Anyone that thinks what Stephen A said equates to "she deserved to be raped because of her short skirt" is a simpleton and incapable of actual intelligent thought.

 

You were more than welcome to quote my post and disagree with me. You would have gotten a response. This name-calling stuff is bush league and I'm not interested in it.

You're more than welcome to quote my post and disagree with me. You would have gotten a response. This name-calling stuff is bush league and I'm not interested in it.

 

Whoa. I didn't look at anyone's post to see who said such a thing.

 

However, if you equate what he said with the "she was asking for it" thinking then a)I'm shocked because your high level of intelligence would seem to make that impossible and b)while my words were harsh I'll stand behind the point that it's a simplistic not-well-conceived notion.

For what it's worth, he initially said that women should "make sure we don't do anything to provoke wrong actions" and that women need to learn to do "their part" in not provoking abuse, which I think most people rightly interpreted to be the analogue of the "maybe if women didn't wear short skirts they wouldn't get raped" mindset. It's like saying "men will be men, so women should straighten up if they want to be safe."

 

So this is the quote?

 

Simplistic.

 

Ignoring context.

 

The only way it would be valid is if he went easy on the offender which, of course, he did not.

 

I'd add that in the case of a sexual assault where some ignorant person may try to use the "short skirt" defense the one thing ignored is that the female did nothing in her actions. So if you truly believe the "short skirt" defense is analogous to his argument of "not provoking" you are COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that he was saying "if provoked" and ignoring the meaning behind that comment. "If provoked" does not apply in the sexual assault example because wearing clothes a certain way is not provoking. Hitting another person IS provoking.

 

You are 100% off base in your analogy and , frankly, I'm stunned. As one of the better thinkers on here this is below your level. I say that with the utmost of respect.

 

I will admit though that I was wrong in assuming that a person who makes this claim is not intelligent. You've proven me wrong in that assumption.

Again, I think Stephen A. fell victim to the Ravens not doing anything more than a 2 game suspension. You can't call out an organization for not doing anything to stand up for women's rights and have ESPN not then react to a controversial remark about the same subject.

Some tidbits from PFT:

 

He won’t appear on ESPN2’s First Take or ESPN Radio (which he’s leaving for Sirius Mad Dog Radio anyway) until August 6.

 

On one hand, stupid opinions and/or good opinions articulated stupidly can be stupid enough to result in tangible employment consequences. On the other hand, the “embrace debate” premise of First Take creates an environment in which stupid opinions and/or good opinions articulated stupidly are encouraged, if not required.

 

Last year, stupid opinions about Robert Griffin III on First Take got Rob Parker fired. Now, Smith has been suspended and possibly placed on a leash so short that he’ll have to tiptoe on eggshells to avoid stepping on a land mine.

 

Maybe the problem isn’t Parker or Smith but the show itself. Debate should be authentic and organic. When a network demands that a pair of analysts come up with diametrically opposed and yet equally hot takes on multiple topics per day, it’s somewhat amazing that the format hasn’t claimed more careers.

 

Stephen A. Smith gets a one-week suspension | ProFootballTalk

Looks more and more like a ratings ploy to me.

So Stephen A. is already leaving ESPN Radio, wonder if that figured into the decision any.

 

And, Stephen A. did exactly what his show is supposed to do, amp up the hot topics, and he got suspended for it.

 

I still would not have apologized if I was Stephen A. and from this point on if I have a good option vs. viewing something on ESPN I will probably go with the option.

Looks more and more like a ratings ploy to me.

 

Not sure, if Smith comes back like a ball of fire then maybe, but if he comes back and tip toes then it is the beginning of the end for First Take.

 

To me the issue is larger for ESPN, they are threatening their own successful programming and they are punishing Smith for being exactly what they want him to be.

So Stephen A. is already leaving ESPN Radio, wonder if that figured into the decision any.

 

And, Stephen A. did exactly what his show is supposed to do, amp up the hot topics, and he got suspended for it.

 

I still would not have apologized if I was Stephen A. and from this point on if I have a good option vs. viewing something on ESPN I will probably go with the option.

 

ESPN hasn't had watchable programming in years IMO.

ESPN hasn't had watchable programming in years IMO.

 

In your opinion, based on this one incident alone and the players involved, is ESPN helping ESPN or hurting ESPN?

In your opinion, based on this one incident alone and the players involved, is ESPN helping ESPN or hurting ESPN?

 

The ESPN Shows like this are nothing more than WWE Preshows, one in the same.

In your opinion, based on this one incident alone and the players involved, is ESPN helping ESPN or hurting ESPN?

 

I don't think this incident will have the slightest impact honestly.

The ESPN Shows like this are nothing more than WWE Preshows, one in the same.

 

To me WWE preshows are comedy and advertisements.

 

There are times I think First Take is a quality show. Normally when they have an incident to analyze vs. them trying to make their own news.

We tell people all of the time to not put themselves in a situation that is known to lead to problems. That's what he said.

 

We are getting hung up on individual words and are parsing. His point was clear.

 

Agreed.

To me WWE preshows are comedy and advertisements.

 

There are times I think First Take is a quality show. Normally when they have an incident to analyze vs. them trying to make their own news.

 

I get these shows mixed up. Is First Take the one with Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon?