Sunday, September 14, 2014

A vicious cycle promoted and defended by the so-called victim advocates

This morning on ESPN there is yet another roundtable discussion concerning the issue of domestic violence, in which two commentators who were falsely accused supported the concept of “due process,” while others were torn between “process” and burning the accused regardless of circumstance. This will be absolutely the last time I will address the issue of domestic violence, because it is clear that this is a gender political issue for the media—thus a rational examination of the problem is simply impossible—the results of which are predictable:

We were shocked and disgusted by the images (the deliberately edited video shown by CNN and other sources for maximum shock value) we saw this week of one of your players violently assaulting his now-wife and knocking her unconscious, and at new reports that the NFL may have received this video months ago.

Tragically, this is not the only case of an NFL player allegedly assaulting a woman even within the last year,” the senators said. “We are deeply concerned that the NFL’s new policy, announced last month, would allow a player to commit a violent act and return after a short suspension. If you violently assault a woman, you shouldn’t get a second chance to play football in the NFL.

It is long past time for the NFL to institute a real zero-tolerance policy and send a strong message that the league will not tolerate violence against women by its players, who are role models for children across America.

Signing the letter were Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., and Kay Hagan, D-N.C.

Note that there is no mention of “zero tolerance” of domestic violence committed by women, in fact there is no indication that these women even are cognizant of domestic violence committed by the female in the unedited “image,” or by women generally. How can there be “zero tolerance” if domestic violence committed by women is excluded? This is a lose-lose situation for men—80 percent as many of them as women who are victim of abuse, according to that ignored 2011 CDC report on intimate partner violence. I added a comment in the newspaper website where I found this letter by the Senators, asking readers if they thought there was anything “wrong” with Janay Rice’s own behavior—which to her credit she took responsibility for—in that elevator incident; it has since been deleted by the “moderator.”

Before that, I read an article by a Seattle Times sports columnist, in which he criticized the NFL’s initial “punishment” of Ray Rice, and who gave a lurid account of his actions in the elevator that completely ignored the context in which events transpired. I wrote to him:

I read your piece yesterday concerning the Ray Rice situation. First, it seems that you like everyone else in the media has given a misleading description of the actions that took place in that elevator, no doubt from the edited video that CNN and others have been displaying. I’ve seen the video from when Rice and his fiancĂ© were outside the elevator, entered it, and their actions immediately following. When the two first enter the elevator, they appear to be exchanging words, and suddenly Rice’s fiancĂ© swings at him with a closed fist, apparently striking him in the head. How did Rice respond? He stepped back away from her to the other side of the elevator. Again they are seen exchanging words, and then she lunges toward him, her arm outstretched with the obvious intent of striking him again.

Now let’s stop the action there. We can agree that Rice’s response was wrong; but it also could have been avoided. Just out of curiosity, do you see anything wrong with Janay Rice’s actions at this point? Do you think she is “justified” in conducting herself in a violent way, regardless of what was said? Do you think that women should be given a free pass to act this way? Do you think the man should just take it—“like a man”? Is there no such thing as domestic violence by a female? And what do you think should have been Rice’s response to this in the “heat” of the action? What is the Times’ policy on reporting domestic violence committed by women? Or is there no such thing?

Needless-to-say, I’m still awaiting a response.

All I want is for people to answer my questions. I don’t want people to tell me, oh, I did watch that whole video, and the female was also “wrong.” They are more wrong than they think; if they had considered the context in which many incidents of domestic violence occur—instead of listening to the misinformation of the so-called “researchers” and the media, there might be a more pertinent discussion about the issue that actually “solves” it, or at least reduces it. Putting men in jail doesn’t solve the problem of the violent behavior of women, which is often the instigating factor that puts the man in jail in the first place. Why is it only when people are confronted with uncomfortable truth (instead of misleading editing and the propaganda of self-righteous media types), that there is “grudgingly” accept that “maybe” the woman was wrong “too”—and simply walk away from it.

Look, I’m not “defending” domestic violence; quite the contrary.  Domestic violence as a point of human interaction will not end until both men and woman feel that they will be held accountable for their actions. As it stands, only men are expected to be accountable for acts of domestic violence, because they are “stronger”—when intent and opportunity to commit violence on an intimate partner is the greater factor. It is clear, for example, that it was Janay Rice's intent to cause physical harm (which again to her credit she took responsibility for); it is not so clear in context what Ray Rice's intent was.

The truth is as follows:

It is people who say that a “real man” doesn’t hit a woman—even in “self-defense”—who are defending domestic violence.

It is people who only perceive domestic violence as an action solely by a semi-human male pounding on a meek, passive female who are defending domestic violence. 

It is those think that if a woman psychologically prone to violent behavior strikes a man it is somehow “justified,” who are defending domestic violence. 

It is those who use gender politics in ignoring domestic violence by women who are promoting it. 

It is domestic violence victim “advocates” who are defending it to promote their gender agenda.

The NFL’ draconian new policy is promoting domestic violence. 

It is the media that lies to the public and offers one-sided or misleading “evidence” in order to demonize men for the sake female victim politics who are promoting domestic violence. 

And it is those 16 U.S. Senators who are promoting and defending domestic violence.

No comments:

Post a Comment