If you had asked Odubel on the morning of May 28th if he could get away with assaulting his girlfriend (or anyone) in public, I'm sure he would have said "of course not". (I'm deliberately sidestepping the question of whether or not it felt like acceptable behavior to him, publicly or privately.) I doubt he was thinking that lucidly at the moment of the assault, I think he was just lashing out literally and figuratively. I don't believe there was much thinking involved.
Addressing relationship problems through threats and violence is acceptable to plenty of North Americans, sadly. It's not a cultural value unique to foreigners.
Yeah, I think this is the relevant point. I mean, one could argue that Herrera obviously hasn't internalized American cultural values.. or else he would have just shot his girlfriend. That kind of lethal domestic violence is probably more prevalent in the United States than in most other cultures in the world. I know we (Americans) like to believe we're "better" than anybody else, but objectively speaking, we're often just deluding ourselves.
Unfortunately, there's a certain predelicton to violence in the US that does not exist in other modern democracies.
We have no idea how Herrera has reacted to this incident and his suspension by MLB. If he has completed any and all requirements set down by MLB, he deserves a second chance. If his behavior in all areas of his personal and professional life is good, he deserves a full opportunity to continue to play as his ability and performance earn. The moral position is to support him in his efforts.
If his behavior is not good, then he should be out and his contract voided.
I'm sure I could find plenty of examples of violence from non sports people as well.
Violence against women is pretty much a global issue. I used to follow rugby league in Australia, and domestic violence cases are commonplace at the highest level of the game.
Sport, athletes, and violence against women (2007)
When rugby league or AFL players sexually harass women in pubs,pressure women into sex in hotel rooms, or make obscene phone calls, inone sense, they are acting just like thousands of other young men aroundthe country. Young women everywhere know that this behaviour is notconfined to professional athletes. For example, being groped or harassed isa common element of young women’s experience of clubs, pubs, and otherpublic places.One in seven women aged 18 to 24, or thirteen per cent, report unwantedsexual touching in the last 12 months, according to a national survey by theAustralian Bureau of Statistics (1996).
I may be stereotyping but rugby particularly has a tradition of misogyny. When I was in college, the university's rugby club got in trouble for not entirely voluntarily selecting a female student at a post-match party, sitting her on top of a keg and parading her around the room while they dumped beer on her. The club's stated defense was that it was a rugby tradition.
You're no doubt referring to the heathen that play rugby union, rather than rugby league! College / university sports are notoriously misogynistic. The authors of the article that I linked make the point that this behaviour does not have its origins in sport. Rather, the conditions that characterise contact sports, such as male bonding, aggression, the sexualisation and subordination of women, celebrity status and entitlement, drug abuse, and 'groupie' culture, provide an environment that fosters misogyny AND gives expression to a much broader social problem.
My post was intended to expand the number of sports el-pietro associated with perpetrators of domestic violence and to support my position that domestic violence is a global issue that crosses sport and political / cultural boundaries. As DurhamBull and Julio remarked above, Americans are not above such behaviour or in any sense 'better'. Your reference to 'modern democracies' prompted me to think of India - the world's largest democracy - and how often women are subjected to violent and deadly abuse in that country.
My own part of the world isn't immune either. I just wanted to dispel the idea that the only reason we are talking about this is because Herrera is an immigrant and doesn't understand North American cultural values. Its also not just a sports problem. Sexual Assault seems to be rampant throughout hollywood and I'm sure it is prevalent in all kinds of industries.
That there have been a disproportionate number of Latin-American baseball players suspended (in what is still a very small sample) may say more about how law enforcement (and the MLB front office) works than any cultural prevalence.
But... "how law enforcement works" is also a function of a society's culture. If American law enforcement disproportionately targets people of color... that's because such behavior by American law enforcement is tolerated in too many places... and that's a comment on our culture, on our values (as lived, not necessarily as bandied about). It's arguably separate from the question of domestic violence... but not clear that it's separate from the issue of how violent American society is overall.
Yes. I'm just saying, of the 14 MLB players who have been investiged by the league for DV, 11 of them are Latin American, in a league that was 27.4% Latin American (as of 2017). So perhaps that is why Flyers felt comfortable asserting that Latin American baseball players are more prone to domestic violence, or that it is somehow more common in Latin American culture. A misguided assertion for any number of reasons, most of which have now been cited.
Perhaps worth noting: Herrera received the third-longest suspension in MLB history. The top two guys were both DFA'ed (but also weren't signed to a long-term contract). #4 is Osuna, though I suspect German is going to get into the Top 5 too (and he certainly won't get traded or released).
Without turning this into a sociology course, some of you posters need to do some studies into the amount of domestic violence that occurs in non NA cultures. In particular that of patriarchal versus gender-neutral societies. I don't see any "me-too" movements becoming as strong in LA nations or many other areas of the world as it is in NA. Perhaps some of you do. This discrepancy is an issue for those outsiders that come to NA.If eleven of the 14 MLB players investigated by MLB are Latinos, that means that eleven of the fourteen have done something that MLB found to be offensive and not in tune with NA/MLB values. To turn that around to indicate that MLB is being overly harsh on Latino players in disingenuous. Those that break rules/standards face consequences. Instead of questioning the enforcement of the rules, it might be better to examine why the rules were broken.MLB is becoming more aware by the day of what NA values are as it markets itself to the public. When employees of the sport get out of line, be they players or management, especially with gender related issues, they are getting hammered. Ask Brandon Taubman in Houston how that goes.As indicated in a post of mine above, it behooves MLB franchises to be aware of the cultural differences between this that exist in LA and those in NA. It is in the best interests of the game to help the Latinos that come into NA to play the game to understand that certain things, on and off of the field, that are acceptable back home are not equally well received in NA and may, in some cases put them in legal jeopardy or scrutiny/punishment by MLB. This summer, Pedro Martinez indicated that this adjustment was a problem and urged MLB to address the differences to avoid some messy situations.Both cultures can learn from each other and do more to expand the audience of the sport. The flair that many LA play with that was once considered to be over the top, is now seen by more fans and players as things that fire up the audience and add excitement to the game. However there are some types of play and/or behavior that don't work for anyone.
Are you suggesting the US is not a patriarchal society?
Are you suggesting that it is?
I'm cool with sociology. Can you offer some studies or statistical data for consideration? If I were to do a sociological study, I wouldn't begin by conflating the US and Canada, and the Latin American countries. To do so, would forgo nuance and the possibility of identifying patterns, whether quantitative or qualitative. I also suspect more accurate figures would be available in the US and Canada, than in less developed countries. With regard to your suggestion that we study domestic violence in "patriarchal versus gender-neutral societies", I'm loathe to categorise Australia, Ireland, France, the United States and Canada as ideal-types of gender neutral societies. Here, I vaguely recall the comparative analyses by Erik Olin Wright and others into household divisions of labour and gender inequality, more generally. A continuum is probably in order.
[It's taken me so long to write this, zambonir has already asked the obvious question!]
From Wikipedia (because I'm too tired to quote from Weber), "Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage." The political leaders of the US are predominantly male, as are the leaders of most of the religious orders and business groups. The fact that countries, such as the US and Australia, have to legislate against patriarchy makes it clear (to me, at least) that our societies, in general, are not gender-neutral.
ask some women.
This is why I never go into the politics thread Even though all sports is political anyway.
For sure, the climate is changing. Why, we even let women have their own bank accounts eventually!
But seriously, when I revived this thread because of the Taubman thing it was to suggest that becaus the climate is changing, there is no scenario where a struggling player with a DV accusation can be kept around, and we may also be moving towards a scenario where even a great player with a DV accusation will be untradeable. But in the meantime we're still gonna watch the Astros' close lock down a World Series. Maybe.
It will be interesting to see if one concession the players make to the owners in the next CBA is to allow clubs to void the contracts of guys in these situations.
I wouldn't say that American society isn't still patriarchal, but it's changing fairly rapidly in much of the country. Not all that long ago, it was legally impossible to charge a man with raping his wife, about the only women in Congress were replacing their deceased husbands, and it would be unthinkable for a woman to run for president. Powerful men felt absolutely safe in harrassing and sexuallly assaulting women -- their employers protected them and the authorities took complaints less than seriously. #MeToo has changed attitudes a lot of late, but the changes started earlier. A lot of the patriarchy can be laid at the feet of religion. Southern white evangelical churches teach that the husband is the head of the family and wives must submit to his decisions and it is ungodly for a woman to be in power over men. There are no female priests. The first female rabbi in the United States gained a congregation during my lifetime. Still, Latin American culture has been more macho and patriarchal than ours, probably stemming from the culture of the conquistadors. Look at the fate of women escaping Central America due to violence and being assaulted as they transit Mexico. LA isn't the world's most patriarchal/macho societies. They haven't enshrined 'honor killings' into their culture.
There are differences of degree among cultures. There are also fairly large differences within a culture over the period of a decade or two. Brett Myers was mentioned above. Does anyone doubt that would go down very differently today? Perhaps the atmosphere has changed so much that he would think better of doing that today.