CNN.com:
After football player Ray Rice was caught on video dragging his
unconscious fiancee out of an elevator, his attorney called the incident
a "very minor physical altercation." Where I'm from, when one combatant in a fight gets knocked out, that is no longer "minor."
Once the incident made
the news, it was inevitable that there would be a "minor" kerfuffle over
the story. I am not interested in discussing the incident itself. What I
am interested in discussing is how this incident shows us that when
emotional issues are involved, fair debate and discussion get knocked
out, too.
ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith was nowhere near the elevator that day, but he just got knocked out by a chorus of voices
and a spineless employer. When Smith commented on the issue, he clearly
stated his position that Rice was dead wrong and deserved punishment.
Without excusing it, Smith gave his opinion that, in general, when there
is violence, sometimes it might be worth asking questions about
provocation. He made it clear that there should never be violence,
especially by a man against a woman.
For even suggesting that
there could be provocation before a fight, Smith is now off the air.
Mind you, Smith never tried to justify Rice's actions. Once the outcry
began, Smith rushed to apologize.
I don't believe that
Smith owed anyone an apology. If you listen to his entire statement, he
said nothing to suggest that Rice's now-wife, Janay, "had it coming,"
nor did he make any excuses for Rice's behavior. The only offense he
committed was that he blathered so incoherently that he made it hard to
see how he managed to get a TV show in the first place.
So, if ESPN wants to take
him off the air and replace him with a better commentator, I'm all for
it. But I'm disgusted at the rancorous, politically correct swarm that
descended upon Smith, and the spineless reaction of the management at
ESPN.
And once the swarm gets into "beast mode," there is no recovery.
Why? Plain and simple: sexism.
Recall that a few months ago, Solange Knowles attacked Jay-Z. When that happened, the feminist site Jezebel had this take:
"The real tea isn't the fight itself, but what could have possibly gone
down between the two to make Solange kick her sister's husband in the
balls." In other words, "if she hit him, he must have done something to
have it coming." And this was not an outlier view.
Nobody's outrage meter spiked there. No, it was "funny."
I'm not defending Ray
Rice. But there's definitely a "sit down and shut up" double standard
among those who seek to promote one side of this issue -- and this is
less about Smith's comments being inappropriate. The gleeful rush to
call for Smith's head is far more inappropriate.
Yes, there's a
difference between a physically huge NFL player beating up his fiancee
and a wisp of a woman kicking Jay-Z in the crotch. But what's really
going on here?
What's really going on here is that one side of the debate wants to make it impermissible for the other to speak. At all.
Take this in the context
of how gender issues are presented when there are voices that dare to
deviate from the feminist narrative.
Here's an example:
Recently, there was a conference in Detroit for the "A Voice For Men"
blog and its readers. That controversial website has the audacity to
question certain issues from a man's perspective. As a result, according to news reports, this political meeting was the target of threats of violence that, in any other context, would have been called "terrorism."
Organizers said the
conference moved from the hotel where it was to be held. Did you hear
about that? It didn't get very much press coverage. Nobody called for a
candlelight vigil. Could you imagine if this had been the annual meeting
of the National Organization for Women?
Perhaps Smith is a
complete ignoramus. Or, perhaps he was misunderstood. And next to that,
we must concede that there was very little criticism of those who said
that Jay-Z must have done something to provoke violence against him.
There was no real outcry when A Voice For Men was the victim of what
would be called "terroristic threats" if it was any other viewpoint.
Listen to comedian Bill
Burr. In a routine, he discusses the statement "there's no reason to hit
a woman." He's doing comedy, but he makes a really cogent point --
perhaps there is no justification for it, but why is it so taboo to ask
about what happened before the violence?
"When you say there's no
reason, that kills any sort of examination as to how two people ended
up at that place. If you say there's no reason, you cut out the
build-up, you're just left with the act. How are you going to solve it
if you don't figure it out?" he said.
