With the disturbing Josh Brown story now in the news, two years after Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson stories, Michael Kasdan continues to wonder whether the NFL knows that off-the-field violence is an unfortunate side product of a violent game.
—
Editors Note: This piece was originally published on September 16, 2014, but was updated today to frame it in terms of current events:
Two years ago, we were talking about off-the-field violence and domestic abuse as personified by Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson. Today, we are talking about those same issues through the lens of (soon to be ex-?) Giants kicker, Josh Brown. Earlier this season, the Giants suspended Brown for one game for violating its personal conduct policy by his alleged domestic abuse against his wife. Although they were aware of the pending investigation, the Giants signed Brown to a 2 year, $4 million dollar contract. He returned to the field of play after his one game suspension.
Earlier this week, news surfaced of journals that Brown had kept in which he wrote various shockingly frank statements. As reported by ESPN:
In the police documents released Wednesday, Brown admitted he “had been a liar for most of my life.” He claimed to have a porn addiction and having been abusive to women all the way back to the age of 7, after being molested as a young boy.
“I objectified women and never really worried about the pain and hurt I caused them,” Brown wrote in an email.
There was also a 2013 “Contract for Change” signed by Brown, his wife and counselor Jerry Price. Item No. 2 states that Josh Brown had physically, verbally and emotionally abused Molly.
In a letter to friends in 2014 that Josh Brown warned would be hard to read, he admitted to carrying an overwhelming sense of entitlement. He said he viewed himself as God and that Molly was basically his slave.
In one journal entry, Brown wrote that he has “physically, mentally, emotionally and verbally been a repulsive man.” Several sentences later, he said he abused his wife. He also detailed his “arrogant and manipulative thinking and possessiveness.”
In another journal entry, Brown wrote that his wife filed for divorce because he was abusive. He listed losing his marriage and “living with the reputation of an abuser” as fears of his.
He has now been placed on the Commissioner’s Exempt list and the NFL is investigating to determine what action it will take.
♦◊♦
Two years ago last month, the twin stories of Ray Rice’s violence against his wife and Adrian Peterson’s violence against his child bookended a horrific news week for the NFL, shining a spotlight on the issue of off-the-field violence by football players.
At the same time, another disturbing story broke on the NFL’s other high profile problem: concussions and the overall safety of the game. The big news? According to NFL estimates, almost 1/3 of players are expected to suffer from brain trauma.
For many years, the NFL has obfuscated and sought to sweep this problem under the rug. While disturbing, this is not so surprising. I had always considered the concussion issue the most difficult issue for the NFL to deal with. If they admit that the game is unsafe and they knew it, it puts the whole game at risk. All of it.
But I thought bullying and domestic violence were different. Which is why the NFL’s botched handling of domestic violence cases like Ray Rice’s were surprising. Other than being reflexively protective of entitled players, it’s really in the league’s best interest—forget morally—but as a brand and business to be strong on those issues.
What if football breeds or needs these hyper-masculine hard-hitting foot soldiers for the game, for the product, and for the money-making juggernaut that is the NFL?
|
But what if the concussion and violence issues aren’t so different for the NFL?
What if the NFL knows or thinks (even subsconsciously) that men of a violent hyper-aggressive sport that thrives on hard hitting and bloodlust are always going to be (more) violent in real life?
What if football breeds or needs these hyper-masculine, hard-hitting foot soldiers for the game, for the product, and for the money-making juggernaut that is the NFL?
Is off-the-field violence—bullying, domestic violence, etc.—just an “unfortunate side product” of the NFL itself?
(As @TweetofGod quipped last week: “It’s almost as if football has some sort of connection to violence.”)
I understand that all of the actions of NFL players are – by definition – high profile and under the microscope. And not every NFL player is Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, or Josh Brown. But it does raise questions. And it does provide us with an opportunity to ask difficult questions.
If the NFL recognizes that violent aggressive people are its lifeblood—even subconsciously—that’s an incentive for them to not to come down too hard on off-the-field violence issues—unless forced. In that sense, it’s the same as the NFL attitude and thinking on concussions or hard-hitting: if we are TOO tough on this, we may kill our sport. The NFL has acted accordingly—-they have procrastinated and ignored both of these problems.
Now the NFL is being pushed to confront its off-the-field violence problems. And it is being pushed to confront its concussion problems. Perhaps these issues are more similar than it first appears.
Will addressing these problems threaten the continued viability of the league itself?
—
Photo: AP
Is that a real question; is off-field behavior related to players professional lives?!! It seems pretty obvious to anyone who has followed this sports’ players that the connection isn’t coincidence. We seem to understand that the violences of military experiences sometimes leaves scars. What makes you think the players of this sport and boxing aren’t affected in similar ways?!! You breed professional warriors, pay them well, and then expect them to “power down” when the helmets come off. I think your adoration of the sport and its’ players are clouding your common sense.
The theory is fine as far as it goes. Here is another, which has nothing to do with goes on on the field, but rather off it. Off the field, football players are held up as demigods. They are practically worshiped, especially in places where high school and college football are most popular. The off-field transgressions the article speaks of are mostly dealt with in a boys-will-be-boys way. The players come to learn that they can do pretty much anything they want with impunity. Which is as good a formula as any for creating sociopaths, Exhibit 1 being one OJ… Read more »
Very much agree – I wrote about athletes privilege here: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/mkdn-athletes-privilege/
Couple of points. I’m not sure how this becomes the responsibility of the NFL. We have a legal system for such, and this is not a socialist state. There are countless men that have and do play in the NFL that are quite the opposite. However, if the NFL does believe (or if we believe) that employers must now act the way schools do, enforcing social justice, the bigger canard here is that Tom Brady got four games, had millions spent to get to the bottom of his alleged abuse of a football, while guys like this get one game… Read more »
We have a post here about an **admitted abuser of a woman**. Two of them in fact. And from that you, comment that women abuse men and drive them to abuse them? Seems quite far afield, to say the very least. You clearly have an agenda to talk about your issue no matter what, but I suggest you find a context to connect to. This story isn’t it. As for your last point – yes – of course abuse is a social problem – that’s why this is a story on the Good Men Project. This is not a story… Read more »
I personally find your reaction to a post about a man abusing woman, which can be summarized as “what about men? are we sure it wasn’t her fault?! what about men” to be deeply unempathetic and troubling.
Exactly. What about men. That is what we are here for, right, or is this just a front for more feminist blame? Never said it was her fault. Not even close. Seems you are making shit up because you can’t speak to issue. My contention is that there are many violent women that abuse men, boys, girls, but we constantly point that progressive finger at men every time some whack-job hits a woman, but ignore the glaring evidence of the reverse. Are we here to rag on bad men and accuse all men of being so, or are we here… Read more »
No Michael. I’m an egalitarian. I hate everybody equally. And my “agenda” is to defend men from the type of accusations you blanket us with very often. “And from that you, comment that women abuse men and drive them to abuse them? Seems quite far afield, to say the very least.” This is a classic example, stating that all the data, information that we have on female abuse of men is “quite far afield”.. It is exactly why there are no services for men, because of this constant blame of men, constant talk of men abusing women, and the denial… Read more »
Absolutely. If your wife hits you, you should definitely hit her back. Hard. That way she will never hit you again. She should fear you. The response should be one notch higher than the original offense. For example, if she is mouthy, give her a slap. If she shoves you, you could consider a punch in the face.
You would do the same for a man on the street, right?
I didn’t lay out any ad hominems about you, nor do I intent to start now. My only response is that we write about female abuse of men. But *this* story was not that. (I haven’t seen your comments on those stories, in fact.) And I couldn’t agree more that there are many issues – serious important issues – that affect men in our modern world. I’m an egalitarian too. I hope that if there are men’s issues that you would like to see addressed, you would let us know, or even better, pen one yourself. We want to and… Read more »
No story is about “that” Michael. So it does square if we consider that I’m speaking out against just one more bit of rhetoric keeping the myth alive that abuse is exclusively one way, and that men are either inherently violent, or that violence is initiated by men exclusively, which is the way that you tend to paint it, the way it is painted here. You’ve taken a mighty leap in that direction here by first ignoring that domestic violence is equally perpetrated, that the NFL, or those that play football are inherently violent rather than simply participating in a… Read more »
If the definition of violence is people running into each other then you can start banning a number of sports. Personally I’ve always found playing football made me less aggressive not more aggressive.
This is a good article on the violence: “If we take the violence out of Footbal, what’s left.”
http://grantland.com/features/nfl-football-domestic-violence-ray-rice/
The concussion issue has the potential to end the NFL. I don’t think it will for the sheer fact that being a professional football player is a choice. We didn’t ban mining because of black lung. Maybe you’d have an argument if the sport were dominated by female athletes, but society has significantly more tolerance for men throwing their lives away in return for profit. The NFL might feel some discomfort from the DV issue, but the DV issue will ultimately backfire on the social engineers. A mid caliber player like Ray Rice, who’s marketability and contribution to his team… Read more »