SF Niners play-by-play guy suspended for 2 games for Rice comments…..

Well, its all complicated aint it — the media, the sports league,
the money, the advertising dollars, the various views on Violence
and men, and women, and blame, etc. Lots of contested ideological-terrain.
It oughta lead to some good and bad conversation over the air-waves.

All them there clashing ideas
might lead to some learnin,
and change, and growth.

Btw, to state the obvious,
sometimes Victims stay with Abusers
because of all kinds of complex psychological
reasons. And sometimes they stay for…
the Money. Either way, they are still
victims of domestic (and perhaps economic) abuse.

Alrighty then,
I’m done here.
Go Rams.

w
v

• This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by wv.

Nobody has a right to an opinion any longer. Sad. So you don’t like what Robinson said and that is fine. I do not know what to think about the Ray Rice situation other than it was wrong of him to hit his girl friend. Violence against women should not be condoned. Violence against men should not be condoned either.

But, are we not violating our own constitutional rights of freedom of thought and speech when we demand someone be punished for expressing an opinion? I don’t know. I’m beginning to think free speech is a lie.

Grits

WV, the same reason as any broadcasting company would suspend him currently because they do not want to deal with the backlash of those who would demand his job and those who would protest the company and they do not want to seem insensitive to the victims rights.

My point WV, is it seems we’ve become a society where if somebody utters something insensitive or stupid as human beings do every once in a while that we immediately call for them to be punished. Can we not simply disagree with him rather to extract a pound of flesh? People say stupid things. Even broadcasters as we have seen over the years.

GreatRamNTheSky wrote:

WV, the same reason as any broadcasting company would suspend him currently because they do not want to deal with the backlash of those who would demand his job and those who would protest the company and they do not want to seem insensitive to the victims rights.

My point WV, is it seems we’ve become a society where if somebody utters something insensitive or stupid as human beings do every once in a while that we immediately call for them to be punished. Can we not simply disagree with him rather to extract a pound of flesh? People say stupid things. Even broadcasters as we have seen over the years.

When you work for someone in the capacity he did, and speak up at work, you are not expressing an opinion–you are representing your workplace. They have a right to determine whether or not you have represented them appropriately. He does not have the right to that job, and that job comes with expectations of certain kinds of behavior. For example he cannot start swearing on the air. Or to say vote for this candidate not that one. Etc. Or explain his favorite sexual practices and how he would employ them with whoever the camera happens to be showing in the stands at the moment.

Meanwhile he can say what he wants. He never lost that right. He just cannot do it as a representative of the organization, at work.

My all time favorite Ram WV? That is a tough question because I have so many all time favorite Rams.

It comes down to three people who represent the Rams as I knew them as a 10 year old when I was just introduced to football and the Rams. Roman Gabriel, Merlin Olsen and Deacon Jones.

Grits

GRITS… I would implore you and everyone to watch this. The comments by that announcer calling Janay Palmer still marrying Ray Rice as pathetic…twice… were outrageous. This is that TEDtalk and it’s about the most accessible way I can think to get guys to understand about domestic violence, especially *why victims of domestic violence stay*. When invoking any amendment, especially the 1st amendment, we must remember that no right is absolute and that context matters. I believe the apology of the announcer who understands that words matter and how his role is one that represents an organization, thus on air, he’s representing an organization.

Free speech is important. It also doesn’t happen in a vacuum. And the reactions and over-reactions in the public sphere to some incidents can be tiresome. I get that.

However, for issues which have been grossly, grossly underrepresented in the national conversation for…ever, it’s important to allow all reactions including what some consider to be over-reactions to be part of the conversation because these issues like race and domestic violence are like the desert and each voice is like a droplet of water. In such an arid climate, we need every drop. Each is important. As well, once the conversation begins, it’s important to understand that if we do learn, the very nature of the conversation will change us and inform us that certain parts of the conversation are no longer appropriate. Language matters. Thus while we’ve seen *some* progress in the conversation on race since the 50s, there’s been very little progress since then about domestic violence. We barely have the language constructs to describe it. We still blame victims in so many instances. I’ll just leave it at this: once we learn what we don’t know (like what’s talked about on the video), it both opens up new language and makes other language inappropriate.

Also… funny (meaning strange in a dubious manner). The play-by-play guy got 2 games for comments about Ray Rice, but Ray McDonald is STILL PLAYING.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by Mackeyser.

I absolutely love Ted Talk. There’s really good stuff that they put on. And this video should be seen by all especially those that ask why doesn’t she leave. And to WV’s point below the business about Harvard, etc I think is to point out how even an intelligent woman who is financially independent doesn’t stay for money but for weird psychological reasons and can still “love” the abuser even when she eventually leaves him. At least that was the message I received.

IMO everyone should have Ted Talk access on their smart phone, I Pad, Apple TV-whatever. You really hear some marvelous stuff that causes one to think outside the box.

wv wrote:

Mackeyser wrote:
GRITS… I would implore you and everyone to watch this. The comments by that announcer calling Janay Palmer still marrying Ray Rice as pathetic…twice… were outrageous. This is that TEDtalk and it’s about the most accessible way I can think to get guys to understand about domestic violence, especially *why victims of domestic violence stay*. When invoking any amendment, especially the 1st amendment, we must remember that no right is absolute and that context matters. I believe the apology of the announcer who understands that words matter and how his role is one that represents an organization, thus on air, he’s representing an organization.

Free speech is important. It also doesn’t happen in a vacuum. And the reactions and over-reactions in the public sphere to some incidents can be tiresome. I get that.

However, for issues which have been grossly, grossly underrepresented in the national conversation for…ever, it’s important to allow all reactions including what some consider to be over-reactions to be part of the conversation because these issues like race and domestic violence are like the desert and each voice is like a droplet of water. In such an arid climate, we need every drop. Each is important. As well, once the conversation begins, it’s important to understand that if we do learn, the very nature of the conversation will change us and inform us that certain parts of the conversation are no longer appropriate. Language matters. Thus while we’ve seen *some* progress in the conversation on race since the 50s, there’s been very little progress since then about domestic violence. We barely have the language constructs to describe it. We still blame victims in so many instances. I’ll just leave it at this: once we learn what we don’t know (like what’s talked about on the video), it both opens up new language and makes other language inappropriate.

Also… funny (meaning strange in a dubious manner). The play-by-play guy got 2 games for comments about Ray Rice, but Ray McDonald is STILL PLAYING.

Well, personally, I had to stop watching,
once she mentioned her Ivy League degree
for the fourth time.
The message seemed to be:
“Hey, this should matter because
it even happens to rich wasps…”

I must be a curmudgeon
today.

w
v

That’s part of the point, tho.

It’s kinda like bed bugs. People think Domestic violence is just some dirty thing you only see among the poor, uneducated or people of color. The point is that it spans age, class, race, economic strata, religion and even gender.

And…maybe you’re being a bit of a curmudgeon.

Just a little bit. Little bit I think

Have an herbal tea and try another time….

just wanted to share this article. just to show the different types of abuses that happen. we have really been only talking about one type of abuse. and it just oversimplifies everything. i thought this was interesting summary and kind of touches on how many different types of abusive relationships that can exist.

http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychology-partner-abuse/

Why Do Partners Abuse Each Other?
March 2, 2010 • Contributed by Leslie Larson, LPC-S

Recent estimates put the annual number of intimate partner violence (IPV) incidents in the U.S. at around 8 million. That is, eight million men and women in the U.S. experience partner violence each year. Over the course of a lifetime, about thirty percent of all U.S. women and twenty percent of all U.S. men will experience physical, sexual, or psychological abuse by an intimate partner, and those are just the reported cases. But of course, adults are not the only ones affected; during the course of a year, there are an estimated 3.3 to 10 million children exposed to violence between their parents or caregivers. Partner abuse costs the U.S. nearly $6 billion annually. Most of that is for medical and mental health treatment, but more than $700 million is for lost productivity in the workplace.

Who are these people who wreak so much havoc on their partners, their children, their workplaces, and their communities? There is a stereotype of what an abuser looks and acts like. He is male, usually blue collar, possibly unemployed, who drinks a lot and wears a particular fashion of undershirt. He is hyper-masculine and beefy, a forbidding presence. He demands that his wife have dinner on the table by six, that she keep up the house and children to his satisfaction and that she never question his authority.

The reality is that partner abuse occurs in all social and economic classes, races, ethnic groups, educational levels, religions, and without regard to physical and mental abilities. Women as well as men use it. It occurs between married and unmarried heterosexuals, gay men, and lesbians. A person who abuses their partner physically, psychologically, or emotionally is just as likely to be a corporate attorney as a forklift operator; a hair stylist as a software engineer; a schoolteacher as a deacon in the church. You can’t pick one out of a line-up. Central casting got it wrong.

So to answer the question why do partners abuse? Is not as simple as some would believe. There is an entire school of thought that states that IPV perpetrators are almost exclusively male and their motive for the abuse is to assert male dominance and maintain power and control over their female partners. This school of thought has gained a great deal of traction in courtrooms and legislative bodies all across the U.S., and while the proponents of this view have shed much welcome light on a horrible problem for many American families, it does not tell the whole story nor address the entire problem.

The Nature of Partner Abuse

Though emphasis of the criminal justice system has historically been focused toward male-on-female “battering” as a microcosmic representation of the broader patriarchal society, more recent literature on IPV reveals that there are different and distinct violent or abusive dynamics that occur between intimate partners. In each of these distinct dynamics, researchers identify different “types” of IPV. And in the most common type, it is next to impossible to differentiate a “perpetrator” from a “victim”.

The most frequently occurring type of partner violence is what has come to be known as “Situational Couple Violence”. Different researchers estimate that anywhere from forty to seventy percent of relationships include this type of IPV. With situational couple violence, there is not usually an ongoing pattern of violent behavior, but rather the violence erupts from a specific conflictual encounter in which both partners act out with verbal and/or physical aggression. In these relationships, verbal and emotional abuse may be common. Women and men are equally likely to initiate this type of partner abuse.

Another type of IPV is identified as “violent resistance,” which may or may not be an act of self-defense against a physical assault. For example, one of the partners may resort to a physical act of aggression in response to the other partner’s emotional or verbal abuse, or in response to repeated jealous accusations. This type of partner violence is often in response to a partner who practices the next identified type of IPV.

“Intimate terrorism” is IPV in which there is a clear perpetrator and victim. Researchers estimate that anywhere from four to eleven percent of partner abuse involves this type of IPV. In intimate terrorism, the violence is part of a process by which one person establishes and maintains control and domination over his or her partner over the long term, rather than one independent act. The abuse may begin in subtle ways and escalate over time, beginning with criticism, verbal abuse and possessiveness, moving on to emotional and economic abuse, and, eventually, physical attacks that may become more frequent and severe. This type of IPV is what most of us think of when we hear the term “domestic violence.” According to crime statistics, men more often commit it, though women can be implicated in this type of pattern as well.

The final type of IPV is the least common. In “Mutual Violent Control,” both partners are entrenched in a pattern resembling two intimate terrorists battling each other for power and control. The violent acts may be a way to exert control, to relieve built-up tension, to take revenge or to avoid intimacy.

In each of these different types, occurrences of physical violence may be chronic, sporadic, or may be an isolated incident. Physical assaults may actually be only the “tip of the iceberg” in an abusive relationship. There is often an undercurrent of ongoing verbal, emotional or other types of abuse that has been present – perhaps for years – before a physical eruption occurs. Interestingly, many partners who have been subjected to verbal and emotional abuse, in addition to physical, say they feel the verbal and emotional abuse do the most damage.

Why Do They Do It?

Given these different types of IPV, it is apparent that partner abuse can occur in completely different contexts and with different motivations. To say that all partner abuse is about men having power and control over women is grossly misleading. Literature on partner abuse suggests that there are many contributing factors — neurological, psychological, interpersonal, situational, and cultural that lead an individual to engage in this type of behavior within their intimate relationships. For example, many incidents of IPV occur while the abuser is under the influence of alcohol, but most people are able to consume alcohol without assaulting their partners.

Some mental disorders are linked to incidents of IPV, and statistically, personality disorders, anxiety, addictions, bipolar disorder, or PTSD may complicate an individual’s ability to deal with interpersonal discord, but to identify mental illness as a cause of IPV is to do a great disservice to the many people struggling with these conditions who do not commit violent acts.

IPV is, in many cases, learned or witnessed in the family of origin. One study estimates that children who witness IPV between their parents are three times more likely to become adult abusers than children who are not exposed to it. Researcher Donald Dutton and others have produced a number of studies showing that the more severe cases of IPV seem to be a result of years of early developmental influences from the family of origin, including witnessing violence, shaming, abandonment, and exposure to trauma (e.g., witnessing partner violence is a type of trauma especially damaging to children). Both genders are susceptible to these influences. The common thread in developmental theories of IPV would seem to be a close link to issues of attachment.

Family of origin IPV is a fairly consistent predictor, but clearly not everyone whose parent was an abuser grows up to be one. Oftentimes, partner abuse is a “choice of last resort” for persons who experience anger or frustration in their relationship, yet lack the skills to express or manage these feelings in a constructive way. Few of us grew up with a model of what a healthy relationship looks like; most of us struggle with stresses and hardships and just do the best we can figuring it out as we go. When relationship conflict arises, we do what our parents did: ignore it, avoid it, deny it, use “the silent treatment,” raise our voices, cry, use put-downs, swear, call names, accuse, blame, walk out, slam doors, throw things, drink, get high, punch a wall, point a finger, raise a fist, hit, slap, punch, kick – you get the idea. Most times, we do exactly as our parents did. It is not uncommon for someone in treatment for abusing their partner to lament, “I’ve done what I promised I would never do – I’ve become just like my father or mother.”

The argument can be made that every relationship has problems and conflict but most people don’t resort to violence. That is very true, and research bears this out.

Abuse of any kind is always a choice. It is not caused by a poor intimate relationship, job frustration, financial crisis, sexual problems, troublesome in-laws, or child-rearing difficulties, although these factors may be present and contribute stress. It doesn’t happen because a person is provoked, drunk, has “rage issues,” bipolar disorder or “impulse control” problems. Substance abuse or psychopathology does not diminish responsibility for IPV. There is no behavior on the part of the victim that causes or excuses abuse. The person who uses violence, coercion or control must bear the responsibility for his or her choice of action.

IPV is a learned behavior; it is learned in the family and broader society (peers, community, mass media). Because it is learned, it can be “unlearned” and replaced with healthy ways of interacting.

© Copyright 2010 by Leslie Larson, LPC-S, therapist in Austin, TX. All Rights Reserved.

InvaderRam wrote:

well i think the issue is too complex to boil it down to the experience of one person.

but i do get the point that it can happen even to a well educated and financially independent person.

But why does that matter? Why does it matter that
“it can even happen to well educated and financially independent persons” ?
I mean, are they more valuable than just
regular-ole-persons ?

Think about how it sounds when a Ted-talking-Ivy-Leaguer
says that. …i guess i’m just picturing the reaction to that
comment, if she had said it to a room full of poor-people…

w
v

• This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by wv.
• This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by wv.

InvaderRam wrote:

the psychology and motivations behind staying in an abusive relationship are far more complex than what the general public thinks.

The idea being, many people think “mostly they stay because they’re financially dependent and have few options.”

But then I suppose WV is thinking of many of his poor clients and whether they could sit through that vid. Those people would already know that the stereotypes about why poor women would stay in abusive relationships aren’t true. So the question becomes, from his perspective, who is being talked to?

I think the message of the Ted Talk piece is very simple. ” I ain’t no dummy but I stayed”