Ray Rice Abuses Wife, Loses Job & Is Suspended Indefinitely

[Skullgoria]

You know what man, I'm not unsympathetic to a guy being driven batshit crazy by an insane woman, but Jesus H. Christ there are LIMITS. You can't just jaw-blast your wife into unconsciousness and then drag her around like a sack of potatoes on camera.

I mean if she lunged at him and he shoved her away and she fell or whatever, that would be one thing. He's not obligated to accept a physical attack from her just because she's weaker than him. But she lunged in and he counterpunched her like he was Floyd Mayweather or something.

[Ashmoria]

You know what I find even sadder? A man who punched someone in the face in a moment of poor judgment during a heated argument that didn't result in any permanent injury or death gets more attention than:

1) The Dallas Cowboys player that killed his friend while driving drunk last year, and who by the way, is already back in the league without losing his contract, and after serving a shorter suspension than Rice.

2) The Eagles QB that tortured and killed dogs for many years, in much the same fashion that serial killers tend to do before they switch to humans.

3) The Patriots TE currently being held without bail for two execution-style murders, and suspected of several more.

4) The "other guy" in the league accused of domestic violence, but since there's no Tosh.0 style video tape, no one cares.

5) Pre-emptively, Adrian Peterson's child abuse charges. Sure it's in the news now since the story literally just broke, but in three days, it'll go away, and we'll be back to the the earth's greatest villain, Ray Rice.

I guess the lesson to be learned here is that Rice would have been better off getting drunk and having his wife in the passenger seat of his car while he hit a tree a tree at 80 mph, rather than getting drunk and hitting her.

I think its a good thing that this terrible situation has brought all these incidents to the fore and might force the league to take a harder line against bad behavior.

tmz making the world a better place one video at a time?

[Max Worshippers]

I'm sure nooo NFL players have ever hit anyone before. Double Standards run rampant in the US society.

[Gauthier]

I'm sure nooo NFL players have ever hit anyone before. Double Standards run rampant in the US society.

Ray Rice made a convenient scapegoat for the NFL trying to cover up being a clubhouse for violent criminals that happens to be the second biggest religion in the nation. Hell, nobody hesitated to bitch about Mike Tyson cussing out a reporter and bringing up his rape conviction in a heartbeat; if Tyson had been a linebacker instead of a boxer then he'd have been coddled by many of the same people instead.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm sure nooo NFL players have ever hit anyone before. Double Standards run rampant in the US society.

And what double standards are involved here?

[Tahar Joblis]

What you're doing right now is quite similar to claiming that blacks are inherently violent because black men are roughly seven times as likely to be incarcerated at any given point in their lives. That is to say, you're pointing to the behavior of the criminal justice system in order to advance a discriminatory claim.

You are also ignoring a very large body of science. Some domestic violence advocacy groups recognize that abuse of men by women is under-recognized, under-reported, and largely going unaddressed. Others are in denial. This is not unusual, because some of them, like you, are dominated by highly sexist views.

It is well documented that male victims of domestic violence neither expect nor receive the same degree of remedy from the police that female victims of domestic violence receive; and that bystanders, witnesses, police, etc are far more likely to intervene on behalf of women. E.g.:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 012-9482-9
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 156.x/full

There is an enormous body of literature showing that male victims are not seeking out and receiving police help. It's widely believed (and with good cause) that domestic violence victims stand a non-trivial chance of being arrested, and this is particularly true of men, to the point where a male victim is more likely to be arrested than a female perpetrator.

A large systematic overview of extant scientific literature was conducted beginning in 2010. It says much the same as I'm telling your right now. Yes, including the parts about the criminal justice system treating men and women differently at every step of the way.

The idea that domestic violence is a male-on-female problem is also consistently undermined by gay and lesbian partnerships, as I pointed out.

This debate about the gender aspects of domestic violence is very interesting. I don't claim to have all the answers on this issue, but let me just give my two cents here.

I actually am one of the people who believe domestic violence is a women's rights issue (not to say violence against men doesn't deserve urgent redress either). For several reasons. First, somewhere above the statistics about 85% of domestic violence victims being women was debated quite fiercely. I've seen some conflicting reports claiming its 60% or something. However, it seems in most centres the accepted number is around 85%, as far as we know.

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/facts.htm
https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-domestic-and-dating-violence
http://www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/Pages/measuring.aspx

This seems to be the general consensus from law enforcement agencies, domestic violence help centres and prosecutors' offices.

All of the citations of 85% in those four sources come down to the same originating source. Note the NIJ link actually provides a significantly more nuanced view than blindly backing the 85% figure, describing the variation among some sources, and in particular the parity seen in the NFS. If you follow the links out, you will land at the proceedings for a conference on gender symmetry in IPV.

Basically speaking, we are very much more likely to find excuses for women.

Of course, this raises the concern that men under-report incidents of domestic violence levelled against them by their wives. Since we all know domestic violence victims in general, men and women, both tend to underreport incidences of abuse, for various reasons, it comes down to who underreports more and to what extent it impacts the '85%' statistic.

Here, the most famous study is actually by an IPV researcher by the name of Ko Ling Chan, who found that men tend to under-report the violence they perpetrate against women and women tend to under-report their victimization. This is often due to women's socio-economic dependency on their partners and the fact that women, due to disempowerment in society, tend to blame themselves rather than their partners. Cultural factors, such as the influence of machismo and the notion of male household dominance also influence the extent to which men and women view certain acts of violence perpetrated against women as 'normal' and 'not worth reporting' to authorities, on both sides.

Please point to this "famous" study, I'm having trouble finding it.

Everything I've seen indicates that men significantly under-report ... most especially as victims. Many of the more flawed IPV studies only measure male perpetration and female victimization, and do not measure what's necessary in order to make sound comparative statements.

As I said, I am referring to a very large body of work. In particular, men not only under-report, but under-recognize. The more objective the items on your survey, they more closely they conform to the pattern I outlined. If you focus on a recent frame, rather than on lifetime incidents (which is more accurate), the more closely they conform to the pattern I outlined.

Ask people if they were abused by a partner, and men will often say "no," even if they would answer "yes" to "Has your partner hit you in the last six months?"

A study looked very specifically at gender bias in the perception and evaluation of a domestic incident:

Participants were more negative to the husband than to the wife in regard to responsibility for the offense, deservingness of the penalty, seriousness of the offense, perceived harshness of the penalty, reported positive affect, and reported sympathy.

It is in particular worth noting that in both versions of the story - the story was told in two ways, identical except for flipping the genders of the characters - the man was held to be responsible for what happened. Victim-blaming is real ... it mainly happens to men, though.

Many of these gendered patterns which show up in IPV studies are not restricted to IPV. For example, men are generally less willing to report victim status and more responsive to more objective questions; and generally report lower lifetime victimization rates for everything relative to rates measured on a limited timescale. The criminal justice system treats men accused of IPV very different from women accused of IPV, but the criminal justice system in general has a strong bias against male defendants (compared to female defendants) and male victims (compared to female victims). This effect is very strong, only rivaled by racial bias (which is typically weaker).

I suppose this comes down to the main reason why domestic violence is a mainly women's issue. Statistics aside, much of the causes of domestic violence centre around concerns of female autonomy. The largest reasons for the perpetration of domestic violence are social views of female submission to her husband, the notion that women are the property of her husband and thus may be punished for disobedience by violence, customs and traditions that reinforce this like FGM, child marriage, polygamy and honour killings. In the developed world, women's disempowerment often comes from a pervasive sexual objectification of women, traditional views of the subjugation of a woman's role in the family and the continuing socio-economic dependence that many women still have on their husbands.

I guess this comes to an important part of the Ray Rice controversy is that the victim-blaming that we saw in the media is perhaps endemic of a wider culture of misogyny and objectification that reinforces continuing cycles of abuse in dating and marriage.

I would disagree strongly that the causes of domestic violence center around concerns of female autonomy in the modern Western world.

[WestRedMaple]

Its more like, only you think male to female abuse matters... and its effects, it goes both ways, as seen here. There is obvious female to male abuse as well, you just choose not to see it because it is politically incorrect to do so, and you sir, are sexist because of it.

Yeah, Ray Rice was so abused by his wife slapping him. If I were a three hundred pound athlete, I'd feel so threatened, I'd deck her for good measure.

Female to male sexual abuse exists and it's a major problem. But it's largely overblown and used as a strawman to show how "sexist" people are.

If something that is far more under-reported, less likely to be prosecuted, and largely lacking in any acknowledgment is "largely overblown", then the issue of abuse of women would be incredibly, extremely overblown.

I don't think those are true

[WestRedMaple]

Its more like, only you think male to female abuse matters... and its effects, it goes both ways, as seen here. There is obvious female to male abuse as well, you just choose not to see it because it is politically incorrect to do so, and you sir, are sexist because of it.

An odd way of thinking. You know next to nothing on the matter translates to me saying only male on female violence matters. Strange.

Female on Male violence happens sure. The problem is people who basically argue the "bitch asked for it" bring it up as the number of incidents are equal. They are not. 85% of domestic violence victims are women. It breaks down to 1 in 4 women will experience this in their lifetime. Does these make the male victims less of a victim? Of course not. But to compare the commonality of frequency says much of the people who use it as an argument.

http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViol ... nal%29.pdf

As Kelinfort said, a 212 pound running back in peek condition was so threatened he had to use his fist and lay her out for his own safety.

Sorry there is no defense for that.

Yeah, it says that people are actually aware of and at least moderately informed regarding the topic. The best available information indicates that abuse rates towards men and women are very similar.

[Divitaen]

All of the citations of 85% in those four sources come down to the same originating source. Note the NIJ link actually provides a significantly more nuanced view than blindly backing the 85% figure, describing the variation among some sources, and in particular the parity seen in the NFS. If you follow the links out, you will land at the proceedings for a conference on gender symmetry in IPV.

Basically speaking, we are very much more likely to find excuses for women.

I'd agree with you that men do indeed suffer from problems of being disbelieved or perceived as "whimpy" or "unmasculine" if they accuse their partner of domestic violence, and many law enforcement agencies have said more efforts need to be made to look into this, so I would agree woman-on-man domestic violence is an issue and needs to be rigorously addressed. I would disagree with anyone who claimed that it was not a problem.

As for the 85% statistic, I continued searching as you recommended and landed here:

http://www.fjcgeorgetown.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=18

In the above article, the 85% statistic is cited and the source is labelled Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, so I assume this is what you were referring to when you talked about the IPV conference. The BJS has a proven track record and their job is to maintain data and statistics on crime in the United States. I'm not saying the statistic is perfect, but its safe to assume it was subject to a rigorous testing and fact-finding methodology. It does still seem that there is a gender aspect to domestic violence.

Please point to this "famous" study, I'm having trouble finding it.

Everything I've seen indicates that men significantly under-report ... most especially as victims. Many of the more flawed IPV studies only measure male perpetration and female victimization, and do not measure what's necessary in order to make sound comparative statements.

As I said, I am referring to a very large body of work. In particular, men not only under-report, but under-recognize. The more objective the items on your survey, they more closely they conform to the pattern I outlined. If you focus on a recent frame, rather than on lifetime incidents (which is more accurate), the more closely they conform to the pattern I outlined.

Ask people if they were abused by a partner, and men will often say "no," even if they would answer "yes" to "Has your partner hit you in the last six months?"

A study looked very specifically at gender bias in the perception and evaluation of a domestic incident:

Participants were more negative to the husband than to the wife in regard to responsibility for the offense, deservingness of the penalty, seriousness of the offense, perceived harshness of the penalty, reported positive affect, and reported sympathy.

It is in particular worth noting that in both versions of the story - the story was told in two ways, identical except for flipping the genders of the characters - the man was held to be responsible for what happened. Victim-blaming is real ... it mainly happens to men, though.

Many of these gendered patterns which show up in IPV studies are not restricted to IPV. For example, men are generally less willing to report victim status and more responsive to more objective questions; and generally report lower lifetime victimization rates for everything relative to rates measured on a limited timescale. The criminal justice system treats men accused of IPV very different from women accused of IPV, but the criminal justice system in general has a strong bias against male defendants (compared to female defendants) and male victims (compared to female victims). This effect is very strong, only rivaled by racial bias (which is typically weaker).

My apologies for not linking to the study in the previous post. I was referring to the only below:

http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/134467/1/Content.pdf?accept=1

The study basically analysed the methodology of 13 previous empirical studies attempting to prove gender symmetry in IPV, and the report's conclusion is that the evidence suggests cultural factors and societal perception lead to severe limitations in the reporting of crimes by respondents in all the studies. Machismo and patriarchal ideas play a very important role, somewhere in page 21 it does discuss issues of male-dominated culture and its influence on research into domestic violence. It seems intuitive that in societies and households that still have patriarchal norms and stereotypes, men and women alike are more likely to be normalised to women being hurt by their husbands as 'discipline' or men exercising rightful control, leading to men and women to overreport or underreport either perpetration or victimisation accordingly.

I would disagree strongly that the causes of domestic violence center around concerns of female autonomy in the modern Western world.

I understand the problem is worse in the developing world due to traditional values there that still promote child marriage or more patriarchal views of stricter gender roles. However, I don't think that means gender and misogyny doesn't play a role in domestic violence in the Western world. To begin with, there is a lot of evidence of a rape culture, sexual objectification and victim-blaming of women in the Western world. Look at the Steubenville rape case and Daisy Coleman rape case where the media and their hometowns came up in defense of the rapists. Or the fact that the Kirsten Gillibrand harrassment in the US can still happen in hallowed elected bodies. Or the fact that people have come up in vigorous defense of Ray Rice, or the slut-shaming that pervaded social media after the Jennifer Lawrence celebrity nude hacking scandal. Or the sexist heckling that pervaded in Annette Bosworth's election run or the Glasgow Union debates. Or look at the Columbia University scandal where students complained of neglect and mishandlement from college campuses when they attempted to report their rape (and this isn't an isolated incident, other college rapes have often gone unpunished or punished with ridiculous penalties like 'expelled after graduation'). Or look at the following articles about sexism in the first world:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10767784/UN-Britains-sexism-more-pervasive-than-any-other-country.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/16/hillary-clinton-julia-gillard-outrageous-sexism
http://www.upworthy.com/rape-culture-is-alive-and-well-in-america-because-of-these-6-things
http://time.com/40110/rape-culture-is-real/

Given that it is widely accepted that in the first world, misogyny and sexism play a fundamental, indispensable role in rape and sexual assault, we should also accept that it plays a role in domestic violence. After all, the dynamics of abuse, the need for control and dominance, all have its roots in rape culture and sexual objectification, the notion that women don't own themselves but are owned by their husbands and that beatings by men are sometimes justified because the women did something that deserved it.

Again, this is not to trivalise incidents of men who get beaten up by their male or female spouses, but I do still think misogyny plays a role in domestic violence, even if not in all cases

[Gauthier]

Worst is far from over for Ravens as report of cover-up surfaces

Starting to look like Rice won't be the only Ravens member to face the music. ESPN just came out with a report that disputes what team staff had been contending and strongly indicates that management was busy covering up Rice's Greatest Hit in a flagrant case of Athletic Immunity.

[Purpelia]

I find this slightly puzzling. Why would a sports organization have any authority to suspend someone over offenses not relating to the sport in question? It's not like the guy abused his wife on the pitch during a game or something. I mean sure, this is a case for the criminal justice system. But thats a separate thing altogether.

[Gauthier]

I find this slightly puzzling. Why would a sports organization have any authority to suspend someone over offenses not relating to the sport in question? It's not like the guy abused his wife on the pitch during a game or something. I mean sure, this is a case for the criminal justice system. But thats a separate thing altogether.

Suspension is not incarceration. And making it look like the NFL condones or at least ignores domestic abuse is bad for business.

[Upper America]

I find this slightly puzzling. Why would a sports organization have any authority to suspend someone over offenses not relating to the sport in question? It's not like the guy abused his wife on the pitch during a game or something. I mean sure, this is a case for the criminal justice system. But thats a separate thing altogether.

Because if they keep him in, he won't learn the consequences. If a sports player breaks the law, they should be kicked off the team. Whether it be bank robbing, domestic abuse, or drug use.

[Anglo-California]

Back in the day, the worst you had was Pete Rose and steroids.

[Purpelia]

I find this slightly puzzling. Why would a sports organization have any authority to suspend someone over offenses not relating to the sport in question? It's not like the guy abused his wife on the pitch during a game or something. I mean sure, this is a case for the criminal justice system. But thats a separate thing altogether.

Because if they keep him in, he won't learn the consequences. If a sports player breaks the law, they should be kicked off the team. Whether it be bank robbing, domestic abuse, or drug use.

See, this I disagree with. If a sports player breaks the law he or she should be prosecuted by the legal authorities to the full extent of said law. Any other organization they are in, be that the local reading club or their job should stay out of it. You should not get to fire or punish your workers for things they do outside the workplace.

[Neo Rome Republic]

I think he needs a suspension from the outside world. Lock him up.

^This.

[Ethel mermania]

I find this slightly puzzling. Why would a sports organization have any authority to suspend someone over offenses not relating to the sport in question? It's not like the guy abused his wife on the pitch during a game or something. I mean sure, this is a case for the criminal justice system. But thats a separate thing altogether.

all nfl contracts have a "morals clause" conduct detrimental to the leagues image is subject to league and team disipline.

[Ethel mermania]

I think he needs a suspension from the outside world. Lock him up.

^This.

the prosecutor, who has seen all the evidnece, has determined mr. rice is elibile for a pre-trial intervention program, where if he meets the requirements, his record will be expunged.

[Upper America]

Because if they keep him in, he won't learn the consequences. If a sports player breaks the law, they should be kicked off the team. Whether it be bank robbing, domestic abuse, or drug use.

See, this I disagree with. If a sports player breaks the law he or she should be prosecuted by the legal authorities to the full extent of said law. Any other organization they are in, be that the local reading club or their job should stay out of it. You should not get to fire or punish your workers for things they do outside the workplace.

That's pretty broad. If a baseball player takes performance enhancing drugs, should he be allowed to stay in the league? If a McDonald's worker steals from Burger King, should he keep his job?

[Purpelia]

I find this slightly puzzling. Why would a sports organization have any authority to suspend someone over offenses not relating to the sport in question? It's not like the guy abused his wife on the pitch during a game or something. I mean sure, this is a case for the criminal justice system. But thats a separate thing altogether.

all nfl contracts have a "morals clause" conduct detrimental to the leagues image is subject to league and team disipline.

I personally find this disturbing because it sets a rather nasty precedent (I newer know how to spell that dam thing). If they are allowed to have morality clauses than everyone is. I am surprised you don't hear more stories about corporations throwing these things in and than summarily firing everyone who does not subscribe to their religion/ideology because it harms their image.

[Gauthier]

all nfl contracts have a "morals clause" conduct detrimental to the leagues image is subject to league and team disipline.

I personally find this disturbing because it sets a rather nasty precedent (I newer know how to spell that dam thing). If they are allowed to have morality clauses than everyone is. I am surprised you don't hear more stories about corporations throwing these things in and than summarily firing everyone who does not subscribe to their religion/ideology because it harms their image.

It has nothing to do with religion. Again, it's about being able to quash a problem player who may give the NFL an unwanted image that ends up damaging its revenue. What company in their right mind would allow a known wife beater to continue working for them publically if it means people get the idea that the company supports or at least looks the other way regarding wife beaters and ends up boycotting them?

[Purpelia]

It has nothing to do with religion.

The mechanism is the same though. Person X doing Y is harming the corporate image thus he is removed. The nature of Y is irrelevant to the discussion.

Again, it's about being able to quash a problem player who may give the NFL an unwanted image that ends up damaging its revenue. What company in their right mind would allow a known wife beater to continue working for them publically if it means people get the idea that the company supports or at least looks the other way regarding wife beaters and ends up boycotting them?

You are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is what nation in the right mind allows companies to fire or punish employees for things they do outside the workplace regardless of how that effects the companies image.

[Gauthier]

It has nothing to do with religion. Again, it's about being able to quash a problem player who may give the NFL an unwanted image that ends up damaging its revenue. What company in their right mind would allow a known wife beater to continue working for them publically if it means people get the idea that the company supports or at least looks the other way regarding wife beaters and ends up boycotting them?

You are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is what nation in the right mind allows companies to fire or punish employees for things they do outside the workplace regardless of how that effects the companies image.

So companies should have to suffer guilt by association from any employee that displays publically distasteful or outright criminal conduct then. Why do you hate free enterprise?

[The Black Forrest]

It has nothing to do with religion.

The mechanism is the same though. Person X doing Y is harming the corporate image thus he is removed. The nature of Y is irrelevant to the discussion.

Again, it's about being able to quash a problem player who may give the NFL an unwanted image that ends up damaging its revenue. What company in their right mind would allow a known wife beater to continue working for them publically if it means people get the idea that the company supports or at least looks the other way regarding wife beaters and ends up boycotting them?

You are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is what nation in the right mind allows companies to fire or punish employees for things they do outside the workplace regardless of how that effects the companies image.

Many reasons. Companies or industries based on image. Sure it doesn't sound fair but it's not a hidden secret sprung on the unsuspecting. One incident can be rather damaging and can take a long time to recover.

Not all companies have it or any plans to enforce it. Especially, for no-name unknown employees.

It's the status of the person.

Seriously, what CEO is going to escape punishment from causing a publicity disaster by saying "hey it was off the clock!"

If unknown Bob the coffee guy of the Ravens Franchise was caught beating his wife; not many people would care and if they fired him; people would argue he deserved it. But it's fascinating that a Football playing making good money and people start blaming the wife and speak of outrage and his punishment was extreme.

He won't be gone long. Well unless he gets really stupid while he is off.

People's attention spans being the way they are; he will be welcomed back and celebrated if he plays well.

[Gauthier]

The mechanism is the same though. Person X doing Y is harming the corporate image thus he is removed. The nature of Y is irrelevant to the discussion.


You are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is what nation in the right mind allows companies to fire or punish employees for things they do outside the workplace regardless of how that effects the companies image.

Many reasons. Companies or industries based on image. Sure it doesn't sound fair but it's not a hidden secret sprung on the unsuspecting. One incident can be rather damaging and can take a long time to recover.

Not all companies have it or any plans to enforce it. Especially, for no-name unknown employees.

It's the status of the person.

Seriously, what CEO is going to escape punishment from causing a publicity disaster by saying "hey it was off the clock!"

If unknown Bob the coffee guy of the Ravens Franchise was caught beating his wife; not many people would care and if they fired him; people would argue he deserved it. But it's fascinating that a Football playing making good money and people start blaming the wife and speak of outrage and his punishment was extreme.

He won't be gone long. Well unless he gets really stupid while he is off.

People's attention spans being the way they are; he will be welcomed back and celebrated if he plays well.

Athletic Immunity strikes again. Unless of course you play a sport that's considered pansy and sissy in America.