Originally a comment by screechymonkey on Stand by your man.
Note: the comment is quite embedded in the discussion where it was posted, which is usually not ideal for a guest post, but it makes a lot of the general points about why it matters when “role model” celebrity male athletes beat up women, and I want to see them made.
Kevin, for a guy who’s not trying to defend Rice, you’re getting awfully heated about your position here, and not engaging in fair discussion.
For example,
So you are saying there’s a double standard — one for football players and another for the rest of the world. Because “role model”. And because “making an example” of Rice will instantly solve all domestic abuse problems everywhere and always.
Got it.
Quixote never said that punishing Rice “will instantly solve all domestic abuse problems everywhere and always,” or anything remotely like it. I fail to see why you’re engaging in this kind of hyperbole. Quixote didn’t claim it, and surely you’re not claiming that this is the relevant standard? That we don’t take any action to punish someone unless it will instantly solve all such crimes everywhere and always? No point in jailing one murderer, then, unless it will stop all murders everywhere and forever!
As to the bit about “role models,” yes. The NFL has already taken it upon itself to enforce the off-field, not-strictly-related-to-employment behavior of its players, as has every professional sports league I can think of. Standard player contracts have morals clauses. The league has fined or suspended players for racist or other inappropriate comments on social media or elsewhere (e.g. Riley Cooper), and for criminal behavior that the criminal justice system declined to punish (e.g. Ben Roethlisberger).
None of us just woke up recently and decided to impose this “role model” higher standard on NFL players starting with Ray Rice. The NFL has imposed it on them for quite some time, and Commissioner Goodell made it a point of emphasis when he took the job. The NFL and other sports leagues market themselves, their athletes, and their sport generally based on its character-building properties. We’re just asking the league to be consistent and treat domestic violence like the violent crime it is.
And as to the question of the victim: what does she want? She wants to be left alone. And she doesn’t want her life or his to be ruined by this incident. Why are you diminishing her agency by demanding something on her behalf that she doesn’t herself demand?
The victim’s wishes are not the determining factor in most systems of justice. They can and should be taken into account, but they aren’t dispositive. The criminal justice system doesn’t require the victim’s permission or approval to prosecute someone (though it may be difficult as a practical matter to prosecute without cooperation). A school principal who declined to punish a bully because the victims said not to would be doing a poor job. An employer who kept a violent employee around just because the victim had forgiven him or her would be making a dumb decision.
Basically what you’re saying is, “why should the rest of us care if Janay Rice decides to stay with an abusive man?” I think society has an interest in punishing violent assholes without waiting for them to assault someone other than their partner, or for them to finally assault their partner in a way that the partner won’t forgive (or can’t, because they’re dead). And while I don’t pretend to understand the complex reasons why victims stay with their abusers, I don’t think that it’s the kind of decision that we need to give 100% deference to. I’m not a hard-core libertarian — I’m ok with a little “paternalism” in the form of punishing abusers without the abused’s sign-off.
Again, I have no problem criticizing Rice and no problem with the court system dealing with him. It’s this blood-lust over-the-top fury that has me puzzled. Why? Because it was videotaped? So the lesson really is to “take the stairs”? Because people would be way less upset over this if there were no video.
I agree that the video probably shouldn’t make as much difference as it has. But we’re talking about human beings here, and there’s something visceral about images, and especially video, that provokes a stronger reaction.
But I think the more important factor here is that the video took away most of the excuses. Far too many people — including those in charge at the NFL and the Ravens — seemed to have more empathy for Ray than Janay. They saw the initial, post-elevator video, and immediately their minds turn to constructing scenarios under which Ray’s actions are justifiable or at least excusable in some way: “well, maybe she was viciously attacking him and he was just defending himself,” “well, maybe he just shoved her slightly and she lost her balance and hit her head,” “well, maybe she ran into his fist.”
It’s the same way that so many people reacted to the prospect of harassment policies at conferences by constructing scenarios where they were the accused harasser, or why referring to a man’s advances as “creepy” sets off all sorts of rationalizing among some people (“Maybe he’s just socially awkward!” “Maybe he has Asperger’s” “I bet she would have been fine with it if he looked like Tom Brady!”)
The inside the elevator video forced all of these people, who had been trying so hard to put themselves in Ray’s shoes, to ask themselves whether they could see themselves throwing that punch. And, as shitty as many people can be on domestic violence issues, most of them don’t really condone someone who is no physical danger just throwing a left hook to the jaw of a much smaller partner. So suddenly the speculation and the scenario-spinning screeched to a halt and almost everyone was forced to admit that, yeah, this was a barbaric act.
In addition, certain sports reporters (Peter King, Adam Shefter) passed along reports from “sources” that the league had seen the inside-the-elevator video and that it provided some mitigation that justified the league’s mild punishment of Rice. So suddenly people who were puzzled by the league’s decision but were trusting that the league had access to additional information that justified it, had their position cut out from under them.
So that’s why the video matters. For many people, it eliminated the doubt, the uncertainty, the gosh-who-knows-what-really-happened agnosticism and forced them to confront the cold hard facts that the rest of us were pretty confident in all along.
First and foremost, you unfairly accuse me of “defending” Rice, when I have done no such thing. I’ll thank you to quit it.
I think the legal punishment for Rice would have been identical, whether or not there was a video of the incident.
I think the extra-legal punishment of Rice would have been far different had there been no video. Maybe 2 games — maybe not even that. Dunno what other players have received who were involved in similar incidents in the past — frankly, don’t care. But certainly none where the response was this level of sheer hatred expressed both here and elsewhere. (And please spare me with any assertion that this is the first and only time. It’s the first and only time there was video.)
I think in particular that this community would have completely and totally ignored the incident had there been no video. I’m sure I can go back and search through the archives and find all kinds of stories about Chris Brown’s abuse of Rihanna — right? Or other celebrity accounts of domestic abuse — right? Or maybe not. The only reason anyone here gives it even a whiff of concern is because there’s video.
The legal system has already decided on what to do about this incident–which is to treat it as a relatively minor affair not punishable by anything other than what amounts to classes in how to behave in public.
My issue is the “above and beyond” extra-judicial stuff that no other class of person (other than US professional major league athletes) are subjected to. In addition, I’m concerned most especially the hyperbolic vitriol here and elsewhere (eg, Olbermann). There’s more than a hint of classism in it — and uglier things from other quarters.
And when the woman involved in the case says she thinks the vitriol has gone too far, I think we should maybe give her the benefit of the doubt. And maybe back off a bit.
That’s it. Nothing else.
Really? You really want to make that claim? You really want to claim that I never mention violence against women (and violence against men, children, people of the Wrong religion or race, etc) if there’s no video? That I totally ignore the subject unless there’s video?
Really?
Kevin, we get it. You’re very very concerned about the “vitriol” here. You’re not defending the abusive Ray Rice, you’re just very very concerned that he’s being subjected to vitriol.
Your concern has been noted.
@2: Prove me wrong. Show me the posts about celebrity domestic abuse and the demand that the abuser be subjected to loss of their livelihood and other punishments far over and above what the law has decided. You’re the blog owner, surely your search function is better than mine. And your memory of what you’ve written about.
I’ve been a regular here since before you came over to FtB (mainly commenting under a pseudonym), so I’m certainly aware of your writings on the topic. I’m not saying that you’re ignoring the issue. But be honest — football isn’t exactly your bailiwick. You would not even have bothered to learn about it had it not been all over the news. And the only reason it’s all over the news is because there was video. And suddenly, this guy is the reincarnation of Jack the Ripper, Hitler, and Ted Bundy, all rolled together.
@3: Get it out of your system, Screechy. Yesterday it’s Rice. Today me. Tomorrow, who knows? Maybe Baghdadi, maybe Putin. It’s the 2-minute Hate. That’s what it is.
Orwell would be so proud.
I’m done.
@4: Always nice to see someone drop the mic into the pile of feces they are espousing…
Really, Orwell? Sadly hilarious.
Comparing the criticism of Rice to “bloodlust” and repeatedly asserting that he probably deserves less of it, and also asserting that he deserves to keep his job is waaaaaaayyyyyyy different from “defending” him because reasons.
Yep, it’s all a two-minute hate. None of the attention this incident has received has any merit. Videos of famous men punching their wives should be treated no differently than the arrest report of every other guy on the police blotter. Because it’s not like any good could come of the publicity:
Those women who called should have been monitoring the Department of Justice statistics on domestic abuse, I guess. I hope they didn’t express any bloodlust or vitriol toward poor Ray Rice.
@4:
Goal post shifting. Particularly ironic since we’re talking football.
What? No “Hitler”? No “Nazis”? I’m very disappointed.
I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that this proves to be true.
It’s cause OB doesn’t like football?
I missed something.
I think the severity of the reaction (firing and indefinite suspension from the NFL) has come in part because the initial response to the first (exterior) video was so tepid. I think screechymonkey may be right that the primary effect of the interior video is that most of the rationalizations have been taken away, which were used to “justify” the initial tepid penalty. Mind you, the interior video isn’t terribly clear, to me, but that could be because of my poor eyesight. I can see him do something to her, she responds by moving in his direction, and then I see her fall. I can’t see his punch, couldn’t even guess which hand it was supposed to be, I can’t see her hit her head on the railing, but it *is* clear that she falls, and that she is out cold by the way he drags her out the door.
Celebrities get a lot of breaks that regular folks don’t get. I can’t tell you how many extra chances Robert Downey Jr. got. He was in the “news” for probation violation — again! — every few months for years, it seemed, before he got straightened out. If he were a regular person, particularly a black person, he would have been locked up and the key thrown away long before he got the chance that finally let him succeed.
Being fired from or losing a job often IS a consequence of criminal activity for regular folks. I don’t think Ray Rice will be “permanently unemployed,” but I agree with Kevin to the extent that one of the things our criminal justice and extrajudicial consequences system needs to do much better on is reintegrating offenders into society. If we don’t want people to become career criminals, they need to have jobs. A conviction should not be a permanent bar to employability.
@ Kevin Kehres
Stop pretending you give a shit about this particular victim or domestic violence victims in general while you grossly overstate the impact no longer getting paid 7 figures to chase after a ball in tight pants is going to have on Ray Rice’s life and livelihood. You are transparent.
Kevin @ 4 –
Well, one, telling me to be honest sort of implies that I’ve been lying, so that’s not altogether cool.
But two – it depends what “bailiwick” means. I’m not an expert on football, certainly, but I’ve written about it before, also certainly. I’m not at all interested in [US] football the game, but I am interested in its cultural effects and in the morality of the NFL. I’ve written about football and rape before, and I’ve written about repetitive brain injuries and the NFL.
One, don’t tell me what I would or wouldn’t have done if, because you don’t know. Two, of course I’m more likely to see things that are “trending” and of course I miss things that don’t trend, but I also go looking for things, so it’s a little bit ridiculous to rebuke me for paying attention to something that’s trending. I do that sometimes; big deal.
Except that I haven’t said anything like that.
Other than that, great comment.
What makes Rice so contemptible is he apologized to everyone but Janay and he should have not let her apologize. He should have said he has a serious problem and will get help. Looking at the video it is clear he slugged her. If her head hit the railing at a different part, she could have died. When she said that everyone was making them miserable by firing him, he should have said that their misery is because of his actions and not not anyone else’s. Life is not that complex. If you don’t want to lose your job or end up in jail, then don’t slug someone who is smaller than you especially if you are a football player.
Kevin Kehres sounds like one of those people who say “why doesn’t anyone say things when a black person murders a white person” when a Ferguson-type situation happens. It is shifting the focus in order to DEFEND the perpetrator of whatever crime, by bringing up irrelevant, unrelated issues.
Yeah, we see right the fuck through it. No one in the world is fooled by such shoddy, amoral, and above all predictable behavior.
[meta]
Luckily, we have you on hand to decry misapplied hyperbole.
(Such concern!)
John Morales #16
Nice catch!
And superb editing 😉
Any, no, strike that, EVERY low-level minimum-wage employee caught with a positive drug test for weed gets summarily fired without recourse in this country. Not a legal conviction, just an entirely non legally binding drug test privately administered by the employer themselves. That’s entirely extra-judicial. So why should football players get special better treatment than what the average person does?
Watched the video. Saw her hit him first, before entering the elevator. Saw her lunge towards him in the elevator. Saw him deck her. Have read, several times in several places, people saying “But she hit him first!”, and several other people saying “It doesn’t MATTER that she hit him first”, or similar. And it struck me that here’s a perfect example of why feminism helps men too.
Why did Rice think it OK to hit her? Patriarchy. Bullshit testosterone-laden stereotype-enforcing ideas of what a “man” is and should be, and what a “woman” is and should be, and what is appropriate behaviour for each.
But here’s the thing – before he punched her, what made her think it was OK to hit him? Exact same answer. Explain that, MRAs, please.
Dunno what other players have received who were involved in similar incidents in the past — frankly, don’t care.
You don’t care whether pro athletes get punished for violence against their much weaker partners? That says a lot.
I was thinking about the issue of putting abusers in jail and abusers losing their jobs; and, therefore, it hurts the whole family. We as a society should support the rest of the family financially. Because we as a society have failed the victims. We did not make it clear that it is wrong to abuse another person no matter what. We have failed to deliver the message that everyone deserves to feel safe. We haven’t done enough to ensure the victim doesn’t have to go back to the abuser for financial reasons and that the victim’s safety is more important than “keeping the family together.” I have been reading about a trend where an abuser will find ways of ruining the victim’s credit so the victim is in even more of a financial bind when he or she leaves
Video is excruciatingly important. The raw fact of Rice’s behavior cuts through the ghastly rationalization. As the previous post mentioned, everyone tends to ‘subjectivise’ such reports. So when men hear about elevatorgate etc. their first emotional response is to equate the creep’s behavior with their own.
This is a categorical error. Abusive, predatory men are NOT ‘normal’ and their behavior is not like that of the average reader. This false sympathy leads to ‘passing by’ appalling behavior. An actual video of Ray Rice assaulting his fiance cuts the denial. As a man, I have NO sympathy or identification with a pig like Rice.
Apart from drug matters, there are heaps and heaps of issues that employers can penalise or fire people for. When it comes to theft and fraud, very often employers will simply sack someone on the spot when the crime’s discovered and not bother with criminal prosecution. Other times, people may be cleared of a criminal charge of some sort, or not charged at all for various prosecutor reasons, but the employer will sack the person anyway for “bringing them into disrepute” or “conduct unbecoming” or whatever words are used. Teachers, public servants, police, and ordinary professional, commercial or industrial employees are commonly subject to such provisions.
Which. are. entirely. appropriate.