the right of choice because it is "her body", are not drug and prostitution laws hypocritical?
American's Bill of Rights are said to be absolute... yet we have "free speech zones" outside of which unauthorized speech is prosecuted.
A boy can be called upon to die for his country at 18 and can sign his future away for collecge loans at 16, but isn't "mature" enough to drink a beer until he's 21.

It's quite a sickening world and nation most of the time.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Dear burdman30ott6,

I have no problem agreeing with you in general, but I need some more education and another point of view. As dumb as this might sound, I'd really appreciate hearing from you or a strong Liberal (although, who knows, you may be one) on where the contradictory principles come in on the Conservative side.

I don't mean abandoning a position on a bill to reach a compromise, I mean a day to day basic principle.

Your examples are interesting, but I'm not sure that they all rise to the level of a principle. Girl's can get an abortion without notification to the parents in some places at the age of 13, then you mention other key ages such as 16, 18, and 21. The presidency requires an individual be 35. Basic principles or just judgment calls? This one I'm not too worried about.

Free Speech? The Supreme Court ruled a long time back that it's not absolute. Nobody wants someone with a bull horn outside their house at 3 a.m. I think the best we can do is be very careful in our balancing and allow as much speech as possible.

Drug laws have been a point of controversy for some time, I think that's the best of your three examples. In the same category I would put seat belt laws and helmet laws. Some conservatives, and libertarians of course, are in favor of getting rid of drug laws. Interestingly enough, you can make a pretty good case for prohibiting drugs to expectant mothers on the grounds that it's hurting the baby inside. That's why conservatives oppose abortion.

Drugs are an area I don't know much about, though, so I'm probably not making much sense in that example.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The hypocracy is right because there are certain things 'taboo' which we aren't addressing especially the black on white crime issues when considered against the white on black crime issues, insensitivity which is for me an individual's embarrassment when not shown as the majority see the situation etc etc.

I do see though in the Rice attack a most miserable looking wife and I am wondering why, if her 'man' uses her as a punch bag - the hell is she staying. Surely she could take her kids or whatever and go - except for the problem that many who leave the marriage get killed. Isn't this the situation the law needs to redress and to be very strict about. It must get teeth and punish in a way that this is not a huge statistic any more? No one in the West should be terrorised by their partner. You don't get on then leave.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Of abusive relationships that end in murder, 70% of those murders occur after the abused have left. That's why people stay.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
It has nothing to do with political correctness, or gender equality. It has to do with media owners not wanting to deal with controversy. The firing of personalities has nothing to do with laws or violations of free speech, it's a business decision. If anyone has a problem with such, I suggest you follow the lead of the people who write in, call in etc... to express their displeasure at something a personality said... and stop whining about it. I also suggest that if you wish to see speech protected from being an offense that you can get terminated for, you either get it added to the 1st Amendment or start fighting to increase employees rights, something you right-wingers tend to do the opposite of.


I wonder where all the outrage was when Bill Clinton was playing his shenanigans in the White House during his tenure. He has been accused of much worse while in office and even the woman's rights advocates played mums the word. Even today they beat up on Monica and Bill gets a free pass. The left has its favorites and nothing anyone says makes a difference. Being shouted down, ridiculed, and lied about keeps anyone in check from saying anything.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I would just like to add that Paul George was made to apologize for a very good reason; his idiotic tweets.
It does make the people he works for look bad.

If I tweet something, I am always making sure it is respectful, informative, etc. When tweeting I am not just giving my opinion/ thoughts but people also know who I work for, so in a way it goes back to presenting my thoughts, ideas in a way that is not harmful or bad PR for my company.










edit on 12/9/2014 by Rainbowresidue because: spelling



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

OMG, are you seriously trying to claim peoples disgust in seeing a female be knocked unconscious, is some left wing agenda to discredit the right?

This has got nothing to do with what political party you vote for, it’s got to do with being a civilized human being and not acting like some primitive animal!

People can cry leftie propaganda all they want. “She hit him first”, “Clinton copped gobbies in white house”, “obama is the anti-christ”! This left verses right crap just gets so old! They’re the exact same party, just talking different rhetoric. Get over it.

Fact is he wasn't the one who got knocked to the ground unconscious. People die from being punched in the head all the time and in a civilized society it is unacceptable.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

"OMG, are you seriously trying to claim peoples disgust in seeing a female be knocked unconscious, is some left wing agenda to discredit the right?"

Not at all it's about the hypocrisy of violence against women in america by high profile people, only a fool would think all Clinton did was "copped gobbies" in the White House. Just do a little historical research on the phrase "Clinton Sexual Predator" then explain your ignorance to historical facts, and quit making excuses for bad people. There is no left or right here there is only good and bad, and the hypocrisy is when did Clinton get away with it and Rice doesn't?

"People can cry leftie propaganda all they want. “She hit him first”, “Clinton copped gobbies in white house”, “obama is the anti-christ”! This left verses right crap just gets so old! They’re the exact same party, just talking different rhetoric. Get over it. "

The only thing to get over is your ignorance. Educate yourself before you jump in with an emotional response to something you know little about.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Nice to see people defending what is right and showing how the majority crowds all hide behind a false curtain of righteousness, while condemning their brothers and sisters.
If mankind is ever going to escape the grasp of evil, it is going to take all the right stuff being put back into the equation again. Like Honesty and integrity and every other positive virtue people seem to have abandoned today. (While yelling at everyone else to do that, but opting out themselves.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

When you say “historical research”, do you mean all those news articles with republicans making unsubstantiated claims as if they were proven fact, to discredit him politically? I don’t know, maybe it’s because I’m just an inferior non US citizen who’s incapable of comprehending anything that happens outside of my borders, but I can’t seem to find any footage of Clinton punching a female in the mouth and knocking her unconscious, or anything close to that.

Fact is you could have used any thousands of different examples that would have been far more comparable to this scenario, if you were actually arguing double standards. But no, you went straight in for the left against right nonsense. At least have the integrity to admit what you did.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<<   2 >>

log in

join