This is a good topic that I was very interested in seeing what was being said here. So let me dive right in.
First on Ray Rice, Gordon, and the NFL:
#1: NFL missed a shot here to make a huge statement. Ray Rice should have been given a march stiffer penalty than 2 games. Without question that should be at least 8 games on a first offense. That's minimum. They needed to make it crystal clear that the NFL has no place, or tolerance, for this kind of garbage.
#2: Gordon and weed have zero to do with this. This isn't the case of a guy getting in trouble once and getting a year. Gordon is a repeat offender for what he's getting in trouble for. To me he's lucky he's not lifetime banned already at this point. So the two are separate and don't relate in any manner.
#3: In regards to the severity of penalty on these types of things, in regards to multiple offenses or even first time offenses, there should be a massive penalty difference. Gordon missed 2 games for his drug thing last year. This time it's going to be a year. As I said in #1 Ray Rice should have been given a minimum of 8 games for a first offense. 8 games to a year at the very least. And if it were up to me a second offense in the manner of what Ray Rice has done would garner a lifetime ban. Period. That's how seriously they need to take these kind of situations.
Secondly on Stephen A. Smith and his comments:
#1: I listened to his comments and no he did not say that women should take blame for this. He never even indicated that it was their fault. He did indicate, and he didn't do it as clearly as he needed to, was that there are things woman can do to avoid these bad situations. Now that's up to each individual rather they believe that or not.
For me personally I'll say this. Unless my life is in danger, or the lives of my children, I have no other reason that hitting a woman is valid. That's for me personally. I simply wouldn't do it and I find it cowardly to do so for any other reasons. I will say, however, that if a woman is hitting a man (And it's my understanding that this woman has admitted that she was punching him) then how can you really be shocked if you get hit back? Now I don't agree the guy should do it, I would never do it just because a woman hit me (And as a side note I've had a woman punch me in the face, hit me with a golf club across the back, and scratch me and junk and I never laid a hand on them in return) but I'm also not going to say that I am completely shocked that a guy smacked a woman back if she's attacking them.
Stephen A. Smith didn't articulate his point clearly enough and in doing so people harped on the word provoke and completely misconstrued his comments as him being OK with violence or that it's the woman's fault. He never even remotely eluded to such a thing.
#2: While I'm not a Stephen A. Smith fan in the least I will say this. This is a guy who has been clear, many times over, through out the years about how much he is disgusted by violence against women, he's been abundantly clear that he doesn't believe there is any reason, ever, for a man to put his hands on a woman, and he was even very clear about those feelings once again in this situation. To turn what he was saying, into something that he simply did not say, or elude to, is just disgusting on the part of people who are acting like they have a first grade education in the skills of comprehension is absolutely pathetic as well.
Third and Final:
While watching some Youtube videos on this whole thing last night I came across one from Whoopie on the View. Now I'll fully admit I hate The View, and those women, in general, absolutely annoy me to death. But Whoopie yesterday took a stance on this that was not popular, at all, with her co-hosts and probably all these women that have attacked Stephen A. Smith.
She made it clear that a woman shouldn't be hitting men either and that they shouldn't be surprised if they do hit a man that they get hit back. She was very clear that women shouldn't be trying to use a double standard that they can be punching on a guy and think that it's OK and then get all upset if they're punching a man and they get punched back.
The woman on the show with her were absolutely not with her at all on that and immediately went to the you're blaming the victim.
My final thought on that particular subject is this. As I said I personally wouldn't hit a woman for those reasons. I'm not going to hit a woman because she hit me. I won't do it, I've always made that same point clear to my son. It's not in my DNA to hit a woman for anything less than them putting mine, or my children's lives, in danger. But I have always found it some what amusing when women try and take the stance that they're allowed to hit a man, that it's OK for them to physically attack a man but it's not right for them to defend themselves or hit them back. They'll always go immediately to the "Well we're not equal. It's not fair in a physical manner." To which I agree with that, pretty much 100%, but the funny thing about that is that in the very next breath the same women will be pissed beyond belief if anyone even remotely hints that a man can do something, physical or not, better than a woman and how they should be viewed as completely equal.
The double standard on the equals part of that equation is absolutely astounding to me.
Jennifer Floyd Engel@engeljen
