Tiger and Rhianna - double standard?

[Huckleman2000]

Two young superstars have fender-benders following assaults from their SOs.
Both allegedly after arguments about infidelity revealed by text messages.

In both cases, the man is the one shamed by public opinion, even though circumstances seem to indicate that, in both cases, it was the woman who first escalated the fight to violence.

Is there a double standard at work, here?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

One expects unruly behavior from the entertainment industry, Huk. What's different is Tiger Woods is "Mr. Clean" and this behavior is very unexpected.

Personally I think Tiger's wife was completely out of control. She reportedly used a 3 iron where she should have used a pitching wedge.

 

[jeleane]

Well does mrs woods face look like rihanna's face? And I feel both men were wrong for the infidelity.chris brown was is wrong for putting his hands on rihanna. And I feel mrs woods should have used a 9 iron she probably didn't wanna hit him she probably just wanted to talk to him

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Two young superstars have fender-benders following assaults from their SOs.
Both allegedly after arguments about infidelity revealed by text messages.

In both cases, the man is the one shamed by public opinion, even though circumstances seem to indicate that, in both cases, it was the woman who first escalated the fight to violence.

Is there a double standard at work, here?

Sexual dimorphism has played a part in our laws for a while. Aside from that, Tiger's taking heat over keeping secrets, not really for having an affair or even driving somewhat intoxicated? If you keep secrets and your famous you have to pay for keeping secrets. Normal people beat up on each other all the time, cops come, they didn't see anything, and no one presses charges, no one pays any penalty. Tiger, Elliot Spitzer, that Governor from Carolina, John Edwards all like to fuck too much, ruin their families and careers just like for normal people. Ha, what if Tiger was on that VH1 Sex Rehab show?

 

[3113]

In both cases, the man is the one shamed by public opinion, even though circumstances seem to indicate that, in both cases, it was the woman who first escalated the fight to violence.

Is there a double standard at work, here?

Yes, if you're asking about the angle of woman hitting the man and not getting blamed vs. man hitting the woman and getting blamed. HOWEVER, we should note that the story of Chris Brown is:

"He got a booty call. He got a text. Rihanna saw it and she got upset. They started to argue. She got out of the car. He wanted her to get back in, so he grabbed her," the industry source said. "She pulled away. That's when she's told people he hit her."...Cops responding to a 911 call found the "Umbrella" singer with a split lip and contusions on either side of her forehead....Rihanna also reportedly had bite marks on her hand....

We can say Rihanna started or escalated the argument, but we can't accuse her of escalating the violence if she tried to walk away rather than hitting Chris, and if he was the one (the only one?) who grabbed, hit and bit. So I'm not so sure that there's a double standard there. Plenty of couples have arguments, loud and nasty arguments, that don't end with one of them bruised and bitten.

I see no double standard in the public disapproving of his hitting her, rather than taking her to task for starting an argument.

Now, on the other hand, the answer is "no" if you consider that in both cases the men were the more famous celebrities and widely viewed as "role models" in some respect or other. The focus in that instance isn't blaming the man for getting violent rather than blaming the woman for getting violent, the focus there is on the fact that these men were famous (more famous than the woman in Chris Brown's case) and part of that fame was in how they portrayed themselves--as gentlemen. Tiger Woods was famous for his golf, but also for presenting himself as a gentleman. He was not like John McEnroe who was famous for tennis, but also presented himself as a crazy hot-head.

So, public opinion is against Tiger because Tiger "fooled" the public. Tricked the public. Disappointed the public. Likewise Chris Brown. The public is easily duped, but it doesn't like to know that.

Which is to say, that I think that if a famous woman beats up on her nobody (or comparatively less-than-famous) guy, I would venture to guess that public opinion would be against her, not only because she beat up the man, but because the public expected better of her.

This isn't to say you're entirely wrong about there being a double standard in general where men are blamed more heavily then women in such instances. But we can't ignore the fame element. The big shame for these two men is in disappointing the public, not just in engaging in shameful behavior.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't see the "Tiger fooled the public" thing. He was (is?) a public model for good behavior, certainly. But that was in the way he deports himself in public. Yes, his image is tarnished by what he most probably was doing in private (but mostly by the prudishness of the American public). But the point is that he WAS doing it in private, and it wasn't something he was being hypocritical about in public. He is a golf pro, not a congressman or minister. He owes nothing to the public except his golf swing. Thus, it IS a private matter--it doesn't impinge on a single aspect of his public career.

His mistake, I think, was in apologizing to the public. He probably has a lot to apologize for within his family, but I don't think he owes the public an apology for anything. You don't have to be faithful to your spouse to have a legendary golf swing--and to get paid for and have public acclaim for that.

P.S. My guess is that he's still being a gentleman about the incident itself. Although with some justification, certainly, my guess is that his wife came after him with a golf club and he ran out of the house and into the car. As he got the car in gear, she took out his back windshield with the club (somewhat like Rita Mae Brown did with a shot gun to the back windshielf of Martina Navratilova's BMW under similar circumstances), whereupon he lost control of the car and ran over the hydrant and into the tree. And what he's doing now is taking it all onto himself. Infidelity is one thing. Murder with a golf club is another dimension altogether.

 

[midwestyankee]

SR is about right here: Tiger Woods comports himself with a good deal of grace and class amidst an amazing amount of attention and hoopla everywhere he goes. That he cheated on his wife is likely to have little or no impact on his relationship with the public.

One consequence that he seems to have avoided could have been due to Elin having a fairly decent golf swing. If she had had more slice in her swing, his looks might have suffered.

 

[Liar]

Did mrs Woods punch his husband in the face? I thought she beat up his car with a putter.

 

[loganforester]

Did mrs Woods punch his husband in the face? I thought she beat up his car with a putter.

Let's not minimize the situation here. Had he not fled their's a very good chance she might have hit him with the club, which I imagine would cause way more damage than a punch.

I certainly don't condone hitting women in any way, but attempted assault with a deadly weapon is not exactly a lessor offense now is it? If you can honestly answer yes, then we have that double standard we were talking about.

 

[3113]

I certainly don't condone hitting women in any way, but attempted assault with a deadly weapon is not exactly a lessor offense now is it? If you can honestly answer yes, then we have that double standard we were talking about.

As I said, yes, there is a double standard if we're talking about letting the woman off for doing violence, but not the man. But no, there isn't a double standard is we're talking about the public being disappointed in the less-than-exemplary behavior of a celebrity.

The question we have to ask is, if Mrs. Woods had been the famous golfer, would she be the one being tsked, tsked over by the public and shamed into apologizing for her temper and taking a club to her husband--rather than Mr. Woods being tsked, tsked for infidelity. Is the standard here a matter of sexism or celebrity?

 

[Verdad]

I don't think these are good examples of a double standard because, for one, they're not symmetrical.

In Rihanna's case, if I understand correctly, it was the guy who did both condemnable things. He first cheated on her, then resorted to violence. It's 2:0 for him, so to say—or rather, against him. What could she be reproached for? Maybe for a bad taste in partners, but that's beside the point. I'm not pretending to know the intricacies of what goes on between two people and how they drive each other nuts; I'm merely listing the obvious infringements, the ones under discussion, and in this case, both were done by him.

In the case of the Woods', though, the wrongdoings are split: he did the cheating, she did the violence. Each side has done something condemnable. By no means does one wrong justify the other, but the situation just doesn't map onto Rihanna's. For them to be comparable, Tiger would have had to catch his wife cheating, and after reproaching her for it, get his ass kicked by her.

Had that happened, not only would he get all the sympathies—which by all rights, he should—but his wife would be called double the monster Rihanna's boyfriend got called, and further, we wouldn't be wasting much time analyzing whether he was complicit in his own victimization and whether, maybe, he'd said something to provoke her rage. Perhaps there's a bit of a double standard in that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's an excellent cut to the chase, Verdad, thank you.

 

[michchick98]

He owes nothing to the public except his golf swing. Thus, it IS a private matter--it doesn't impinge on a single aspect of his public career.

I agree 100% with this. He owes the public nothing. If not for the incessant media coverage and probably a few nosy neighbors looking for their 15 minutes of fame, no one would know.

A week's worth of news coverage? Seriously?

I'm so glad I never decided to persue a career in journalism. I couldn't stand being one of the dreaded reporters who asks "how do you feel?" after someone has had something bad happen to them.

His mistake, I think, was in apologizing to the public. He probably has a lot to apologize for within his family, but I don't think he owes the public an apology for anything. You don't have to be faithful to your spouse to have a legendary golf swing--and to get paid for and have public acclaim for that.

Being the kind of man Tiger Woods is, I understand why he felt it necessary to apologize publicly, but I also wonder why he didn't release a statement and tell the press to mind their own damned business and find something NEWSWORTHY to report.

Frankly, I don't care what happened. I was tired of hearing about it after the first day of endless speculation and reports and since it doesn't effect my overall quality of life, it doesn't effect me.

Although, it'll be big news until the media finds something/someone else to latch onto.

 

[cloudy]

I don't think these are good examples of a double standard because, for one, they're not symmetrical.

In Rihanna's case, if I understand correctly, it was the guy who did both condemnable things. He first cheated on her, then resorted to violence. It's 2:0 for him, so to say—or rather, against him. What could she be reproached for? Maybe for a bad taste in partners, but that's beside the point. I'm not pretending to know the intricacies of what goes on between two people and how they drive each other nuts; I'm merely listing the obvious infringements, the ones under discussion, and in this case, both were done by him.

In the case of the Woods', though, the wrongdoings are split: he did the cheating, she did the violence. Each side has done something condemnable. By no means does one wrong justify the other, but the situation just doesn't map onto Rihanna's. For them to be comparable, Tiger would have had to catch his wife cheating, and after reproaching her for it, get his ass kicked by her.

Had that happened, not only would he get all the sympathies—which by all rights, he should—but his wife would be called double the monster Rihanna's boyfriend got called, and further, we wouldn't be wasting much time analyzing whether he was complicit in his own victimization and whether, maybe, he'd said something to provoke her rage. Perhaps there's a bit of a double standard in that.

This.

You can't compare the two, Huck...apples and oranges.

 

[jeleane]

yeah i don't understand why people act like he cheated on all of us. I ain't married to him this is between mr and mrs woods they going through what couples have gone through before only he's famous. He doesn't lose my respect as a golfer cause he a damn good golfer but he a dog I'm not too concerned about the dog part cause he ain't married to me and he's not fucking me.

 

[TE999]

"Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned"...especially when she's wielding a titanium driver.

Ol' Tiger showed good sense in hauling ass...but gets points off for execution.

 

[JackLuis]

Bet he won't do it again?

 

[Huckleman2000]

I've actually not made up my mind on this, but interesting comments.

As several have pointed out, it's sort of apples and oranges; Tiger didn't retaliate violently, as Chris Brown obviously did. And, while circumstances aren't very clear in either case, Rhianna tossed his phone out the window by some accounts. That's not exactly escalating to violence on the level of battery, but it's not constructive conflict resolution, either.

Where I see the double standard, though, is in the sort of generally satisfied attitude of many women I've seen comment on Tiger's situation. As TE999 pointed out, "Hell hath no fury..." is a cultural trope. In Chris Brown's case, as Verdad said, he both cheated and hit Rhianna in the resulting confrontation about the cheating, so he's doubly reviled in the prevailing zeitgeist. Tiger didn't hit back, so in his case, the whole affair has much more of a comic edge - the notion that "he had it coming", that his wife was somehow exerting some grrl power or something.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yeah, but the person who said "hell hath no fury" is a man.

Not one of the women who have commented here has said anything close to that.

Although, yeah-- in a world where women normally don't take physical action, it's rather refreshing to see one do so.

 

[3113]

Rhianna tossed his phone out the window by some accounts. That's not exactly escalating to violence on the level of battery, but it's not constructive conflict resolution, either.

Um...So. Rhianna was supposed to constructively resolve her anger over his cheating rather than tossing his phone out the window and walking away from him. As she did not--or so you seem to imply--she caused him to grab her, split her lip and hit her about the head.

Uh-huh. Blame the victim much?

Chris' phone was hardly a priceless heirloom or irreplaceable; while not the best way to deal with the issue, Rhianna's action can hardly be said to have been a reasonable cause for violence or even escalating the argument into violence. If anyone should have been exercising conflict resolutions, it ought to have been him.

Tiger is a different story. Mrs. Woods should have tossed out the phone, not come after him with intent to do bodily harm. In that instance, she was the one who most definitely escalated the conflict into violence.

 

[DeeZire]

This may help shed some light on Tiger's plight.

ORLANDO (BorowitzReport.com): The Borowitz Report has obtained the first draft of Tiger Woods' official statement regarding his recent woes:

To my fans:

I am writing to set the record straight about a number of rumors that have been spread about me, my actions, and my character.

Prior to last weekend, many of you knew me as a straight-arrow, a solid citizen, and a squeaky-clean sportsman with an unblemished record of exemplary behavior.

In point of fact, however, the Tiger Woods you thought you knew is actually a nonstop fucking machine.

Now, when I say "nonstop," I'm not using a figure of speech. In fact, if you took a cross-section of my brain, you'd see that half of it was devoted to golf and the other half to nailing slutty nightclub hostesses. And the second half is by far the bigger half.

I don't want to exaggerate, but if you have a vagina and I somehow haven't found it yet, that's what Malcolm Gladwell would call an outlier.

Why, you might ask, am I telling you all this, and at this time? The answer is simple: if you haven't done so already, please take your name off your voicemail. My wife might try to call you. If you don't believe me, check out the gynormous hashtag she scratched into my face.

In closing, I ask all of you for your patience, your forgiveness, but most of all, your pussy.

 

[sr71plt]

Cute article, DeeZire. On another note, it is sort of interesting that some on a porn forum seem to think that infidelity should be met by a full golf club swing to the head.

Don't think it's exactly double standard, but it seems to point to some pretty screwy standards.

 

[3113]

Cute article, DeeZire. On another note, it is sort of interesting that some on a porn forum seem to think that infidelity should be met by a full golf club swing to the head.

Don't think it's exactly double standard, but it seems to point to some pretty screwy standards.

Um, no. If either of these couples had an open relationship, were swingers, or if either woman had agreed that the man could go off and have sex with as many ladies as he liked, then, being on a porn form, we'd have no problem at all with what these gents did--and presumably, neither would their ladies.

The public might be shocked and appalled by their swinging lifestyle, but we would not be. If we were, that would, indeed, be hypocritical of us.

But it is NOT hypocritical of us on a porn site to feel that if a couple agrees on monogamy as important to their relationship, and makes promises of monogamy, that if either one does not hold to that then they are being dishonest people. Wanting people to be monogamous because we feel that monogamy is moral or ethical is NOT the same as wanting people to be honorable and honest in a relationship. Or do you take writing/reading porn as meaning that we approve of dishonesty, lying, cheating or fraud? Your standards are pretty screwy if you equate relaxed ethics regarding sexual positions and partners and relationships with a complete disregard for all ethics and morals.

What we're talking about here is someone who, in the relationship, committed fraud. If having an open relationship with multiple partners was agreed upon when the two got together, then we'd have no objection to any of it, as it would not be fraud. And in that instance, the objections of the ladies would be inappropriate as the men had not lied to them. But I don't see that as being the case in either one, do you?

So where, exactly, is it screwy for us on this site to have such standards? Unless we're all writing loving wives tales?

 

[sr71plt]

Um, no. If either of these couples had an open relationship, were swingers, or if either woman had agreed that the man could go off and have sex with as many ladies as he liked, then, being on a porn form, we'd have no problem at all with what these gents did--and presumably, neither would their ladies.

The public might be shocked and appalled by their swinging lifestyle, but we would not be. If we were, that would, indeed, be hypocritical of us.

But it is NOT hypocritical of us on a porn site to feel that if a couple agrees on monogamy as important to their relationship, and makes promises of monogamy, that if either one does not hold to that then they are being dishonest people.

Isn't it presumptuous of you to conclude you know what this couple's life style is? You make some pretty specific and detailed presumptions here about something you know nothing about.

Underneath it all aren't you just being the prude and judging something that's none of your damn business? -- and on a porn board. I find that fundamentally hypocritical.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You know srplt I bet you are right. I bet both of those women were perfectly happy, in the past, if their SO's fucked around. I bet both of them were just on the rag this time.

We should not judge these men based on the actions of the wives and girlfriends who are angry enough to take after them with a golfclub. The nuances of empathy are meaningless-- none of us can possibly draw conclusions about the special and unique snowflakes that are these two relationships.