If I ever get any readers, they will probably be lost if they ever read this because you know how everyone is about taking any stance against extreme feminism.
I actually did not even hear about what Stephen A. said or Michelle Beadle’s reaction until he was actually suspended. I had a friend ask me why Stephen A. got suspended and I did not even know what he was talking about. I actually assumed that Stephen A. had truly said something way out of line… until I watched the video and then read the quote that the site said was “offensive” because from just watching the video I was confused at what the issue was. At that moment I immediately told my friend that he was suspended over bullshit, but otherwise I did not say anything else. A couple days later, I had a talk with another like-minded guy and as we were talking I began to really sink in for me how insane this suspension was. I am not gonna say this is all on ESPN though because after Michelle Beadle riled up people who had probably never heard of the incident, they were definitely gonna catch hell. My issue with ESPN is why were they not allowed to discipline Beadle for violating their rule about not insulting colleagues? It would not have been because she is a woman, but because she actually broke their rules. If it had been Skip Bayless who had bashed her for saying something offensive to him, I believe he would have been disciplined… for breaking company policy.
Could Stephen A. have been clearer for the clowns who love to take one word and run with it? Yes, he could have because since he is so wordy, he tends to be all over the place; however, it should have been clear that he is not advocating that a man hit a woman considering in this incident he even said that he would defend the women in his family if they were hit by another man. Why would he defend his female family members from a man that he supports hitting a woman? He would not do it. I am even more upset that after Michelle Beadle really set this off (I have no doubt other men and women were already upset by his comments) she continued to play up this victim card after there was backlash over her comments on twitter. ESPN may have kept quiet about her, but twitter did not and she tried to act like she did not completely twist up a coworkers words and get him in trouble. Though there is violence in rape, she should have known that Stephen A. was ABSOLUTELY NOT suggesting that women get themselves raped. The whole reason this conversation even took place was after Ray Rice’s 2 game suspension for HITTING not raping his fiancee. She did say she was abused before and that is horrible for anybody (male or female) to be abused. Based on how snarky she is (which I like in a person by the way), I would not be surprised if she was snarky, the man did not like it, and he hit her. In this case, the man is completely in the wrong. I believe anyone is in the wrong if they hit someone just for what they say. In any case involving violence whether it be woman vs woman, man vs man, or man vs woman I believe that the person who is most in the wrong is the person who hit first. Michelle said the fault lies with the abuser, but what if both people acted violently? How is the person who acted violently first not an abuser? Remember, I am not defending men or women who respond to words with violence. Women can slap, kick, punch, spit another person (in this case, a man) first, but people like to ignore this fact. Why the hell is a woman not considered an abuser if she initiates the violent altercation? I personally have never had to fight a man or a woman, but if they were throwing punches at me I will not lie and say there is no chance of me hitting a woman back (almost no doubt I am hitting that man back). I have been threatened to be hit by people, but all I have ever had to respond with is “you can try” and so far both genders have just angrily left the situation.
I am not even arguing that this narrative where it is always the man’s fault should be reversed. I just think it should be balanced. There are some cases where a woman stabs a man or even kills him and I read about what he did to PROVOKE her and I do not necessarily agree that he should be in the hospital or dead, but i can definitely see why his dumb ass is in that situation. There are plenty of domestic violence cases where when the woman finally admits that she hit him or spit on him, I then think to myself “so that’s why he went off like that”. I do not agree with the man beating the woman down, but I can definitely see that there was a reason (that made sense to him) to hit this woman. I have an aunt that had to relinquish control of her son to the father and then go on the run. Why? Because the man is a 3horrible human being. There was no PROVOKING him in this case, he just beat anyone who was close to him. He beat my aunt, his son, his daughter from another marriage (broke that woman’s jaw), he kicked another girlfriend in the face and these are just the incidents that I know about. Somehow this scum could always get off with a month or so in prison. When his son finally turned 18 (and the child support stopped) he knocked his son out right in front of the neighbors and went to prison for a year. Once again, do not think that I support men or women who are just violent to be violent. I am not someone who is gonna deny the obvious that you CAN provoke someone to hit you, regardless of whether you agree with that person being in the right; the fact is a man OR a woman CAN provoke violence against them. It is not always provoked (as in the case with my aunt and my cousin and MANY other men, women, and children in abusive situations), but it CAN be provoked. I have no idea why everyone is trying to act like you cannot say or do something to someone (especially someone already prone to violence) that can make them hit you.
I do not know why it is so hard for people to embrace a different narrative from this current one where if a woman hits a man, he probably did something wrong, but if that man just responds (not starts the confrontation) she did nothing wrong, she is an innocent victim. I believe that if we are going to continue with the non violence narrative, it should be that nobody should hit anybody, but one should always be aware that you indeed CAN cause someone to hit you. Let me reiterate that you do not have to agree that the man or woman is right for hitting another person, but it is true that that person CAN be PROVOKED into hitting someone.
This rant went on for a while, but I just had to blog about this.
Just a quiet observer 