In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Justifiable Homicide?

Forgive me for again posting about something that is a little bit “inside baseball” for me. Many of you don’t know this story; maybe would never have heard of it, because I suspect the readership of this blog is almost devoid of boxing fans. I am a boxing fan.

First, about boxing. Every boxing fan I know grew up with it. I watched with my father as a child — I remember big fights from the early eighties, when I was in single-digits. I’m a serious fan — I keep a scorecard. I’m sure some commenters will say this is a barbaric sport, that it ought to be banned. There’s some merit in this argument, and great fighters are often (though not always) born of poverty and pain that I wouldn’t wish on anyone. I can never quite seem to convey the poetry in this tragic sport, and I won’t try to justify my passion. I merely mean to explain that I know this sport.

Until recently, though I knew the broad outlines, I really didn’t know what drove Emile Griffith to beat Benny Paret to death. This is why:

The last time he and Benny (Kid) Paret — his opponent tonight at Madison Square Garden — met at the weigh-in scales, before their fight six months earlier, Benny did the unthinkable. Swished his limp wrist and hissed that word, maricón. Thank God the reporters pretended it didn’t happen. Thank God it was 1961.

Then Paret nailed the insult to the wall of Griffith’s heart, winning a controversial decision that night and taking back the world welterweight crown that Emile had snatched from him nearly a half year before. Now it’s their third fight, the clincher. The fear of what Benny might do at the weigh-in climbs up Emile’s throat. “If he says anything to me before the fight, I’ll knock him out,” he mutters to Clancy.

Emile steps on the scales. “Watch out,” hisses Clancy. Too late: Benny’s already slipped behind him, wriggling his body, thrusting his pelvis, grabbing Emile’s ass. “Hey, maricón,” Paret coos, “I’m going to get you and your husband.”

So what? Some macho guy gets offended that some other macho guy calls him a fag? Well, Griffith is gay. He still can’t come out and say it. He still runs from it. He says:

“I’m not gay! It’s craziness. I go to gay bars to see my friends. What’s the difference? I have my drink and talk to people, same as any bar. Then I finish and go outside. I don’t do anything wrong.”

Then he says:

“I will dance with anybody. I’ve chased men and women. I like men and women both. But I don’t like that word: homosexual, gay or faggot. I don’t know what I am. I love men and women the same, but if you ask me which is better … I like women.”

So he can’t bear to say it, even now — he’s bi, or maybe he’s gay, and everyone in the boxing world knew it, even in the 1960’s.

Many fighters pay a price for their ring years. Griffith fought over 100 pro fights (something that just isn’t done today) with little ill effect. He paid the price, instead, for being gay in the wrong place at the wrong time:

He ends up in Hombre, a gay bar on West 41st Street hard by the Port Authority. He can relax more in gay bars than in straight ones, he tells people, because the people there are far less likely to challenge him to a fight. But suddenly he feels so woozy that he wonders if someone put something in his drink. He steps outside. Here comes the smoke.

A gang of men jumps him, beats him with pipes, robs him and leaves him for dead on the street. Later he staggers onto the wrong train, but finally, after hours have passed, he stumbles home. That’s what Emile tells LaPorte, who comes to the Griffith home at the request of Emile’s frightened mother and takes him to the hospital. . . .

He nearly dies in the hospital. His battered kidneys fail, he goes on dialysis, then his spine gets infected. The severity and site of the beating suggests a gay bashing, a hate crime, but no one will ever know. By the time Emile comes home, two months later, he remembers almost nothing of it.

Now, as a boxing fan, I’m a fan of technique, and I’m weary of wars that leave each fighter diminished. I have a vague recollection of Deuk Koo Kim dying in the ring against Ray Mancini, an event that left Mancini scarred (that was 1982, and I was ten). My favorite fighter, Paul Ingle, an English featherweight from Yorkshire and a defensive wizard, nearly died after a bad beating. It’s had an effect on me. I often wince at the fights other people call “fight of the year,” wars in a phone-booth. I much prefer tactical chess matches that other folks think are a snooze — the boxer handily outpointing the puncher.

But I feel differently about Griffith/Paret, now that I know. I remember, in college, reading a small piece in the Washington Blade about a street gay-bash. It went about like this: “Four young men in a Jeep Cherokee assaulted a man they apparently believed was gay. One of the assailants had a baseball bat. The victim sustained hand injuries, but the attackers fled the scene when he seized the bat. Police are asking for tips.” I felt like cheering for the guy.

I feel like standing up for Emile Griffith. I feel like telling him he can come out now. That it’s a different world — but he wasn’t beaten in the 60’s. The street attack was in the 90’s. So maybe he knows better than me that it’s not so different now.

I feel like somebody ought to get mad for Emile Griffith — for all he went through. I don’t know what it’s like to beat a man to death, and I hope I never do. But I’m not satisfied with telling Griffith that it’s okay, that nobody blames him. I’m not satisfied with saying that Griffith didn’t mean to kill Paret. What I really feel is, so what if he did?


10 thoughts on Justifiable Homicide?

  1. I don’t have much to say about this since I’m unfamiliar with the boxing world, but I can certainly identify with your last statement, as much as it shames me. I recently saw something about this on a TV news magazine and didn’t give it any thought. Maybe I should be watching the sports stories…

  2. yeah…i’m with lauren on that last one. i mean, the angry girl in me says “so what”, and then the rational girl kicks in and says….no, not really, rational girl’s not really saying much on this one.

    if i didn’t feel so brain dead after a day of teaching, i’d find something better than “excellent post” to say, but , um, that’s an excellent post. moving.

    sorry for using cliches. it’s all i’ve got.

  3. I’ve identified with the struggles of gay/les/bi folk since high school, and I think even some of my close friends have never understood why full equality for all sexual orientations is a non-negotiable bottom-line issue for me. Part of it is that I’m a sadomasochist, and though I do what I do with opposite sex partners, where people stand on gay rights is a decent proxy for how they stand on me. Tom Delay would hang me, too. There’s also the “invisible” stuff and the “coming out” stuff …

    But that’s hardly all of it. There’s a lot of stuff about manhood in there. I think at a gut level, I always felt that if gay men could be stripped of manhood just for being gay, regardless of what else they did, then I was vulnerable too. Now, as a feminist, I stand back from that quite a bit: what is this manhood thing, anyway? What would it look like in a non-patriarchal or even a less patriarchal world, where manhood can’t be defined as better than womanhood, or even in opposition to it?

    There’s an idea in there, too, that one cannot change the world merely by ignoring existing power structures, but must first get enough of power as it exists to change the way things work. And if that’s right, then men have to negotiate for a change in how manhood is defined from a position of strength. That is, one can only critique masculinity and be taken seriously by first having some credibility as a “real man.” I put that in scare-quotes because I don’t know what the hell it means. And neither does anybody else, though those that understand the least will shout the loudest that they do.

  4. Thomas:

    What you said. I agree with every word of it.

    That is, one can only critique masculinity and be taken seriously by first having some credibility as a “real man.”

    Have you heard of Jackson Katz? He’s a former football player and anti violence activist who works with men on reducing violence. He has a great video that I show my students, about the social construction of masculinity and how it produces violence. My students really love it and I’ve had more success with it than with any other thing I’ve ever used. And I think that it’s because (in addition to being a smart, charistmatic guy) Katz is a huge, muscular, former football playing MAN. I don’t think his video would carry the same authority with my students if he were a skinny/femmy/not so masculine man, or a woman. Ironic that he has to fit the image of a “real man” in order for my students to accept his critique of the concept.

    check it out:
    Jackson Katz’ Tough Guise

  5. Not really ironic at all — it’s a question of qui bono. When one complains that reform is needed, if one is a loser under the current system, one’s motives are in question. When Phil Howard screams for tort reform, remember that his firm’s clients are the defendants in product liability cases. He derives economic benefit from changes that protect these clients. So, it’s not irrational that many of your students would be suspect of a skinny, unathletic guy who says, “manhood shouldn’t be about physical prowess.” He’s just making an argument that benefits him personally, because his proposal, whatever it is, works out better for him than the existing structure. When someone has a clear advantage under the current system, their calls to change it cannot be criticized as self-interested.

  6. i get what you’re saying, but it does seem a bit irrational to me to reject an argument out of hand because of who is making the argument. i know that if i said the things katz says in the video on my own, i’d end up with at least one or two students accusing me of being a man hater in my evals, whereas when i show the video, they LOVE me and feel like I understand them. i get how it works, and that’s why i show the video, but, really, come on now. a good argument is a good argument wherever it’s coming from. i would think that truly ‘rational’ people would get that.

  7. Yeah, of course “ad hominem” arguments are a logical fallacy. The idea is the same whoever expresses it. But in a complex world, we process things in ways that are more efficient (and maybe sloppier) than pure logic. So we do often take the speaker’s credibility into account when we hear new ideas, and “consider the source.” Most of us are able to separate the merits of an idea from our view of the messenger only when we take the time to really focus on something — and how often does that happen with your students?

  8. A few points, sidestepping the very interesting convo between Thomas and Alley Rat:

    I ‘m always happy when someone on a feminist blog talks about boxing, being a boxing fan (and amateur boxer) myself.

    I can understand Griffith’s reluctance to come out fully. I’m a dyke, and even though that would seem to square with someone’s stereotype of a female boxer, but I’ve always been very slow to come out at boxing gyms. This is the case even though I’m in the San Francscio Bay Area. This is because I might very well have to get in the ring with the people around me to spar (both male and female). And even though one isn’t supposed to damage one’s opponents in sparring, it does happen (I’ve had my nose broken that way). If I am across the ring from someone who is a god-fearing christian who hates dykes, then there is the fear for me of him wanting to show me real violence, in the condoned arena of boxing. As a female sparring men, there’s a whole other level there, so why add potential fuel to the fire?

    The Griffith story also reminds me of Gina “Boom Boom” Guidi, and the documentary of her “Red Rain”. She’s a lesbian, and even in the early nineties she was worried about her career being hurt when a promoter threatens to expose her “for the dyke she is”.

  9. Hardass, a friend of mine and an amateur welterweight quit because of the gym wars — guys trying to make a name for themselves by going all out on sparring partners. Young men with big egos can be hard to tame — when I was a teenager in Tae Kwon Do, my friends and I took more than our share of laps for excessive contact in sparring matches.

    It’s really sad that even in the enclaves where equality ought to be presumed, there’s still reason for fear. Griffith was beaten in New York, you’re not out at the gym in SF. If you can’t have complete equality here and there, where can you?

    By the way, did you grow up with boxing? I said in the post that I don’t know any fans that came to it later. I fell in love with boxing in the Hagler/Leonard era, when I was young.

  10. Oh, I’m out by now, but only because I’ve been at my current gym for a couple of years. I eased into it, though (and since I don’t “look gay”, I had that luxury). I’ve just wanted good training and the freedom to learn, and I already faced a certain amount of bias based on gender. While my trainers always treated me like any guy, the other fighters were more of a hassle. I can take a certain amount of sexual harassment, but some days I would be working on a bag while having to listen to a heavyweight tell me exactly what he wanted to do to me with his tongue. Truly an awesome experience.

    These days I’m very comfortably out, everyone knows it, and everyone knows my girlfriend. There’s still a certain amount of sexual harrassment, but it no longer interferes with my training. Sometimes I am treated like “one of the guys” and am privy to comments on other women in the gym, and sometimes I am treated like a sexual object.

    I came to boxing in my early twenties, through a YMCA boxing class. I don’t follow a lot of professional boxing; I don’t, for example, watch boxing on pay-per-view. My familiarity with certain boxers comes from watching tapes of them while I jump rope; while I admire techniques, I usually have no idea of when the fight occurred. I’m actually more familiar with the careers of fighters in muay thai, which I train at as well. I actually train at a muay thai gym because the boxing gyms tended to be too macho. The muay thai fighters that I know are much more self-controlled, and the emphasis in my gym is as heavily on mental training as on physical.

Comments are currently closed.