No one is talking about Hope Solo's domestic violence case?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Unless I'm missing something, this is far, far, far different. She got into a fight with her sister and nephew at an out of control house party while they were drunk. Now I can agree that it's not conduct becoming a professional athlete but it certainly isn't the same thing.

I can only find this one case of domestic assault.

Where are you getting this from?
All accounts I've seen look like she was drunk, the aggressor and abusive. Very different from 2 drink people getting into a mutual fight as you've described.
That is not a fight, it's assault and domestic violence.

[bigtmac19]

Consumers need to start contacting Nike, then they may be pressured into doing something.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by pylon

I think a huge reason you see skewed numbers rube cube, is because men won't report it, and don't have the same vengeful intent as some women have. I was in a relationship with a girl who regularly got high/drunk, and became extremely violent with me. She'd usually pounce on me and start wailing on me for no reason other than not getting her way, or me not giving her money to buy more drugs. She was maybe 100 pounds, and I am about 230 so I would just laugh it off, and I never called the cops. It finally hit a turning point when she kicked me in the nuts so hard I nearly blacked out. I gathered up all the crap she had at my place, threw it off my balcony, and when she refused to leave, I picked her up under the armpits, carried her to the door, locked her out, and that was the end of it.

I never called the cops, I never tried to ruin her life. She had demons, and I was just unwilling to deal with them any longer. She was on her own, and last I heard she's a hooker now. Had the tables been turned however, and I hit her like she would hit me, I would have either killed her, or put her in the hospital for months and I would certainly have ended up in jail.

So there is one example for you, of being a victim of domestic violence as a man, and it not showing in your stats. It happens.... and it happens a lot to men. We just handle it differently.

However, you probably think carrying her to the door makes me the abuser.

1st bolded point: Oh, it's just "vengeful intent" to call out an abuser? To attempt to get justice and security away from a man who is abusing you?

2nd bolded point: Obviously this woman had a lot of problems, obviously she was abusive. Obviously that's a problem. But that's a whole lot different a scenario than most domestic abuse cases involving women. Rarely is a woman being abused by a man less than half her size. Rarely is a woman able to just pick him up and remove him from the house to keep herself safe. Rarely is a woman safe even if she does manage to get away from her abuser--often she's in more danger if she does try to get away.

Yes, you were involved in a domestic abuse situation, and no one should deal with that, but did you ever genuinely fear for your life? Because for women, they often do. To use your same term, "vengeful"--when you got rid of her, what happened? Did she stalk you? Did she come after you? No, as you said, she was "on her own," she moved past it, ruined her own life in the process, and you came away mostly unscathed. In general, when men are abusive and the woman gets away? They're also "vengeful," in a whole different way, in that often they find the woman and the abuse is even worse, or the woman ends up dead.

[Mango]

http://womens.soccerly.com/2014/09/2...abuse-charges/

U.S. Soccer is standing by its decision to allow goalkeeper Hope Solo to continue to play while she faces domestic violence charges.

U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati said Monday the organization will let her play until the legal matter is settled.

“U.S. Soccer takes the issue of domestic violence very seriously. From the beginning, we considered the information available and have taken a deliberate and thoughtful approach regarding Hope Solo’s status with the national team,” Gulati said in a statement. “Based on that information, U.S. Soccer stands by our decision to allow her to participate with the team as the legal process unfolds. If new information becomes available we will carefully consider it.”

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Mango

http://womens.soccerly.com/2014/09/2...abuse-charges/

Nike supports her abusiveness as well:

We are aware of the allegations and that Hope Solo has pled ‘not guilty’ to the charges. Hope remains a Nike athlete and we will continue to monitor the situation

[Locke]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

1st bolded point: Oh, it's just "vengeful intent" to call out an abuser? To attempt to get justice and security away from a man who is abusing you?

2nd bolded point: Obviously this woman had a lot of problems, obviously she was abusive. Obviously that's a problem. But that's a whole lot different a scenario than most domestic abuse cases involving women. Rarely is a woman being abused by a man less than half her size. Rarely is a woman able to just pick him up and remove him from the house to keep herself safe. Rarely is a woman safe even if she does manage to get away from her abuser--often she's in more danger if she does try to get away.

Yes, you were involved in a domestic abuse situation, and no one should deal with that, but did you ever genuinely fear for your life? Because for women, they often do. To use your same term, "vengeful"--when you got rid of her, what happened? Did she stalk you? Did she come after you? No, as you said, she was "on her own," she moved past it, ruined her own life in the process, and you came away mostly unscathed. In general, when men are abusive and the woman gets away? They're also "vengeful," in a whole different way, in that often they find the woman and the abuse is even worse, or the woman ends up dead.

The hypocrisy in this thread is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Stop dodging and just say it:

"Its okay because shes a woman."

[pylon]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Yes, you were involved in a domestic abuse situation, and no one should deal with that, but did you ever genuinely fear for your life?

Have someone try and kick a field goal with your bag from behind when you are hunched over the sink washing your face, and you would rather be in fear of your life than to experience that.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Because for women, they often do. To use your same term, "vengeful"--when you got rid of her, what happened? Did she stalk you? Did she come after you?

Yes, and when I wouldn't pick up my cell phone (pre-texting days), she would call every 15 minutes to my work until I would pick it up for about a month.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

No, as you said, she was "on her own," she moved past it, ruined her own life in the process, and you came away mostly unscathed. In general, when men are abusive and the woman gets away? They're also "vengeful," in a whole different way, in that often they find the woman and the abuse is even worse, or the woman ends up dead.

So basically you are saying it is ok for a woman to be vengeful, but not a man, because the severity of my injuries were not high enough for the vengeful standard. So when was vengeance OK? When she stabbed me in my sleep, killed my dog? Where is the line on life ruining revenge? I am curious to know.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Where are you getting this from?
All accounts I've seen look like she was drunk, the aggressor and abusive. Very different from 2 drink people getting into a mutual fight as you've described.
That is not a fight, it's assault and domestic violence.

I never said she wasn't the aggressor. I'm saying it was a "family gathering/house party" according to police statement and attacked her nephew and sister because she's a nasty drunk. I'm not defending her here at all.

But for someone to suggest this is the same as a large man using fear and physical violence to keep control of their significant other is disingenuous and makes far too light of the constant fear and deep psychological damage an abusive relationship causes. The two are not close to the same.

Hope Solo sounds like a violent jerk. Rice sounds like man who is consciously destroying someone to maintain control. There's a difference

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

The hypocrisy in this thread is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Stop dodging and just say it:

"Its okay because shes a woman."

I think you guys are missing her point. If you have two serial arsonists on the loose, one who likes to burn down vacant in the middle of nowhere, and one who likes to burn down houses in heavily populated communities, who are you hoping the police and fire departments focus more of their attention on? Technically it's the same crime, but the effects of the latter's actions are more pronounced and severe.

Let's also not forget that the majority of reasons why people don't pay a lot of attention to violence against men is heavily rooted in our normative views of masculinity.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think you guys are missing her point. If you have two serial arsonists on the loose, one who likes to burn down vacant in the middle of nowhere, and one who likes to burn down houses in heavily populated communities, who are you hoping the police and fire departments focus more of their attention on? Technically it's the same crime, but the effects of the latter's actions are more pronounced and severe.

Let's also not forget that the majority of reasons why people don't pay a lot of attention to violence against men is heavily rooted in our normative views of masculinity.

Point 1:

Irrelevant as the judcial consequences are the same. Especially when the resources exist to focus attention on both. More resources does not equate to faster apprehension or less damage, either physically or emotionally.

Point 2:

Wildly irrelevant. I thought the whole point here was to embrace inclusion and equality ergo one case cannot be more special than any other regardless of reasons like that.

You've made it very clear that our normative views of masculinity and femininity are wrong, just because they've been around forever doesnt make them right, isnt that correct? Therefore those normative views have to be deemed as irrelevant and all cases treated equally regardless of circumstance.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Locke

Point 2:

Wildly irrelevant. I thought the whole point here was to embrace inclusion and equality ergo one case cannot be more special than any other regardless of reasons like that.

You've made it very clear that our normative views of masculinity and femininity are wrong, just because they've been around forever doesnt make them right, isnt that correct? Therefore those normative views have to be deemed as irrelevant and all cases treated equally regardless of circumstance.

Normative views or stereotypes are acceptable when they are used against the majority. It is akin to the "justified" or "selective" discrimination which is apparently acceptable against the majority.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Normative views or stereotypes are acceptable when they are used against the majority. It is akin to the "justified" or "selective" discrimination which is apparently acceptable against the majority.

Which is why I indicated that they should be comprehensively excluded.

Judge the case on the facts and not on gender. Both ways.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Locke

Which is why I indicated that they should be comprehensively excluded.

Judge the case on the facts and not on gender. Both ways.

I absolutely agree.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I absolutely agree.

And as such this case is discriminatory because in comparison to other cases Solo is getting a free pass for the same crime.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Point 1:

Irrelevant as the judcial consequences are the same. Especially when the resources exist to focus attention on both. More resources does not equate to faster apprehension or less damage, either physically or emotionally.

Wait, are we talking judicially or socially? If it's judicially, then I completely agree. The justice system and law enforcement need to do a better job of responding to male victims of IPV. And socially, I'm in agreement that more needs to be done to provide resources for men. However the reason why we focus on women more is because the effects of Ray Rice cracking his wife in an elevator were certainly more pronounced than say when Solange Knowles attacked Jay-Z. And to witty's point, far more women end up seriously injured or dead as a result of intimate partner violence than men. The risk of serious consequences as a result of IPV are much higher for women than men. I don't think that's a hypocritical statement, as it's heavily backed up by data.

Do we have sufficient resources to address both? I'm not sure we even have sufficient resources to address one. Women's shelters are constantly underfunded, police are often inadequately trained to respond to domestic violence situations, or enforce restraining orders against men who are likely to escalate to the point of serious physical harm or murder.

Point 2:

Wildly irrelevant. I thought the whole point here was to embrace inclusion and equality ergo one case cannot be more special than any other regardless of reasons like that.

I wasn't supporting it. I think it's ridiculous. I was just trying to explain where the problem lies.

You've made it very clear that our normative views of masculinity and femininity are wrong, just because they've been around forever doesnt make them right, isnt that correct? Therefore those normative views have to be deemed as irrelevant and all cases treated equally regardless of circumstance.

Again, in legal terms, yes. If she's guilty then her team should take appropriate action. If she's a violent drunk who can't control herself, maybe she needs to seek treatment. That said, I don't think this case is analogous to the Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson cases. It's still wrong, and she should be ashamed of herself, but getting into a drunken brawl with your sister is much different than slugging your wife, who is considerably smaller than you, or beating a defenseless toddler with a tree branch. I don't know all of the details of the Solo case, but from what's been reported, I'm struggling to see the similarities.

And yeah, I think one of the biggest steps we need to take in reducing violence against everyone is re-examining traditional gender roles and stresses they put on individuals. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the raw data that speaks to the severity of IPV, depending on which partner is the abuser, or the very obvious fact that 220 lb man hitting a 100 lb woman has significantly more severe consequences to the victim than a 100 lb woman hitting a 220 lb man. Hell, switch it around and make it a woman who's built like a LB, drilling Rick Moranis' head against the side of an elevator and I'm going to have the exact same reaction. It's repulsive.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wait, are we talking judicially or socially? If it's judicially, then I completely agree. The justice system and law enforcement need to do a better job of responding to male victims of IPV. And socially, I'm in agreement that more needs to be done to provide resources for men. However the reason why we focus on women more is because the effects of Ray Rice cracking his wife in an elevator were certainly more pronounced than say when Solange Knowles attacked Jay-Z. And to witty's point, far more women end up seriously injured or dead as a result of intimate partner violence than men. The risk of serious consequences as a result of IPV are much higher for women than men. I don't think that's a hypocritical statement, as it's heavily backed up by data.

Do we have sufficient resources to address both? I'm not sure we even have sufficient resources to address one. Women's shelters are constantly underfunded, police are often inadequately trained to respond to domestic violence situations, or enforce restraining orders against men who are likely to escalate to the point of serious physical harm or murder.

I wasn't supporting it. I think it's ridiculous. I was just trying to explain where the problem lies.

Again, in legal terms, yes. If she's guilty then her team should take appropriate action. If she's a violent drunk who can't control herself, maybe she needs to seek treatment. That said, I don't think this case is analogous to the Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson cases. It's still wrong, and she should be ashamed of herself, but getting into a drunken brawl with your sister is much different than slugging your wife, who is considerably smaller than you, or beating a defenseless toddler with a tree branch. I don't know all of the details of the Solo case, but from what's been reported, I'm struggling to see the similarities.

And yeah, I think one of the biggest steps we need to take in reducing violence against everyone is re-examining traditional gender roles and stresses they put on individuals. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the raw data that speaks to the severity of IPV, depending on which partner is the abuser, or the very obvious fact that 220 lb man hitting a 100 lb woman has significantly more severe consequences to the victim than a 100 lb woman hitting a 220 lb man. Hell, switch it around and make it a woman who's built like a LB, drilling Rick Moranis' head against the side of an elevator and I'm going to have the exact same reaction. It's repulsive.

Its like The NHL 'Wheel of Justice.' The effect justifies the outrage.

If you tomahawk someone in the head and they dont get hurt then its fine, but they have a concussion then its evil.

A woman cant do as much damage to a man because shes smaller and ergo its less important because the likely consequences are less severe. So she has to pick up a weapon or plan an attack which makes it pre-meditated as opposed to 'in the heat of the moment.'

Pre-meditated attacks actually carry longer judicial sentences than emotional attacks.

Hope Solo is much like Ray Rice, shes a professional athlete. I guarantee you that most men outweigh her significantly but she could likely still lay out an epic beatdown on most average Joes.

The Macro Worldview of this isnt all that relevant; Hope Solo, a female professional athlete committed the same crime that some male professional athletes have also recently committed.

But she is getting a free pass from her team, her sponsors, public opinion and the law.

Why?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Again, in legal terms, yes. If she's guilty then her team should take appropriate action. If she's a violent drunk who can't control herself, maybe she needs to seek treatment. That said, I don't think this case is analogous to the Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson cases. It's still wrong, and she should be ashamed of herself, but getting into a drunken brawl with your sister is much different than slugging your wife, who is considerably smaller than you, or beating a defenseless toddler with a tree branch. I don't know all of the details of the Solo case, but from what's been reported, I'm struggling to see the similarities.

It doesn't matter who is inflicting the violence or abuse. Domestic violence is domestic violence whether it be a husband beating his wife, a wife beating her husband, a son beating his mother/father, etc. It is all domestic violence. While I don't know who Hope Solo's sister is I would bet that she is likely to be far less physically fit and weaker than Hope (who is a high level athlete that trains every day.) Being drunk doesn't lessen the matter either.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its like The NHL 'Wheel of Justice.' The effect justifies the outrage.

If you tomahawk someone in the head and they dont get hurt then its fine, but they have a concussion then its evil.

Well to some degree, shouldn't it? Should we not be more worried for those who are exposed to higher risks of harm?

Hope Solo is much like Ray Rice, shes a professional athlete. I guarantee you that most men outweigh her significantly but she could likely still lay out an epic beatdown on most average Joes.

The Macro Worldview of this isnt all that relevant; Hope Solo, a female professional athlete committed the same crime that some male professional athletes have also recently committed.

But she is getting a free pass from her team, her sponsors, public opinion and the law.

Why?

How are they the same crimes exactly? Adrian Peterson beat a four year-old with a tree branch. Ray Rice struck his fiancee twice and knocked her unconscious. Both were attacks against someone who wasn't fighting back and was at significant physical disadvantage. From the sounds of it, Solo got into a fistfight with her sister and something with her nephew. We still don't have all of the details. The equivalent would be an NFL player getting into a fight with their brother and 17 year-old nephew. I would certainly hope everyone's views on the matter would be a bit more nuanced than where they fall legally, or do we start lumping in pot dealers in the same category as meth dealers?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

It doesn't matter who is inflicting the violence or abuse. Domestic violence is domestic violence whether it be a husband beating his wife, a wife beating her husband, a son beating his mother/father, etc. It is all domestic violence. While I don't know who Hope Solo's sister is I would bet that she is likely to be far less physically fit and weaker than Hope (who is a high level athlete that trains every day.) Being drunk doesn't lessen the matter either.

Again, I don't know the entire details of the case. If it turns out she up and jumped her sister and started beating on her, then yeah it's similar to what Rice did. If it's one of those family arguments where both of them stand up and go at each other, then it's a bit of different situation. Legally, the courts might not see it that way, but I would hope most everyone's moral compass is not married to criminal code.

[rubecube]

I think the other thing to remember is with Rice and Peterson, we have convictions/confessions and photographic/video evidence. With Solo we have none of these things. Maybe that's why her sponsors and such are waiting it out. I think if she's convicted and it turns out what she did was pretty awful and her sponsors, team, etc., do nothing, then you can maybe claim hypocrisy.