Welcome to our world

[mme_hardy]

Jason Whitlock of ESPN responds to the video documentation of abuse that had been completely documented in print. Some highlights:

I thought the full video would explain why: Why police originally charged Ray and Janay with simple assault. Why the prosecutor allowed Ray to enter a diversion program. Why Janay apologized for her role. Why Janay chose to marry Ray. Why the Ravens enthusiastically supported Rice and used their facilities in helping him rehabilitate his image. Why Goodell suspended Rice for only two games.

I wrongly and naively thought that she was the aggressor in the attack, that Rice reflexively shoved her to fend her off and she slipped, fell and hit her head.

I did not think sexism could manifest itself this brazenly in 2014. Clearly, I was wrong. Clearly, as it relates to domestic violence and sexism, America has made far less progress than I thought.

That is not a complaint. I'm a sports columnist who specializes in social commentary. I want these topics explored. As an American citizen and a sports fan, I'm concerned about our culture and sports' positive and negative impact on our culture.

...

Speechless.   This satirizes itself.

Comments

[mme-hardy.livejournal.com]

I am speechless about Whitlock genuinely believing that sexism didn't manifest itself this bizarrely any more. After the fricking Steubenville High rape case -- and hundreds like it -- he has no excuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case

The fact that he was capable of believing that the lady *brought this on herself*, and that what happened was that the man shoved her into the wall and she fell AND THAT WAS OKAY.... is disgraceful at best.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

I somewhat cynically believe that either consciously or unconsciously a strong note in Whitlock's success (such as it is) lies in his ability to pendulum wildly between two extreme self-professed points of view (I say self-professed because it could all be entirely a rhetorical technique he employs -- he may be purposefully taking a slob stand on the one hand so he can then subsequently have come to Jesus stands on the other). I have no great love for his point of view, or the manner in which he delivers it: occasionally he says something intelligent and interesting -- he seems to have a strong area of competence when discussing the insider's view of professional sport, especially pro-football; he seems to have an equally strong lack of competence on just about any other matter (except, perhaps, certain aspects of modern race relations).

This shouldn't be entirely surprising: he's a specialist pundit making money largely because he's "frank" and often "outrageous", and they can be astoundingly thick outside their wheelhouses, generally, can't they (and purposefully so, probably)?