RebKell's Junkie Boards

[pilight]

rethink domestic violence punishments and solutions

https://www.swishappeal.com/wnba/2019/8/27/20833142/wnba-wnbpa-rethinking-domestic-violence-punishments-solutions-riquna-williams-natasha-howard

[ClayK]

I'm unclear on what she's suggesting here ...

As far as I can tell, she doesn't advocate a specific policy, and in fact says there's no evidence that the NFL crackdown has lowered the incidence of domestic violence among NFL players. But what about the publicity? And how much has been avoided because of heightened awareness for both partners?

But maybe I missed something. What does she propose?

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[FrozenLVFan]

She, like many other discussants of this problem, has ignored the fact that Williams pulled a gun on someone and threatened to kill him, in favor of cloaking this threat in IPV issues. How many people here would want that person working in their place of business?

The truest thing on that webpage was the comment that said "...the Sparks would have made a safer play by not signing someone who had been charged after an extensive investigation. There were plenty of questions raised after the announcement by the team of what were they thinking." How many people here would hire someone with this history?

[ClayK]

[justintyme]

My issue here is that she is treating a sports league as if it were any run-of-the-mill industry where the issues come down mostly to doing what is right for the company and their employees, and striking a balance that is deemed "fair" to all parties.

Yet it ignores the reason why advocates have specifically targeted these leagues and have asked them to take a lead in IPV related cases. It ignores why advocates have made it a point to create social backlash and incentivize "PR Stunts" as she calls them. And she is being very flippant and reductive in her assumptions about what IPV survivors "actually need".

Unlike most industries, sports leagues are a cultural phenomenon. They have an out-sized ability to set and shape cultural norms as children--and even adults--are influenced by both the athletes themselves and the subculture that permeates throughout them. Men's sports in particular have long had a huge effect on how our culture defines "masculinity". Young boys grow up idolizing the "manly men" of sports, the "jocks" became the most popular boys in high school, and these boys imitate the actions/behavior of their idols while being mentored and "taught to be men" by coaches who are fully immersed in sports subculture. And think about what that subculture has brought us: phrases like "locker room talk" or "you play/throw/hit like a girl", etc.

So, the reason sports leagues were targeted (specifically the male leagues) was because the fight against IPV is a fight to change cultural assumptions. It is about teaching young men that abuse and manipulation is not acceptable behavior. And what better place to start than one of the most powerful shapers of masculine culture out there. And once you start with the male sports leagues, it becomes essential that all sports league continue with the same message. Because the issue is much deeper than just with men, as the WNBA's issues can attest to, and the momentum of cultural change must be maintained.

So, yes, these leagues must be seen taking it seriously. And they must be holding their players accountable. And of course they should be offering more than just simple punishment (which seemed like a bit of a false dichotomy on the author's part here--if the league were just firing people and casting them off with no other help, that would be a major issue in its own right--you can both punish and help simultaneously).

And as to why? Well, I've mentioned it before but a great example came up just the other day. The fight against IPV is one that will be won or lost on a cultural level, not in the criminal justice system. Every time someone says something about how the "courts will decide" I cringe a little, since the courts are horribly inefficient at protecting people, and often just leave the survivor doubly traumatized after they have to relive their ordeal.

This was seen by a jury in the Mateen Cleaves case:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FZAkij-5YBQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That is 12 people, 9 of them women even, who unanimously voted not guilty. This is a woman who obviously suffered something traumatic. You don't run away in your underwear screaming and crying twice because you are having a grand ol' time in that room. But the courts were not her answer because the cards are stacked in the favor of the accused in a court of law (by design, and with good reason). You don't want to make it easier to convict people because you open up issues with racism and wrongful convictions. So the fight has to be won before we get to this point. Once someone has to be in the courtroom, we've already lost.

I called the author's take on what IPV survivors/perpetrators "need" reductive. One of the reasons for that is that she is looking at only those immediately involved. As I said, the reason for the backlash, the reason for the punishment, the reason for the leagues to take a definitive stand is that it isn't just about those directly involved, its about cultural awareness and perhaps the case of IPV that never happens. Stopping it from ever happening in the first place is what every potential IPV survivor really "needs".

_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

[ClayK]

Great post ... as usual.

The article was reductive, trying to frame the issue within contracts and negotiations -- which might OK, if solutions were offered.

Now as an introductory piece, laying out the limitations that must be worked with, it makes sense, but there needs to be more than an introduction -- a conclusion would be nice -- to make much impact.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[willtalk]

[ClayK]

This is hairsplitting. To take out a deadly weapon and threaten bodily harm is a serious crime, regardless if the weapon is brandished or not.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[justintyme]

[justintyme]

[GlennMacGrady]

I thought that article was pretty good and balanced.

JIT, your speech was impassioned and eloquent, as I would expect. But, in my opinion, substantively naive. Disciplinary rules in a handful of sports leagues, especially invisible women's sports leagues like the WNBA, will not have any measurable impact on the frequency of domestic or other forms of violence in our culture. It's a nice belief, but a belief that is fantasy.

The way to stop violence is the real old fashioned way: inculcation of socially appropriate behaviors and good morals from a young age by strong parental guidance, effective school education, supportive neighborhood role models and peer influence, and regular attendance at church. To the extent a child or young adult has not had strong family values (especially a father with boys), has not paid attention in school, has no good neighborhood role models and peer pressure, and has never gotten a religious spiritual and moral education -- to that same extent he or she will probably end up violent, unemployed, on drugs, and/or in legal troubles or jail.

Disciplining a few football and WNBA players won't make a drop of spit difference to the vast oceans of young people now growing up without the foregoing institutional supports. It will be as effective as peeing on a forest fire, which may make you feel good, but no one's gonna notice and it ain't going to put out any flames.

Willtalk makes a valid point. Let me say it a different way. The only thing we've heard about the Riquna Williams gun allegation is the prosecutor's evidence. We haven't heard Williams' side (or Howard's side). It's wrong to form judgments without hearing the defense evidence, which likely will be self-defense. Self-defense is not a hair-split; it's a legal right. Self-defense with a gun is, under appropriate circumstance, a constitutional right under the Supreme Court's Heller case. If the guy was manhandling, assaulting or battering Williams as he evicted her from his house, she may have had a legal right to do what she did to protect herself. We don't know any of this yet.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/MagicBusBasketball

[justintyme]

I absolutely disagree that culture cannot be changed by shifting the narrative in norm defining institutions.

Perhaps one of the best examples is LGBTQ+ acceptance and the impact that on screen depictions had on normalizing it within our culture.

There is a reason why sports stars have platforms, and why those platforms scare others enough to backlash against the athletes when their message stands counter to something they believe.

I do agree that the WNBA is not really the true battleground for shifting culture, unlike the other high profile leagues. But having a message in major women's leagues that is congruent with that of the men's leagues is important, and as I noted earlier it highlights some important distinctions that can get lost when IPV is made solely into a man's issue.

_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

[GlennMacGrady]

I agree that norm influencing (which I prefer over norm "defining") institutions can influence culture, which is almost a circular tautology. We apparently disagree as to whether a professional sports league -- or, more specifically, the domestic violence disciplinary rules of a professional sports league -- can influence the national level of violence. I obviously think the normative effect will be trivial to indiscernible and you don't.

That's not to say I oppose such sports league rules. I'm in favor, as long as they have vigorous due process protections for the accused, which are going to have to be akin to the due process rules of the legal system. (If you want to know why, see THIS.)

If I'm right about what the rules have to be, that gives your argument a problem. You've said in effect, I think, that the biggest hitter norm influencing institution against violence in the country, the collective legal systems of 51 governments, isn't enough to change the domestic violence culture. If it isn't, then how can some microscopic, teeny-weeny legal system clone buried in a few sports contracts produce any incremental reduction in nationwide violence?

A CBA clause isn't Hollywood or Netflix, or a highly visible individual norm influencer such as Gandhi, Ellen or even Colin Kaepernick.

But as the site's Dylan Thomas, we need you to continue to "rage, rage against the dying of the light", as you see it. And I'll continue to throw some cautionary shade.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/MagicBusBasketball

[Randy]

So in summary - Ms. Livinston nice try but you've changed no minds. The outraged are perfectly happy in their outrage.

[ClayK]

[justintyme]

Qui tacet consentire videtur.

_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

[Randy]

So who is the evil party: Howard or her ex? Is R. Williams evil?

[justintyme]

[pilight]

[Randy]

Arrest warrant issued for DeMarcus Cousins for threatening to put a bullet into his ex-gf's head. We will now see how the NBA deals with domestic violence charges.

[GlennMacGrady]

[Stormeo]

Just now read the article. Some thoughts:

1) Hate the title. “WNBA fans need to move beyond outrage”? WNBA fans haven’t done anything wrong last time I checked, and are entitled to feel however they want about this. And it’s certainly not on us to create solutions. Fans, the main audience of the article, might be turned off to reading this with that title.
2) The article content ends up having no correlation to the title, too? Did Amy Livingston title this, or an uninformed Swish Appeal mod?
3) I kind of felt patronized reading this? As if the average fan doesn’t at least understand the existence of nuances when it comes to the basics of labor contracts. It seems that she thinks us fans are calling for these players’ heads - we really aren’t. We just want the league to do as much as it legally can (investigations and updates on them, highly consider expanding personal conduct policy as it pertains to DV, basically not sweeping shit under the rug at minimum) to make it clear that it doesn’t tolerate this shit. Also questioning if player suspension is worth it to victims? As if it’s not important to punish a player for violating personal conduct policy? That’s how it came off to me. The article felt reductive, out of touch, and unnecessary.

And fwiw, I think Howard should get suspended; and I personally don’t want her on the Storm roster next season. Any success we have gotten since that situation was publicized feels and will feel tainted for me going forward until she’s off the roster. I’m worried we haven’t had any updates since the front office announced their investigation on her - I don’t want any situation like this swept under the rug. Can’t root for this team anymore if that ends up happening.

[Randy]

[FrozenLVFan]

At least the NBA and the Lakers issued statements as soon as this issue came to light, instead of ignoring it.

[ClayK]