NOW: Raiders' Coach Allegedly Hit Wife, Must be Fired
November 8th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.National Organization for Women president Terry O'Neill has proclaimed that Oakland Raiders head coach Tom Cable must lose his job because he apparently hit his first wife and may have done the same to a past girlfriend. As this article tells us, O'Neill asks why anyone who has allegedly committed DV in the past should be permitted to coach in the NFL (Washington Post, 11/6/09). What the connection is between Cable's past misdeeds regarding his partners and his fitness to coach a professional football team remains unclear.
But from I can gather of what O'Neill said, there doesn't need to be a connection. Recently NOW also demanded that New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate be removed from his elected position because he pulled his unwilling girlfriend through a hallway. That claim of course had profound implications for the democratic process that the demand for Cable's ouster does not. Before his conviction on the misdemeanor charge, NOW had declared the entire New York State Senate to be a "hostile work environment," presumably because of Monserrate's presence there. The notion that the voters of Monserrate's district should be the ones to decide whether he remains in office is simply ignored by NOW. NOW of NY has decided he is unfit to represent his district and that seems to be all there is to it.
And so it is with the Oakland football team, which is of course a private entity. That fact tells us where NOW is going with this. As far as I can tell, the commission of any act of domestic violence will move NOW to demand the discharge from employment of any male person. To date they haven't demanded that any woman be fired for DV, so until they do, I'll assume they're confining their outrage to the actions of men.
But consider the implications of O'Neill's demand that Cable be fired. According to her, it is a condition of employment - presumably at any job - that a man never has committed an act of domestic violence in the past. Mail carriers, plumbers, lawyers, doctors, all must be vetted according to (and presumably by) NOW. Never mind that no law requires any such thing. Never mind that Cable is protected by a collective bargaining agreement, which again requires no such thing. In other words, I suspect that Al Davis couldn't fire Cable for his past marital actions even if he wanted to.
In fact, I'm giving NOW the benefit of the doubt. I've been assuming that they're only basing their demand on what Cable's admitted to doing. The simple fact though, is that they're also tossing in allegations of DV as grounds for firing. That's why O'Neill says that women "do not make such accusations lightly." Her meaning is that, even though they're only accusations, they must be true.
Interestingly enough, O'Neill's words are contradicted by a significant amount of police research. At least one study, referred to here, shows that as many as 80% of all DV complaints received by police involve no serious physical violence at all (AZ Central, 8/28/09). Another study by the Morrison Institute of Arizona State University found that at most 37% of their sample of DV complaints that actually resulted in a criminal charge involved any form of physical violence, no matter how slight. In fact, because most of those charges were for "assault" and because the definition of that charge includes the mere threat of the use of force or violence, the actual number is less than 37%, but the report doesn't explain just how much less.
The above is not to suggest that men or women in volatile domestic situations can't have a genuine fear for their safety even without actual violence occurring. Of course they can. I only mention those studies because the popular conception of DV, actively promoted by O'Neill and NOW, is of "battering." Indeed, as the article shows, they tend to use the terms interchangeably, which gives the false impression that every woman who claims to be a victim of DV has been battered, and every man who's been arrested for DV is a batterer. Their elision of the difference is by no means accidental.
So let's be clear. The verb "to batter" means, in its non-legal definition, actual, and repeated violence using heavy blows which cause physical harm. It is, in short the type of domestic violence the state has a genuine interest in punishing and trying to stop. Domestic violence, even when the allegations are real, is a far, far broader term. The vast majority of DV reports to police involve no physical violence or injury at all.
Back to Cable, though. I can easily see him getting fired. The Raiders look like a far worse team than they ought to be, given the players they put on the field. Of course the lynchpin of any team, the quarterback, is no prize either. Whoever is at fault, their performance on the field is subpar. That's the type of thing that can get you fired.
"));
19 queries. 0.334 seconds.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
It appears that an "allegation" is as good as a "conviction." There is no difference.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Exactly NE.
So too bad for all of those fathers that had that DV "Silver Bullet" used in a divorce proceeding.
I guess there will be MILLIONS of un-hireable men out there.
Gotta love our society.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
This is of the topic but I just happen to get this clip from a very widely viewed TV show known as (W5) in Canada Its about "Parental Alienation" it may not be recognized by some expert but its getting a lot of attention from the media in this case all over Canadians homes.
very good report
here's the address:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091106/w5_divorce_091107/20091107?hub=Canada
November 8th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Aghhh, the National Organization of Trolls, as B. Chapin as referred to them. lol.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Does this mean that if someone alleges that Terry O'Neill has committed an act of DV against him/her, we can get Terry fired from her job at NOW? :)
November 8th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Nothing short of a separate equivalent to our legal system in which women judge men will satisfy the National Organisation of Women.
They already freely engage in character assassination with the flimsiest of reasons. Imagine the legal system under NOW. Smear and innuendo would replace sworn testimony and evidence. Guilt would be virtually predetermined on the basis of gender.
As if it isn't bad enough already.
Iusticia continues to weep.
Sadly they are tears of blood.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
So what this hysterical lady is saying is if anyone hits their spouse..they should never be employed again...Is that what she is alluding to??
Well then, Since 70% of all fights..the women strike first; if men were conditioned to tell instead of take it like a man....There would be tragic consequences for the "hysteria community".
The "hysteria community" need to learn a hard lesson, (that most young boys are taught at an early age)..."those that live in glass houses should not throw stones".
November 8th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
NOW hates football....so they have to attack....i have afew names to call them but not sure what i can get away with on here...one begins with a c...
November 8th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
just think if the liberal democrats and feminists really take over...under socialism they like to silence speech just like communism....and men would not be able to talk back to them!!
November 8th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Any boy born will be born in chains for the safety of women...
November 8th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
write your politician and or representative...on face book...cut women only govt programs for real equality...i have...and will keep doing it...
November 9th, 2009 at 12:43 am
NOW is throwing its weight around, as usual. It is a political bully that threatens, harasses, and intimidates as much as possible. Whether or not the coach did something bad is separate from his ability to coach a game.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Didn't Hillary Clinton throw a lamp at her husband Bill?
November 9th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Come on Stan, that's totally justified under Patriarchy Theory...don't you know???? And this would not work both ways, duh........it only applys to men.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:49 am
He admitted to bopping his wife 20 years ago. Personally, I tend to feel this is largely rooted in the failed attempt to have him criminally charged for hitting another coach. Painting the guy as an evil wife beater probably be fuel for an upcoming civil suit. I'm not saying it's okay to hit another person, but really, 20 years ago. Let's get real here, this is just NOW trying to make themselves into the power they think themselves to be.
Tom Cable just isn't a head coach. As a Raiders' fan I admire his passion for the club, and I think he'd make a great line coach. But he's not a head coach. JaMarcus Russell is the biggest flop since Ryan Leaf and needs to be gotten rid of.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:33 am
My ex-wife hit me- Should she never have another job in her life? Does NOW want to pick what jobs people can and can't have?
November 9th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Honestly, I believe the best thing to do with regards to NOW on ridiculous issues such as this, is to openly and blatantly recognize their IRRELEVANCY. They are irrelevant, they are inane, and ultimately pointless if such vulgar and childish behavior is all that they can stand for.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I don't favor anyone hitting anyone under any circumstances, and I for one have never struck a woman.
But I did have the experience of listening (through an apartment floor/ceiling) to the conflict-resolution rituals of a couple some years back.
It went something like this, only about fifty times that I heard:
First, all is quiet
Then, the female starts complaining, and he says nothing which can be heard. She then escalates to berating the guy. "Why don't you...", "You're really being a loser..." (her form or encouragement one imagines), etc.
Her unkind comments escalate to nasty, and then go on -- in tone and content -- to be downright horrible.
The guy still doesn't say much.
Then the physical stuff starts (kind of hard to know who starts that), but things are being thrown, and eventually she screams.
He utters a few expletive phrases which include "b-tch" and "f-cking b-tch".
Then after a lot of scuffling sounds, more of her screaming, etc., a few door slams and such, it winds down, often resulting in grunts and moans emanating from the floorboards
under their bedroom -- clearly a shift from a fighting to something else.
Having heard that particular sequence many times, I wonder if and when "domestic violence" parlance will ever have some technical terminology to describe the female verbal behavior which, to my ears, was always the start in that couple of what wound up getting physical.
Or is nasty female verbal behavior yet another area in which we have conferred "quasi judicial immunity" to the offending (and offensive) party in this country?
It's been my experience in life that women, when being aggressive, are more verbal, and that many men are much less verbal, and more physical.
We criminalize male physical aggression while immunizing female verbal aggression from liability -- even when the female's verbal aggression is being used to "bait" the predictable male physical aggression response.
How typical.
But what better way to get a steady stream of cases than to take a widely prevalent pattern of human behavior (like humans having sex and reproducing) and insert government right into the middle of it as the arbiter at every step of the process? And what better way to get an even larger stream of cases than to have an asymmetrical set of policies which exploit common, hardwired, cognitive differences between two groups?
Government is the problem in America, and until America's government actually becomes government by the people for the people, zealous groups like "NOW" will continue to be able to harness American "legislators" to their purposes.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Watched Judge Judy tear into a woman last week. Woman was counter-suiing a guy and was counter-suiing because she said the guy hit her or abused her. She then asked if she continued her relationship with him and was inimate with him after that. She hemmed and hawed and finally admitted she was. Judge Judy dismissed her claims right there.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:48 am
yeah, when you're on top, you can do no wrong. when you mess up in your personal life, you'd better be handling the business at work. surprised i didn't see anything on here about Rihanna's interview from over the weekend. was hoping to hear Glenn's take on that.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Wonder how Mrs. Cable feels about the idea of her multi million $ household incoming disappearing on account of NOW.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
According to NOW, any man who isn't a rich sugar daddy to feminists should be destitute and living under a bridge.
Still paying child support and spousal support, of course.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Robert writes:
"But consider the implications of O'Neill's demand that Cable be fired. According to her, it is a condition of employment - presumably at any job - that a man never has committed an act of domestic violence in the past. Mail carriers, plumbers, lawyers, doctors, all must be vetted according to (and presumably by) NOW. Never mind that no law requires any such thing."
- Well,...crazier things have happened. The radical can become the norm. We've witnessed it already and more is on the way.
In the case for blocking the non-sense an effective anti-crazy pill is public refutation based upon fact, reason and the will to state such matters. (We all got to do some of this, guys).
November 9th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
recently noticed a news clip of a 13-year old girl who had won the right to play football on the boy's team at her high school. Hmm. Care to tackle that? I mean, as a male on either team, just how would you handle that? As much as both head coaches told you to treat her just like a guy, you know deep in your heart that if you hurt that little girl, you are in trouble. At some point, that girl is going to catch a touchdown pass, and scramble across the goal line and score. The bleachers on both sides will leap to their feet and cheer, because that girl will have made history. From her end zone victory dance, she will feel the pride of accomplishment, the adulation of the crowd.. and she may not be able to avoid noticing the broken and bleeding bodies of the men on both teams who were required to sacrifice everything for her dream...
Standing upon our shoulders, exulting upon a victory over us, making their success our shame, destroying us at every opportunity, how do they expect that we shall be able to carry them much further...
from her victory dance in the end zone, she will feel the pride of accomplishment, the adulation of the crowd
November 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
recently noticed a news clip of a 13-year old girl who had won the right to play football on the boy's team at her high school. Hmm. Care to tackle that? I mean, as a male on either team, just how would you handle that? As much as both head coaches told you to treat her just like a guy, you know deep in your heart that if you hurt that little girl, you are in trouble. At some point, that girl is going to catch a touchdown pass, and scramble across the goal line and score. The bleachers on both sides will leap to their feet and cheer, because that girl will have made history. From her end zone victory dance, she will feel the pride of accomplishment, the adulation of the crowd.. and she may not be able to avoid noticing the broken and bleeding bodies of the men on both teams who were required to sacrifice everything for her dream...
Standing upon our shoulders, exulting upon a victory over us, making their success our shame, destroying us at every opportunity, how do they expect that we shall be able to carry them much further..
November 10th, 2009 at 1:46 am
NOW are insane bigots.