Defending Stephen A. Smith

There is a lot of controversy surrounding Stephen A. Smith, who is one of the hosts of ESPN's First Take. On Friday's show, he was speaking on the recent news surrounding the two-game suspension of Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice. As part of his perspective, he talked about the need for there to be awareness regarding how certain behaviors may provoke domestic violence.

Instead of listening to what Smith was saying, many people immediately took what he said to mean that he was somehow condoning domestic violence or that his perspective of "provoking" meant that he felt that women who are victims of domestic violence are somehow deserving of it. Unfortunately, they were not listening to the point that he was trying to make. This seems to happen a lot when issues are addressed in the mainstream media. People get up in arms with wild emotion instead of really stopping and trying to understand what the other person is saying.

Smith repeatedly said that he did not condone domestic violence. I believe him. What he was alluding to is that sometimes domestic violence can be in response to domestic violence and there are situations can indeed can be prevented from escalating to a boiling point. This is actually true. The side of domestic violence stories that seldom are dealt with is the reality that sometimes the victim was once themselves the perpetrator of domestic violence and abuse. This is no way means that all the victims were once perpetrators, it just points out that some are.

Let me give you an example. One day, we hear about a man who commits an act of domestic violence on his wife. We condemn the act and rightfully so. But what we don't recognize and talk about is the fact that the man's wife constantly committed acts of domestic violence against her husband for years. She verbally, emotionally and physically abused her husband on a regular basis. Because the public only zeroes in on the man's act, nobody is addressing the woman's destructive behavior in this situation. She is viewed as being completely innocent. As a result, she will take these same destructive behaviors into her next relationship and the same situation will be more likely to repeat itself. This is a problem, especially for her own well being.

We have to look at this as a big picture and see all the possible elements at play here. Otherwise, destructive behaviors that need to be addressed will not be addressed. As I point these things out, please understand that this is no way condones ANY act of domestic violence. It is all wrong. But abuse of any kind from anybody, both male and female, is also wrong. And the public needs to stop acting as if it is only women who suffer this type of abuse because research would show that is not the case. The public perception is slanted towards believing domestic violence is solely a female victim epidemic. The truth is that it affects both genders significantly. Check out my recent post entitled THE OTHER SIDE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

It is very sad that Smith has to constantly explain and even apologize for his words when there was nothing wrong with what he said. Perhaps in the context of the Ray Rice story it was not the wisest move but he was not and is not condoning domestic violence. What he was pointing out is that there is a cause and effect. A person who constantly yells at and beats on their spouse may one day be on the receiving end of such abuse from the very person who was once the victim. It doesn't make it right and I don't believe it to be right, but it is likely to happen. Let's consider that.

There are plenty of times I disagree with Smith on his perspectives. He is very outspoken and strong about his opinions. But the criticism that has been sent his way has been, in my opinion, unfair. At the end of the day, he believes just like I believe, domestic violence is WRONG!

Just my two cents,

LandoRigs

The Other Side of Domestic Violence

So the latest controversy coming out of the NFL is that Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice has been suspended for two games as a result of a domestic violence incident that took place months ago where a camera caught him punching his then fiancee in an elevator and then another camera caught him dragging the same woman by the hair as they got off the elevator. It has raised the ire of many as they feel that the NFL isn't sending a strong enough message against domestic violence behavior of its players. On this note, I wholeheartedly agree.

But each and every time I seem to hear about domestic violence, what bugs me is that I typically hear of a one-sided, one gender focused cause that negates what is happening with the other side and gender. The Obama Administration came out with a public service announcement a couple of years ago that spoke against violence against women and included professional male athletes.

 

While taking up a cause for violence against women is a great endeavor, the fact of the matter is that male victims have been far too overlooked in this regard. If you consider the statistics, you would actually find a very comparable amount of men suffer domestic violence at the hands of women to the women who suffer domestic violence at the hands of men. I won't post the stats here as a Google search of "domestic violence against men" would yield more than enough results to show that many men also are victims as well. 

My question is why leave the men out when so many are going through this? Is it because it is more acceptable in our society for women to be both emotionally and physically abusive to men and supposedly, men are just supposed to take it? A very chilling segment done by ABC News years ago shows that this ideal may play a part in the way some people think about domestic abuse.

So what is the solution to this? Domestic violence shouldn't be acceptable towards any gender. We should have enough respect for each other that we don't have to resort to such abuse. As a rule for humanity, no person, whether male or female, should ever have to endure the horror of domestic violence. And we need to stop talking about it as if it only affects women when the truth is very different.

Another perspective that doesn't get much play is that sometimes domestic violence can be in response to abuse. For instance, a man could be committing domestic violence against the same woman who repeatedly committed violence against him. Or vice versa. In no way is domestic violence in response to domestic violence excusable but I do believe some consideration needs to be given in these situations. For some men and women who constantly throw abuse towards their partner, they may well be on the receiving end of abuse themselves. I don't condone any of it, but it is simply more of a cause and effect. More should be encouraged in the area of people respecting others in general, and perhaps, some of these ugly situations can be avoided. For example, if a woman is always verbally and physically abuse to her husband and one day the husband decides to physically abuse her, she is not innocent. Indeed it isn't right that she was physically abused by her husband but we also must recognize the abuse from her end as well. There can't be a double standard in this, otherwise we are encouraging abusive people to continue to be abusive to the ruin of themselves and their victims.

Domestic violence against men is nothing to laugh at. There are true gentlemen out there that don't want to respond with violence towards their wives or girlfriends and feel stuck. These men need more understanding and encouragement rather than belittlement and mockery. Abuse doesn't make anyone feel good, regardless of your gender. We should be more compassionate regarding this painful reality for many people.

So the next time that you hear of a domestic violence situation and automatically assume it is just women who go through it, think again. It is a human problem.

We'll do this again,

LandoRigs

Questioning is a Good Thing

I can remember when I went to school and it seemed like asking questions was something that was encouraged and embraced. As I got older and worked in the field of journalism, I encountered the opposite on numerous occasions where it seemed like asking questions was met with resistance and annoyance. I found the contrasts in my life to be interesting.

One thing that has served me well in my life is to ask questions about the various things that I see, hear and experience. I believe that it is good to do this. For example, very early in my Christian walk, I accepted a lot of what was told to me about my faith from preachers and my parents. But there came a time in my life where instead of walking by blind faith, I had to put everything I had been taught to the test and see if it was really true. When I did, I found that many of the things that I had been taught were not even true. If I had never questioned what I believe, I would have never reached the conclusions that I did. My faith is as strong as it is because of the questions that I have asked along the way.

Don't ever accept something just because somebody tells you it is true and it sounds convincing. Always search things out for yourself to see if it indeed is true. It is a dangerous thing for a person to simply believe "2+2=4" only because they heard somebody else say it or they read it in a book. Because that person bases his or her knowledge on merely what he has heard or read, if another person comes up with a "2+2=5" argument that sounds more convincing, then suddenly the new argument becomes the truth. But if a person were to believe "2+2=4" because he has actually worked out the problem and reached the answer, it is going to be next to impossible for another argument to convince that person otherwise.

In our society where there is so much information overload, we have to be careful what we believe and what we don't. The mainstream media is constantly pushing ideas and concepts to its consumers in order to influence the public. It knows that not many people are going to research the truth on their own but will simply take their word for it. Our worldviews and perspectives are very much shaped and influenced by what the mainstream media projects out there. I have found the less of it I consume, the better I feel mentally and the more I can really look at the world more objectively. And when I do happen to consume it, I question every bit of it.

Sometimes, questions are not welcome and are even met with backlash. From my perspective, though there are questions that can be inappropriate, there are those who don't want to be questioned on anything at all. Why? Is there something that they're trying to hide or cover up? Is there truth that they don't want others to discover? Anytime somebody questions the Holocaust, why is there such a backlash? As a Christian, people can question Jesus all day long and choose to reject him but they won't see a backlash from me as a result. It is choice that everybody has the right to make. But if somebody questions the Holocaust, they automatically get an "anti-semitic" label affixed to them. Why?

The Holocaust is just one example. There are many other examples we can read throughout history through today of people who question receiving a strong backlash. Once again, why? Is it because the more people question, the more they would see the real truth? I remember when I questioned a pastor at a church I formerly attended about unbiblical behaviors and practices that were taking place and I was told by the pastor I had to right to question him. People who follow others who can not be questioned put themselves in a dangerous of not being able to make those persons accountable. Many church-goers unfortunately do this today.

I am of the notion that something that is right and true can withstand questions and doubts. And if a person is solid in what they believe, it doesn't matter whether people disagree with them or not. This is the way I feel about my faith and I do not feel threatened by those who do not share my faith.

Just some of my thoughts on a Friday. Don't be quick to accept anything. Do your due diligence and search things out for yourself to see whether they be true or not. You may be surprised by what you find.

Sunny in California,

LandoRigs

Why I've Come to Despise Labeling

Humanity loves labels. It loves the ability to take the unique personalities of individuals and classify them into simple categories in which a label becomes affixed. We do this in everything. For instance, a Christian, Muslim and Buddhist are categorized as "religious" people when what they represent actually goes beyond religion. On sports teams, we have "elite players" and "role players" to continually differentiate between those who grab the attention and those who don't. In some ways, it is helpful to have labels. But in others, it becomes very harmful and even dangerous when considering a person's worldview.

How many people think that most Muslims are aggressive terrorists? How many people think that all Black women have attitudes? How many people think that Black men are not responsible? How many people think that Asians only care about money? How many people think that all "conservatives" are Christian and that all "liberals" lack morality? How many people think that husbands are more likely to be abusive than wives? These things have to do with the stereotypes and labels that are constantly portrayed in our society and many people accept it hook, line and sinker. I used to buy into many of these labels myself until as I got older and the more people I met, I realized that each individual is unique and different--meaning that not everybody is meant to fit into simple, compact categories. And honestly, I have to admit, that when I see certain traits, I have to actually catch myself so that I don't go into labeling mode.

Lately, there has been a very divisive issue going on in America. Children, who are crossing the border from other countries, are being transported to multiple destinations throughout the United States. For some, to embrace the children rather than send them away is what is best. For others, the considerations that come with such an influx of persons outside of the country lead the conclusion that the children should be deported. It's a hot issue and I understand both sides of this. But is the greater public willing to show the same understanding?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard and read people calling those who are protesting what is happening at the border "racists." Indeed, I have seen examples of racist behavior from some of the protesters, but not everyone who disagrees with what is happening is a racist. And the people who have compassion for the children are not blind to the ramifications of having an addition to the country. What I have noticed is that once people develop labels for others and put them to use, it allows them to disregard their cause altogether so that we can never truly gain understanding about why the other side feels the way it does. It happens a lot nowadays and I have seen it from the Trayvon Martin case, the Donald Serling controversy, same-sex marriage, and in my opinion, even the Holocaust. And once you've been labeled, if you don't get with the program, then people don't want to listen to what you have to say, even if there is validity in what you are saying. I don't agree with this and we miss out on the "why" in a lot of things because of it.

One of the biggest things I despise about labeling is that idea that we can know who a person is and fully judge the intentions of that person's heart based on the label. This is wrong. Think of two robbers. One robs because he is trying to put food on the table for his wife and children. The other robs because taking away from people gives him some sort of twisted pleasure. While they both commit the same crime, these are two different people doing it. They wouldn't fit under one label. I understand that we have to make choices based off of people's actions but to try and claim we totally know a person is arrogant. And this is coming from somebody who has been that arrogant person myself. So I know.

We can change this though. What it would take is a deliberate effort to make sure that we judge each person as an individual. We don't assume and jump to conclusions about others based on stereotypes and labels. We make our judgments based on what we directly experience from the person's character and behavior. This doesn't mean that we don't use wisdom either. What it does mean is that we give people a fair shake and try to understand where they're coming from even if it is something that we can never agree with. I think we can do much better in that regard.

Still growing,

LandoRigs

Really ESPN?

With so many people online praising the latest "The Body Issue" from ESPN magazine, I just may be one of the few that takes exception to the annual issue and that constantly asks the question of, "What's the point?"

ESPN has been a staple in sports media since its inception in 1979. Shows like SportsCenter and NFL Primetime, First Take and Numbers Never Lie are still among my favorite sports shows of all-time to this very day. They've done a fabulous job resurrecting Monday Night Football, provide outstanding coverage for college football and basketball and I recently enjoyed their coverage of the World Cup to this point. In my opinion, there is a lot that they do right.

But when it comes to this annual "body" issue, truthfully, what does this have to do with sports? I realize that when "The Body Issue" was first released in 2009 that it was supposed to be ESPN's answer to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. But what do things like that have to do with sports, other than to provide an opportunity to show skin? Of course, there will always be an audience and a chance to make money off that sort of thing. But it is really necessary to go completely nude with only the main private parts not showing? Where is the appropriateness in that?

My Christian beliefs may be playing a big part in why I feel this way. In the bible, after Adam and Eve sinned, God provided the couple with animal skins to clothe themselves and clothing has been an integral part of most societies ever since. Consider what happened in the incident of Noah, when one of his sons saw him naked and was cursed. His other sons rushed to over their father and make sure not to look as they covered him. Other accounts show in so many words that it is only appropriate to see one's spouse in the nude. That's what I go by in my personal life.

Whether a person is a Christian or not, I would imagine if most of us saw a person in the nude on the street, even with their lower extremities covered, we would be appalled. I think if ESPN wanted to do a "body" issue, there is definitely a more tasteful way to do it.

More to come,

LandoRigs