<p>I don’t get this. NFL players are millionaires with plenty of land around their mansions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The judge story is not the norm, but what if it were?</p>
<p>At first glance, it seems that this NFL scenario has put a useful spotlight on abuse, but it is easy to follow a bandwagon and forget that things do not happen in a vacuum.</p>
<p>In terms of the bigger picture, it will be interesting to see the actual result of losing one’s job becomes the new, across-the-board standard for allegations and investigation for child punishment / abuse and significant-other abuse. </p>
<p>Since the level of abuse is lower among NFL players than the general population, I wonder how people would react if upper-middle class and middle class men start immediately losing their livelihood upon the allegation or charges of abuse? The first effect that would be seen is that a greater percentage of men in the general population would be losing their jobs. This would then hit closer to home for many since this treatment of NFL players is only fine because middle-of-the-road people’s lives are unaffected, only the millionaires are really getting hit by this, right now. That is effect No. 1 and seems like this would put even a bigger spotlight on abuse. Seems good right? </p>
<p>However, I predict that effect No.1 will be followed by an “oops” moment after an unintended consequence rears its head. That is, if this new standard is dealt out the same way re lawyers, doctors, high government officials and people with high outstanding student loans etc., my prediction is that the result would be to drive abuse underground and make it unpalatable for women and men and older kids to report abuse because their entire lifestyle and financial support system will be pulled from under them pronto. </p>
<p>Additionally, women would be even afraid to report younger child abuse for the same reason. They are afraid enough as it is because of the abuse, but if the result of them trying to get help is that they become welfare state candidates, I predict, being in such a poverty position is something most would not even want to contemplate - thus they will be even more reluctant to come forward. </p>
<p>One could say that these women would be better off regardless, but that is easy for an outsider to say. The real issue that needs to accounted for is these cohorts are not poor women. However, if the effect of even reporting abuse means that one’s significant other’s paycheck is taken away immediately and indefinitely, and child support etc. would now be a state check or much lower payments, I predict a much higher percentage of those who would have gone for help will choose to be silent. This will be effect no. 2. </p>
<p>Not a big deal in people’s minds now since it is the millionaires mainly affected, but the end result of this bandwagon effect of immediate firing may not prove to be a smart move, either in the NFL, main street, or elsewhere. and I predict will prove to be a familial disaster for the kids and significant-others involved. This is effect No. 3.</p>
<p>In terms of the cumulative effects 1 - 3 above, I do find it interesting that the same people who say they have the kids and significant-others at heart are the first to make them destitute by taking away their main financial support. How about helping the abuser with mandated treatment, keeping his (or her) job, and making sure that the signifiant-other and kids are properly taken care of, even in the case of separation and divorce? This approach is a much smarter policy than this take his job away mantra, which totally disintegrates the family.</p>
<p>Bottom line - The goal should be to help the family, while avoiding making more people wards of the state, not to insure the family is totally blown apart. </p>
<p>Well, Flossy, there’s the little matter of security cameras. More important, battered women now feel more comfortable reporting. They increasingly understand that neither the law nor society views this as acceptable. </p>
<p>LasMa, I don’t know what security cameras have to do with my comment and have no idea what point you are trying to make.</p>
<p>I’m sure you don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue is not about NFL players losing their jobs because they are domestic abusers, it’s about them losing their jobs because they are an image-liability for companies with 9-figure sponsorship deals. </p>
<p>From the NFL Players Assoc website:
<a href=“https://www.nflplayers.com/about-us/Group-Licensing/Prospective-Licensees/”>https://www.nflplayers.com/about-us/Group-Licensing/Prospective-Licensees/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are a company w a $500 million NFL sponsorship deal, why would you want your brand associated with a wife-beater, child-abuser, dog-fighter, etc. It’s bad business.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two issues have been conflated here: significant-other abuse and child abuse. I do think it is erroneous to treat these the same.</p>
<p>As for significant-other abuse, most agree men should not hit women and vice versa. I say most because there are cultures and religions (independent of culture), which believe and practice otherwise. However, in the US, the cultural norm is not to lay hands on one’s significant-other. This is why no one came out in defense of Rice. </p>
<p>The child abuse thing is a more difficult area because, even in the US, cultures are different on this issue. Look at the number of people who have come out in support of Petersen to hit his child with a serious strap. Interesting, as all these people said they got “whooped,” as a child - a new word for me there. </p>
<p>I wondered about this and asked several of my white employees if they got hit, as a child; none did, and they got timeouts and loss of allowance, as punishment. In contrast, all my black employees had corporal punishment, as part of their upbringing. How bad? I did not ask that detail. The question, obviously, is what is the line between accepted corporal punishment and abuse. </p>
<p>As to your post, the reports are a media issue. The incidences in poor neighborhoods just are not that interesting, as more newsworthy, prominent people. I went to school with several who are now top journalists who everyone knows, and they talked like that at the dinner table - they are as biased as it comes in terms of what they believe. It is funny when I read or see one saying he or she is unbiased. My wife and I say, “Hey buddy, we went to school with you. We know different.” Cracks us up every time.</p>
<p>Flossy, it appears to me that you are not going to get a straight answer. </p>
<p>It’s pretty easy to check the statistics. Certainly any man or woman is at risk of abuse, but the statistics say that lower income level individuals stand a far greater chance of being abused. Black women in particular, are at far higher risk of being abused than white women. In fact, they are murdered by men at 2 1/2 times the rate that white women are, and whatever size home they live in doesn’t change that fact. These are sad statistics, and low income black women are at high risk. Pretending that it happens equally in all groups of people doesn’t help anyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suspect a lot of people shrugging off Peterson’s whooping of his child are not aware of the severity of the whooping he meted out to a 4-year old child.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree because the push for losing their jobs did not come from the companies or the NFL - the companies were last to do anything.</p>
<p>Rice had a much shorter suspension prior to the video being released. If the video did not come out or did not exist, I bet he would be playing after this shorter suspension, and the companies would not have dropped him or would have dropped him for a short bit then come back ala Kobe Bryant. </p>
<p>My position still holds because upper-middle class and middle class people have jobs that, in their strata, are important and can affect their company too. Therefore, if the standard becomes these people lose their jobs too, then I bet there will be a rethinking. </p>
<p>@AWC, the fans complained, and the companies listened to their market.</p>
<p>“the fans complained, and the companies listened to their market.”</p>
<p>And that’s what it’s all about, and nothing more. Now they’re just scrambling for people to fire and to blame. It’s only about pleasing the market, not trying to stop a problem or change anything.</p>
<p>It seems to me that people are not acknowledging how much the chain has moved. </p>
<p>Does not everyone realize that no one will wait for a video or pictures next time? It will just take the allegation, not even a real charge, to institute a termination. Watch.</p>
<p>As I stated in #109, Rice was initially suspended for only a couple games, then indefinitely when the video came out even though we all knew he punched her big time. The video added nothing new to what we knew happened. </p>
<p>Contrast this to Michael Vick convicted of killing dogs; Ray Lewis convicted of obstruction of justice in a murder trial and for driving a getaway car; and, the player convicted of manslaughter in drunk driving accident that killed teammate etc. - none of these guys got a lifetime ban from their sport and their kids and significant-others were not financially punished, even though most of these guys were actually convicted of a serious crime. Petersen, Rice et al have not been convicted of anything, yet get a lifetime ban.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see the reaction if this new standard, lifetime termination upon allegation or charge, is applied to others in society. </p>
<p>Yep. Moral compass still completely missing. That’s why their response to this whole thing has been so confused. Their brains simply can’t process issues in terms of right and wrong. </p>
<p>Did anyone hear or see the press conference by Goodell today? I was stuck waiting in a doctor’s office (hah, story for another thread) when it came on. He is as smooth as a politician. When more than one reporter asked him if he though he should resign he said in effect - no, I’ve acknowledged my mistakes and no, I have a job to do (this was to the reporter who reminded him that he suspended Sean Peyton by saying ignorance is no excuse).</p>
<p>He kept bringing up how he admitted making a mistake about Ray Rice on August 28th and also, no, nobody at the NFL saw the tape inside the elevator until recently. Hmmmm, it makes me wonder if he made that admission on August 28th because he HAD seen the tape and needed to do a little prophylactic CYA.</p>
<p>Anyway, I couldn’t stand watching it for too long so I left. Sadly, I missed a cutting question by TMZ (we made one call and got the tape, why didn’t you have it?) and some pro-Howard Stern activism (a guy being dragged away by security yelling “don’t put me in the elevator”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not surprised. Unlike what others think, the fans are / were not driving this. Goodell is answering to other outside groups, not to the fans. </p>
<p>I believe the last poll I saw stated that something like 90% of the football viewers said that Rice and Peterson incidents etc. had no effect on how much football they would watch and that those incidents does not figure in how they viewed the game. I bet this is completely the reverse of the people Goodell is answering to.</p>
<p>Being a fan often means you’re in denial, at least when it comes to bad things that a favorite player might have done. Or questionable calls.</p>
<p>How come we are 8 pages in and I haven’t seen the “s” word?
Everyone knows anabolic steroids increase violent behavior energy every bulked body need to be tested
Men hopped up on steroids hit everyone . Unfortunately even their nearest and dearest, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree and disagree.</p>
<p>I think fans are nuts about their sport and their favorite players. However, nuts is quite different than showing concern or understanding the gravity of a situation. </p>
<p>Fans were very cool to Kobe’s rape issue and were very cool to Vick and Ray Lewis, so I do think fans have some modicum of common sense. My point is the fans were not and are not driving this issue. </p>
<p>I also think there is a sizable, quiet “yikes” looking-in-the-mirror aspect here. Given that the incidence of abuse is higher in the general population, then it follows that there are a higher percentage of abusers (domestic abuse and child abuse) in the stands and via TV watching the game than on the field. I do believe both male and female fans are not going to scream take the players’ jobs away forever, if a larger percentage of fans are in a similar situation. These fans know their own lives, and this accounts for the majority of non-effect on the fans - much more than advocates want to acknowledge. The fans would not want their livelihood taken away if they were caught in such a situation, as they know the effect that would have on them. </p>
<p>I am convinced the people driving this are the same people who do not like the sport in the first place, and it is a nice opportunity to go after it. I lived in DC a long time, and I know how these groups work, as I was a school parent with many of the people who lead these groups.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simple - steroids do not fit the narrative of the day.</p>