Bullying/Hazing In Baseball

[PepperJack]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/gabe-kapler-has-far-from-fond-memories-of-bullying-and-ribbing-in-a-baseball-journey-111413?cmpid=tsmtw:fscom:mlbonfox



The seeds of my embarrassment had actually been planted years earlier, when I was in the lowest level of minor league baseball making $850 a month. I was forced to earn some extra glue and made the hysterically shortsighted decision to pose for photos in very tiny and colorful swimwear for a fitness magazine, that would become the fuel to many a comical fire in my clubhouse environments over the years.

After my first go-round, I learned how to have fun with it but my initial first step was a doozy.



Although I vowed to myself that I would never be the ringleader of any similar incident, I began to authentically connect with the idea that through ribbing, hazing and light illumination of faults, coming of age can occur.

In some cases, this can even speed up player development as toughness off the field can spill over into plate appearances. No way to quantify, of course, but I can attest to feeling more confident after understanding banter and thereby feeling more connected to my teammates; the chest puffed out slightly further is always beneficial on the field.



As I became a veteran player, I witnessed hazing of all sorts, a rookie having a mixture of baby powder and toothpaste poured on him while he was taking a dump by a single player. His teammates, of course, were privy to the prank prior and were together laughing and whispering like schoolgirls that the victim would burst out of the stall, pants at his ankles, and he did.


Also good for a giggle was the infamous “three man lift,” and a man’s clothes being soaked in his locker after he refused to dress up as a woman for a team flight. Ahhh, the good ‘ol days.



Is this bullying? I suppose it depends on the man enduring the experience. Awareness goes a long way and the strong voice of a respected leader on a team can influence the rest of the group if things are getting out of hand. In the final days of Tiger Stadium, I’m confident Tony Clark knew just how far to let things escalate, which is why nothing passed the stage of simple discomfort with the team from my rookie season.

Now that I'm standing on a wide platform and sharing my opinions about players' performances and decisions, I'm keenly aware of the balance between honesty and insult. I routinely question my reflection, wondering if I’ve crossed the line.



Kevin Youkilis suggested to me that the most abusive bullies on the block are the fans and the media.

“The amount of verbal abuse an athlete hears from opposing fans and sometimes their own is amazing,” Youkilis said. “The problem is, people don’t recognize this is the same thing that goes on in the clubhouse, tearing down individuals all the time.”

I realized after some deeper conversation with Kevin that he thinks everyone should be held equally accountable, from the players to the fans to the media.

[SporkLover]

I one witnessed a washed out Yankee star with a wicked 80's mustache set a teammate's shoes on fire while he played for the Nagoya Chunichi Dragons. He said baseball is a game, and games are supposed to be fun.... so have a little fun.

I found it to be worthwhile hazing, because his uptight Japanese teammates loosen up and eventually win the pennant!

His clubhouse leadership, and baseball heroics in Nippon Professional Baseball revived his Major league career; he ended up landing a 5 year gig with the Dodgers. Eventually he turned his Clubhouse leadership energy towards coaching, and he ended up coaching with the Detroit Tigers.

[RollyInRaleigh]

I once watched a young man urinate in the brand new sneakers of one of his teammates and then fill them up with small pebbles. I thought that was a little over the edge. I have witnessed quite a bit of the "hazing" over the years.

[kearns and dunn]

Making fun of a guy for doing a photo shoot is hazing or bullying?

Oh good grief...

[TOBTTReds]

Gabe Kapler is taking advantage of his new outlet (not in a bad way, but just stating his opinions clearly and loudly). I don't think this is more than hazing. But I guess you are subject to your own opinion...and who knows what players responses are when a player doesn't oblige.

[wlf WV]

The most miserable people I have met in my life couldn't stand teasing.Some people are miserable and they want everybody else miserable.

There's a difference between teasing and bullying,even most kids understand if it's mean-spirited.

[WrongVerb]

To me, hazing is that which causes psychological discomfort. Bullying is causing physical, emotional or mental distress. And that line is different for everyone.

[Brutus]

Hazing, in its most sophomoric form, is fine. Most jokes, with no malice intended, should be embraced as part of the game. If it starts getting to the point where it's causing emotional distress, then it needs to go.

[kpresidente]

The kind of people that get worked up about bullying and hazing cause me emotional distress. I guess that means they're bullying and hazing me. Should score me some pity points I can trade in for special favors.

[membengal]

Nice thoughtful piece from Gabe Kaplar. Thanks for highlighting it to the OP.

[Johnny Footstool]

I completely agree with Kapler's statement that ribbing, hazing, et al are rites of passage that help form children into adults. It's pathetic that our culture is seeking to remove every form of discomfort from our lives.

[Beltway]

I completely agree with Kapler's statement that ribbing, hazing, et al are rites of passage that help form children into adults. It's pathetic that our culture is seeking to remove every form of discomfort from our lives.
The problem is there are some people who take it too far and the media focuses on that because those stories get ratings (and corporate media only cares about ratings->advertising money->profit).

[kpresidente]

The problem is there are some people who take it too far and the media focuses on that because those stories get ratings (and corporate media only cares about ratings->advertising money->profit).

This is nonsense. There's a widespread and aggressive campaign going on change American culture into something passive and weak because our individualistic approach is seen as an obstacle to a certain persuasion of elitists' long-term aspirations. This new angle where they've begun demonizing every mildly antipathetic behavior as "bullying" is a central part of that program.

[Dom Heffner]

I completely agree with Kapler's statement that ribbing, hazing, et al are rites of passage that help form children into adults. It's pathetic that our culture is seeking to remove every form of discomfort from our lives.

So it's called discomfort....but you want it to stay.

This message board is awesome becasue it doesn't allow personal attacks. I guess those are just discomforting things that should be allowed.

I can call your relatives names, and that really is a part of making you stronger.

Why, I ought to go light my secretary's shoes on fire right now...she'll be better for it lol..

I think we need to respect each other more and any effort to get that going in the right direction should be applauded. Taping my knees together with duct tape, while funny for anybody else but the person it happens to, probably isn't something we need in the workplace.

[Beltway]

This is nonsense. There's a widespread and aggressive campaign going on change American culture into something passive and weak because our individualistic approach is seen as an obstacle to a certain persuasion of elitists' long-term aspirations. This new angle where they've begun demonizing every mildly antipathetic behavior as "bullying" is a central part of that program.
You are correct, your post is nonsense. Do you also believe there's a War on Christmas?

This phenomenon doesn't require the invocation of a grand conspiracy to explain it. It's quite simple, really. The Outrage Industry is profitable.

[kpresidente]

So it's called discomfort....but you want it to stay.

Discomfort is inevitable in a world where people have differing goals and aspirations. The question is how do you handle it. Carrying a thick skin is a core virtue when navigating life's various conflicts not to mention a primary component of a tolerant and free society. Footstool is right, these rituals build character even when (and sometimes because) they have a little bite to them.


Why, I ought to go light my secretary's shoes on fire right now...she'll be better for it lol..

Garbage. This is an all male sport and the behavior is amongst peers not subordinates. An office environment is not analogous.

[kpresidente]

This phenomenon doesn't require the invocation of a grand conspiracy to explain it. It's quite simple, really. The Outrage Industry is profitable.

No, that doesn't explain anything. The are a whole host of sensationalist angles to various stories the media could take and capitalize on, the question is why they're choosing this particular angle. And no it's not a conspiracy because it's not secretive. The people pushing this are openly hostile to individualistic norms and openly receptive to a passive and timid ones.

[Dom Heffner]

No, that doesn't explain anything. The are a whole host of sensationalist angles to various stories the media could take and capitalize on, the question is why they're choosing this particular angle. And no it's not a conspiracy because it's not secretive. The people pushing this are openly hostile to individualistic norms and openly receptive to a passive and timid ones.

Yes....

But discomfort happens naturally enough in life through circumstances that we don't need to make that fact an excuse to pick on people or haze them purposefully.

The fact that there are starving children in the world shouldn't be an excuse for my kids to rough it a bit and go without dinner so I can make them "stronger."

These are grown men pefectly capable of behaving themselves....if you have to spray paint shoes or glue someone to a bench because you know, God made life tough so why can't we pile on because we're athletes...that's pretty piss poor reasoning.

While I get that you would want an excuse to act like a caveman, and you've found it with "life ain't fair," we'd all just appreciate it if you'd act like an adult rather than take the evils of the world as your pass to act like a buffoon.

[Dom Heffner]

Discomfort is inevitable in a world where people have differing goals and aspirations. The question is how do you handle it. Carrying a thick skin is a core virtue when navigating life's various conflicts not to mention a primary component of a tolerant and free society. Footstool is right, these rituals build character even when (and sometimes because) they have a little bite to them.



Garbage. This is an all male sport and the behavior is amongst peers not subordinates. An office environment is not analogous.

And that has...wait for it folks...

Not a thing to do with anything! Tell him what he's won, Bob! A dagger through the heart of his argument:

So my male employees can't spray paint each other's shoes because they aren't athletes?

That seems a bit discriminatory. Oh you do that here we'll call the police...but if you are an athlete.....go ahead! The world is evil and unfair....go ahead and pile right on! You'll be stronger! You're an athelete, feel entitled!

I keep seeing Ben Roethlisberger in a bathroom in Georgia with that dude from Three Amigos whispering to him, "When El Guapo wants de woman...he takes de woman!"

[kpresidente]

Yes....

But discomfort happens naturally enough in life through circumstances that we don't need to make that fact an excuse to pick on people or haze them purposefully.

The fact that there are starving children in the world shouldn't be an excuse for my kids to rough it a bit and go without dinner so I can make them "stronger."

These are grown men pefectly capable of behaving themselves....if you have to spray paint shoes or glue someone to a bench because you know, God made life tough so why can't we pile on because we're athletes...that's pretty piss poor reasoning.

While I get that you would want an excuse to act like a caveman, and you've found it with "life ain't fair," we'd all just appreciate it if you'd act like an adult rather than take the evils of the world as your pass to act like a buffoon.

You're right. It takes some mighty enlightened sensibilities to be able to equate clubhouse playfulness with starving children without batting an eye.

[kpresidente]

So my male employees can't spray paint each other's shoes because they aren't athletes?

Funny, my all-male employees do things like that all the time. Somehow they persevere, despite the traumatizing psychological blow that we all know something as egregious as painted shoes can be. Brutes, I know.


That seems a bit discriminatory.

It is, because men and women are different meaning discrimination (defined as the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination)) is entirely appropriate.

[Rojo]

The people pushing this are openly hostile to individualistic norms and openly receptive to a passive and timid ones.

I thought hazing was supposed to break down the individual and make them part of the group.

[kpresidente]

I thought hazing was supposed to break down the individual and make them part of the group.

Good nit-picking. Individualistic does carry the wrong connotation. Self-assured would have been better choice of words.

[Dom Heffner]

Funny, my all-male employees do things like that all the time. Somehow they persevere, despite the traumatizing psychological blow that we all know something as egregious as painted shoes can be. Brutes, I know.



It is, because men and women are different meaning discrimination (defined as the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination)) is entirely appropriate.

Unfortunately for your case, I was not referring to sexual discrimination- it was discrimination between professions. The difference being, of course, to point out that if two males work at an accoutning firm and one wants to spray paint another's shoes...this is somehow different than being a baseball player.

[Dom Heffner]

Funny, my all-male employees do things like that all the time. Somehow they persevere, despite the traumatizing psychological blow that we all know something as egregious as painted shoes can be. Brutes, I know.

It is, because men and women are different meaning discrimination (defined as the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination)) is entirely appropriate.

Oh yes, the old "I know people who have survved it" so it's fine if we physically abuse property and each other argument.

That's terrific. I survived not having a thing to my name...perhaps I should give it all away because I toughed it out once.

Again- I realize it's hard for your testosterone filled brain to grasp this fact, but Mike Nugent can kick a field goal whether he is taped to his chair or not, okay?

We wholly get your argument that male athletes can usurp the law, respect for other's property....because if they do not do these things they would be unable to win football games. In lieu of practice, coaches often send half the team into the locker room to destroy shoes and anything else because without this precious time of destruction....how could they win? And the younger folks should pick up bar tabs...because I know I can't personally bond with someone until I've paid for an outrageous night of partying...in fact, I just threw out $15,000 that instead of going to my family had to go to someone with seniority...because of rite of passage. Give me a break.

I once saw an interview with Santonio Holmes as he attributed a game winning catch to having his back shaved by the defensive line unit.

[Dom Heffner]

You're right. It takes some mighty enlightened sensibilities to be able to equate clubhouse playfulness with starving children without batting an eye.

You said there was discomfort in the world. You didn't say one word about it being "playful."

Make up your mind...your argument is counting on it.

[Brutus]

This is nonsense. There's a widespread and aggressive campaign going on change American culture into something passive and weak because our individualistic approach is seen as an obstacle to a certain persuasion of elitists' long-term aspirations. This new angle where they've begun demonizing every mildly antipathetic behavior as "bullying" is a central part of that program.

There are some things that should be demonized. Is it taken too far? Sure. But so is demonizing them demonizing hazing just because some of it was innocent.

With your crusade against hazing crusades, you're doing what you accuse them of doing -- you're not considering that not every instance should be included in your categorization. There are some acts that are pretty grotesque and abusive and should be rid of, just like there are some that are harmless and innocent and should be let go.

[Rojo]

Can you imagine the amount of hazing right before the D-Day landings? I'm sure it was hilarious.

[Dom Heffner]

Listen- we do need to differentiate between goofing around and behavior that goes beyond that.

Filling someone's hat with shaving cream...I get that.

But as Brutus and others are saying, there are things that go on that simply aren't respectful...I don't want to be a hall monitor here, but much has come out on this issue recently that I think turns a lot of people off.

[kpresidente]

Unfortunately for your case, I was not referring to sexual discrimination- it was discrimination between professions. The difference being, of course, to point out that if two males work at an accoutning firm and one wants to spray paint another's shoes...this is somehow different than being a baseball player.

And that kind of discrimination is a appropriate as well. Different jobs require different mindsets. People that deal in public service need a wildly different approach and wildly different standards than people that play a game for a living. They're not analogous.

[Dom Heffner]

And that kind of discrimination is a appropriate as well. Different jobs require different mindsets. People that deal in public service need a wildly different approach and wildly different standards than people that play a game for a living. They're not analogous.

Your point was that my employees can't destroy each other's shoes because they aren't all male, and they aren't all athlete's.

That's wrong on a number of levels, none of which would make it any better if we changed their gender or profession.

[kaldaniels]

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6f/61/92/6f6192d21ae61c5d55a39d6044207f74.jpg

[kpresidente]

But as Brutus and others are saying, there are things that go on that simply aren't respectful...I don't want to be a hall monitor here, but much has come out on this issue recently that I think turns a lot of people off.

Much has "come out", huh? Sensationalist anecdotes rehashed in the media ad nauseum, you mean. There's no bullying epidemic, what there's an epidemic of is all the oversensitivy and squeamishness.

[Dom Heffner]

Much has "come out", huh? Sensationalist anecdotes rehashed in the media ad nauseum, you mean. There's no bullying epidemic, what there's an epidemic of is all the oversensitivy and squeamishness.

You're right. Nothing has come out, the media is wrong on everything, we're all just worked up over nothing.

Terrific narrative, surprised you're even here to tell us all how harmless all the stuff that isn't happening is.

[kpresidente]

Your point was that my employees can't destroy each other's shoes because they aren't all male, and they aren't all athlete's.

That's wrong on a number of levels, none of which would make it any better if we changed their gender or profession.

No it isn't. It's right on every level.

[kpresidente]

You're right. Nothing has come out, the media is wrong on everything, we're all just worked up over nothing.

Not over nothing. It's a targeted narrative.

[kpresidente]

We wholly get your argument that male athletes can usurp the law, respect for other's property....

No, no. My argument is that a pair of painted shoes isn't a national concern or something for anybody to cry about. You disagree and say it's like starving children.

[Dom Heffner]

No, no. My argument is that a pair of painted shoes isn't a national concern or something for anybody to cry about. You disagree and say it's like starving children.

Painted shoes?

So...what was all this talk about "life's full of discomfort..."

You were referring to painted shoes?

[Dom Heffner]

No it isn't. It's right on every level.

Pick one- let's debate it.

[kpresidente]

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6f/61/92/6f6192d21ae61c5d55a39d6044207f74.jpg

How dare you make light of this, you neanderthal!

[Beltway]

No, that doesn't explain anything. The are a whole host of sensationalist angles to various stories the media could take and capitalize on, the question is why they're choosing this particular angle. And no it's not a conspiracy because it's not secretive. The people pushing this are openly hostile to individualistic norms and openly receptive to a passive and timid ones.
Actually, it explains quite a bit if you truly understand capitalism and the irrational behavior of groups of humans.

Not all sensationalism is equal. This particular issue strikes a chord with so many people because humans generally don't like seeing the strong bully the weak. This is related to why people root for underdogs in sports. This issue is low-hanging fruit. It's something that doesn't require much effort to get an emotional reaction from people.

[Beltway]

Funny, my all-male employees do things like that all the time. Somehow they persevere, despite the traumatizing psychological blow that we all know something as egregious as painted shoes can be. Brutes, I know.
So you have very little respect for private property rights. Interesting. Are you a communist?

[kpresidente]

Not all sensationalism is equal. This particular issue strikes a chord with so many people because humans generally don't like seeing the strong bully the weak. This is related to why people root for underdogs in sports. This issue is low-hanging fruit. It's something that doesn't require much effort to get an emotional reaction from people.

OK, so your position is this is all media driven and not of particularly grave concern. I can live with that. But, then again, it's no secret that prominant figures in the media collude to direct the public narrative for ideological as opposed monetary reasons. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0720/JournoList-Is-call-them-racists-a-liberal-media-tactic)

[kpresidente]

So you have very little respect for private property rights. Interesting. Are you a communist?

No, but I can at least respect communists. This gripe is with the slimy griefers that are peddling the bullying epidemic narrative. Vulgar communists is the word, I think...they're mostly bourgeois progressives.

[kpresidente]

This particular issue strikes a chord with so many people because humans generally don't like seeing the strong bully the weak. This is related to why people root for underdogs in sports.

Does this explain why ESPN devotes so much time to covering the Yankees and Red Sox? Because people like an underdog? Doesn't jibe, people love a winner most. If Jonathon Martin had stood up to Incognito the people would have loved it, but the public hates whiners.

[Brutus]

How dare you make light of this, you neanderthal!

Good grief, man, calm down. I think everyone in this thread would agree that aforementioned picture is an example of the all-in-good-fun type of hazing that is perfectly fine.

No one is being tormented because they dressed up in a Hooter's outfit. That isn't really the type of behavior that has people wanting to crack down on bullying.

[kpresidente]

It's sarcasm, man. Your reaction is both understandable and telling, though. It's so commonplace to see people, in all seriousness, react in the way I was mocking that it can be hard to tell the difference. These people are confused and disturbed.

[Beltway]

OK, so your position is this is all media driven and not of particularly grave concern. I can live with that. But, then again, it's no secret that prominant figures in the media collude to direct the public narrative for ideological as opposed monetary reasons. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0720/JournoList-Is-call-them-racists-a-liberal-media-tactic)
Some outrage issue industries develop enough to become institutions in their own right. Feminists calling everything sexist/misogynistic is another example of this.

I don't think we have to worry about the bullying issue gathering that level of power. This is sort of a transient issue, something people deal with during a particular time period in their lives, but not perpetually. As a result, it's not really useful for identity politics.

[Beltway]

No, but I can at least respect communists. This gripe is with the slimy griefers that are peddling the bullying epidemic narrative. Vulgar communists is the word, I think...they're mostly bourgeois progressives.
So someone who complains that their private property was destroyed is a "slimy griefer"? If someone keys your car, are you a "slimy griefer" if you get upset and complain about it?

[RedEye]

Wait a minute. What is everyone so worked up about? Should there not be some sort of line drawn between what is appropriate and not appropriate conduct on a sports team? Shouldn't Jonathan Martin (or whomever) be protected instead of reviled if he speaks out against his tormentors rather than starts a fight?

I don't think anyone here actually thinks sports players should handle their grievances by fighting, do they? Because by all accounts the types of hazing problems we're talking about here aren't the ones where guys dress up in Hooters outfits or paint their shoes. We're talking about serious problems where people can actually be hurt, both mentally and physically.

[kpresidente]

So someone who complains that their private property was destroyed is a "slimy griefer"? If someone keys your car, are you a "slimy griefer" if you get upset and complain about it?

The symbolic undertones are different (not to mention the amount of money). Keying somebody's care is a pretty clear expression of hate. Painting their shoes is not.

[Johnny Footstool]

So it's called discomfort....but you want it to stay.

This message board is awesome becasue it doesn't allow personal attacks. I guess those are just discomforting things that should be allowed.

I can call your relatives names, and that really is a part of making you stronger.

Why, I ought to go light my secretary's shoes on fire right now...she'll be better for it lol..

I think we need to respect each other more and any effort to get that going in the right direction should be applauded. Taping my knees together with duct tape, while funny for anybody else but the person it happens to, probably isn't something we need in the workplace.

I didn't think this would immediately turn into "A Modest Proposal".

You can't possibly eliminate all forms of discomfort, so you have to learn how to deal with it. One of the reasons we keep pets is so we can learn how to deal with the emotional impact of loss when that pet dies. One of the reasons we tease and haze one another is to learn how to deal with petty confrontation and cruelty without running to the nearest authority figure to complain about our hurt feelings. I'm not saying this behavior should go unpunished, but the current cultural "war on meanness" feels like a witch hunt.

[Rojo]

Probably best to execute a puppy in front of the child. "It's a cruel world, my boy".

[Johnny Footstool]

Glad to see this discussion is staying reasonable.

I prefer to drown the kids' hamsters in the tub while they are bathing. It sends a better message.

[RedEye]

cultural "war on meanness"

Couldn't it just be needed progress? I mean, I agree in some sense... "the media" will always run with stories that have legs. Martin/Incognito is a great one with some of the best characters I've seen in awhile -- and a dysfunctional chain of command to boot. But that doesn't mean that what Martin experienced wasn't very real. A lot of bullying/hazing in other institutions is as well. As a victim of it, I can attest to that. It is a slippery slope between "acceptable" behavior and abuse.

[RedEye]

The symbolic undertones are different (not to mention the amount of money). Keying somebody's care is a pretty clear expression of hate. Painting their shoes is not.

It all depends on the context though. Painting someone's shoes -- as an isolated incident with the right intentions -- is pretty harmless. But in certain scenarios, it could be pretty upsetting. Especially if it is part of a pattern of disrespect and abuse of someone else's property.

I don't know why this is so complicated for people to understand: there are some forms of collective behavior that cross the line and every institution should have clear guidelines to discourage them and to deal with them when they occur.

[westofyou]

I always found bullying to be the domain of the small minded and completely unrelated to harmless teasing as it often was an event that pain was inflicted on me both physically and mentally.

If that's "character building" then so be it, I certainly have (and had) character without having to experience the wonder of being stalked and injured in the name of making me a better person to some unknown entity that society seems to think dictates and approves of such behavior.

[Beltway]

The symbolic undertones are different (not to mention the amount of money). Keying somebody's care is a pretty clear expression of hate. Painting their shoes is not.
It's amusing and sad when people are so sure that subjective judgments like yours are absolutes.

Every time I key someone's car, I'm just trying to toughen them up.

[Johnny Footstool]

Couldn't it just be needed progress? I mean, I agree in some sense... "the media" will always run with stories that have legs. Martin/Incognito is a great one with some of the best characters I've seen in awhile -- and a dysfunctional chain of command to boot. But that doesn't mean that what Martin experienced wasn't very real. A lot of bullying/hazing in other institutions is as well. As a victim of it, I can attest to that. It is a slippery slope between "acceptable" behavior and abuse.

Agreed, but I think it's gotten out of control. The punishment should fit the crime. Should it be illegal for NFL players to say mean things to each other? Should you get kicked out of the league for it? Especially when a guy like Ben Rothlisberger still has a job?

[Dom Heffner]

I didn't think this would immediately turn into "A Modest Proposal".

You can't possibly eliminate all forms of discomfort, so you have to learn how to deal with it. One of the reasons we keep pets is so we can learn how to deal with the emotional impact of loss when that pet dies. One of the reasons we tease and haze one another is to learn how to deal with petty confrontation and cruelty without running to the nearest authority figure to complain about our hurt feelings. I'm not saying this behavior should go unpunished, but the current cultural "war on meanness" feels like a witch hunt.

You are correct, we can't. But we can get rid of ones we can control.

Hazing isn't like the weather...or hard economic times.

And the pet thing...that isn't why I own a pet lol...

[kpresidente]

I always found bullying to be the domain of the small minded and completely unrelated to harmless teasing as it often was an event that pain was inflicted on me both physically and mentally.

If that's "character building" then so be it

There's a difference between hazing and bullying. Hazing can be character building, as in it can build the backbone you use to stand up to the bully.

[RedEye]

Agreed, but I think it's gotten out of control. The punishment should fit the crime. Should it be illegal for NFL players to say mean things to each other? Should you get kicked out of the league for it? Especially when a guy like Ben Rothlisberger still has a job?

In general, I agree that the punishment should fit the crime. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. I would wager that Roethlisberger got by on the same set of "buddy-buddy" unwritten rules that enables the type of abuse that goes on in NFL locker rooms between players.

As far as this specific case is concerned, I guess not knowing the full details of the Dolphins situation makes me reticent to cast judgment, but I get the sense that Martin experienced something beyond mere "mean things" being said to him. He's gotta be pretty miserable to walk out on a paycheck like that. I would assume he tried more diplomatic ways to handle the situation many times before that. I'm not sure whether we know yet whether he reached out to the coaching staff and, if he did, whether we know exactly what happened. I think that's part of why the story has legs, actually -- there are a lot of details still to come.

[Johnny Footstool]

You are correct, we can't. But we can get rid of ones we can control.

Hazing isn't like the weather...or hard economic times.

And the pet thing...that isn't why I own a pet lol...

No, it's not like the weather or economic hard times, and we shouldn't treat it as such.

And why else would someone let a kid own a hamster?:)

[RedEye]

There's a difference between hazing and bullying. Hazing can be character building, as in it can build the backbone you use to stand up to the bully.

As I understand it, hazing almost always involves a group of more established players/frat brothers/band members/whatever "picking on" newer or less experienced ones. It is really a case-by-case judgment as to whether there is bullying involved.

I have a hard time thinking about an example of where hazing is "character building" though. Or, rather, there are probably better (and less potentially destructive) ways to do so.

[kpresidente]

It's amusing and sad when people are so sure that subjective judgments like yours are absolutes. Every time I key someone's car, I'm just trying to toughen them up.

What's amusing and sad is that people will argue in such bad faith while maintaining that they've said something legitimate, as you've done here. Keying somebody's car and painting shoes in a locker room joke nothing alike, in intention or outcome. I realize some people struggle with all the nuance of human relationships and such, but this one's pretty cut and dry.

[kpresidente]

I have a hard time thinking about an example of where hazing is "character building" though. Or, rather, there are probably better (and less potentially destructive) ways to do so.

Boot camp is just institutionalized hazing. They do it for the same reasons as sports teams/frats/bands/whatever. It's effective.

[RedEye]

Boot camp is just institutionalized hazing. They do it for the same reasons as sports teams/frats/bands/whatever. It's effective.

And yet, if it is institutionalized, it most likely has better oversight in many cases. And it is more highly organized and directed more equally toward individuals in the "hazed" group -- who form bonds together because of the things they've faced up to.

The problem in the case of the Dolphins (and the NFL in general) is that it is self-policed by the players, without any sort of written code of conduct as exists in other institutions with similar things. And when there is an informal process, you also open the door toward certain individuals (i.e. Martin) getting targeted more than others.

[RedEye]

What's amusing and sad is that people will argue in such bad faith while maintaining that they've said something legitimate, as you've done here. Keying somebody's car and painting shoes in a locker room joke nothing alike, in intention or outcome. I realize some people struggle with all the nuance of human relationships and such, but this one's pretty cut and dry.

Again, the seriousness of shoe painting depends on the context. No way to know how abusive something is just through the act itself.

[kaldaniels]

Now don't brush this off as a hypothetical - but regarding the Hooters picture...

Lets say Joe Valentine doesn't want to partake in that because you can see his frank and beans thru the shorts (or for whatever reason...I just made one up ;))

I'm going to wager no one is going to think that he should be physically or emotionally abused due to that choice. But what would happen do you think? What should happen?

Most on here have brushed off that picture as guys having fun and bonding...but if a guy doesn't participate what does that say about him trying to fit into the clubhouse culture. I imagine 99.9 percent of guys would do it...but what about the one guy that just didn't want to (hypothetical...go with it).

An easy answer is that nothing should happen...but I don't know that it is that simple.

[757690]

Boot camp is just institutionalized hazing. They do it for the same reasons as sports teams/frats/bands/whatever. It's effective.

The purpose of boot camp is to de-humanize the soldier.

In WWII, less than a third of all US soldiers actually fired their weapon. Most were too humanistic to do so, they just couldn't kill someone. Boot camp was changed after that to not just get the soldiers into shape, but to get them into killing shape, to get them mentally and emotionally to the point where they could kill without thinking about it.

I'm not sure we want our sports team copying that.

[757690]

Now don't brush this off as a hypothetical - but regarding the Hooters picture...

Lets say Joe Valentine doesn't want to partake in that because you can see his frank and beans thru the shorts (or for whatever reason...I just made one up ;))

I'm going to wager no one is going to think that he should be physically or emotionally abused due to that choice. But what would happen do you think? What should happen?

Most on here have brushed off that picture as guys having fun and bonding...but if a guy doesn't participate what does that say about him trying to fit into the clubhouse culture. I imagine 99.9 percent of guys would do it...but what about the one guy that just didn't want to (hypothetical...go with it).

An easy answer is that nothing should happen...but I don't know that it is that simple.

First, Valentine had two moms, so I'm sure this was nothing compared to the hazing and bullying he had already put up with most of his life. Another player might be a better example.

Second, what goes on in a baseball clubhouse is very tame compared to a football clubhouse. If this was a football team, he'd gotten a "code red" for sure, something in the middle of the night. In a baseball clubhouse, he probably would have had to pick up a check at dinner or something like that.

[kaldaniels]

First, Valentine had two moms, so I'm sure this was nothing compared to the hazing and bullying he had already put up with most of his life. Another player might be a better example.

No it wouldn't. I needed Joe Valentine for my frank and beans remark.

[Beltway]

What's amusing and sad is that people will argue in such bad faith while maintaining that they've said something legitimate, as you've done here. Keying somebody's car and painting shoes in a locker room joke nothing alike, in intention or outcome. I realize some people struggle with all the nuance of human relationships and such, but this one's pretty cut and dry.
Bad faith? Hardly. You're arguing that your opinions, your preferences, are objective truths. They're not.

[RedEye]

First, Valentine had two moms, so I'm sure this was nothing compared to the hazing and bullying he had already put up with most of his life. Another player might be a better example.

Second, what goes on in a baseball clubhouse is very tame compared to a football clubhouse. If this was a football team, he'd gotten a "code red" for sure, something in the middle of the night. In a baseball clubhouse, he probably would have had to pick up a check at dinner or something like that.

I assume your remark about Valentine's two moms is in jest.

I tend to think you are right about baseball in general -- although it probably depends on the personalities involved.

[westofyou]

I assume your remark about Valentine's two moms is in jest.

I tend to think you are right about baseball in general -- although it probably depends on the personalities involved.

Valentine was from a non traditional household, no jest.

[RedEye]

Valentine was from a non traditional household, no jest.

I got that. What I meant is that I assume that he must be joking if he thinks that just because a guy has put up with bullying before he's more likely to put up with it later.

The point is that NO person should have to put up with bullying -- maybe even especially not someone like Joe Valentine.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. Carry on.

[kearns and dunn]

People don't really think that Gabe Kaplar getting made fun of for doing a photo shoot in a small piece of swimwear is hazing/bullying...right?

Cause in that case, I haze/bully my friends all the time.

[Johnny Footstool]

People don't really think that Gabe Kaplar getting made fun of for doing a photo shoot in a small piece of swimwear is hazing/bullying...right?

Cause in that case, I haze/bully my friends all the time.

I think more and more, people are having trouble drawing the line. I've seen people on this board claim that fans taunting a player on the field is bullying.

[kpresidente]

The purpose of boot camp is to de-humanize the soldier.

In WWII, less than a third of all US soldiers actually fired their weapon. Most were too humanistic to do so, they just couldn't kill someone. Boot camp was changed after that to not just get the soldiers into shape, but to get them into killing shape, to get them mentally and emotionally to the point where they could kill without thinking about it.

I'm not sure we want our sports team copying that.

De-humanize, eh? Odd term, given that humans have been killing each other since we were baboons. It's as human as eating or (...). What the military does is prepare soldiers for all kinds of physically and psychologically difficult scenarios, and also forming tight bonds within the unit. There's nothing specifically geared toward killing people - although that's obviously a reality of the profession. And of course all of this is far better than leaving them unprepared, which what I imagine you're suggesting.

But to recap, I've learned in this thread that painting shoes turns you into a killer and having your shoes painted is as bad as starving children. And people wonder why I say whole anti-bullying campaign is a gigantic manufactured grievance.

[wheels]

Regardless of what I feel about the hurt feelings and ruined shoes, I'd have no problems if people started being naturally nicer to each other.

I just worry that some of the folks that are complaining about bullying would be advocates for a different type of bullying in order to stop it.

What I fear most is a Patriot Act type law against bullying.

Some guy in a locker room somewhere makes fun of another guy's hair.....whoosh! Drone with a hellfire missile takes him out, along with his family in order to cover the pre crime.

[kpresidente]

Regardless of what I feel about the hurt feelings and ruined shoes, I'd have no problems if people started being naturally nicer to each other.

Niceness is overrated. The most important virtue IMO is honesty, even (maybe especially) when it leads to conflict. But the griefers want everybody to always just smile and say nice things no what they really feel. But that doesn't solve any conflict, it just bottles it up until everybody's as miserable as they are, walking around on egg shells all the time. That's why this campaign to emasculate America is so despicable.

[wheels]

Niceness is overrated. The most important virtue IMO is honesty, even (maybe especially) when it leads to conflict. But the griefers want everybody to always just smile and say nice things no what they really feel. But that doesn't solve any conflict, it just bottles it up until everybody's as miserable as they are, walking around on egg shells all the time. That's why this campaign to emasculate America is so despicable.

I'm probably a bigger individualist than anyone you know, definitely not emasculated, but I'm also a super friendly, affable guy. The two things aren't exclusive.

What's so bad about peace, love, and understanding?

Here's the thing. If there is a genuine societal effort to forge a more caring, polite society (without the government strong arming it into us, or the more insidious Brave New World type dumbing down) there is nothing you can do about it.

I hate Twitter and MP3's, but the market has spoken. Dig?

[Yachtzee]

De-humanize, eh? Odd term, given that humans have been killing each other since we were baboons. It's as human as eating or (...). What the military does is prepare soldiers for all kinds of physically and psychologically difficult scenarios, and also forming tight bonds within the unit. There's nothing specifically geared toward killing people - although that's obviously a reality of the profession. And of course all of this is far better than leaving them unprepared, which what I imagine you're suggesting.

But to recap, I've learned in this thread that painting shoes turns you into a killer and having your shoes painted is as bad as starving children. And people wonder why I say whole anti-bullying campaign is a gigantic manufactured grievance.

I don't know about de-humanizing the soldier, but for a time there was a purpose to dehumanize the enemy to make it easier for soldiers to justify killing them. The ideal was to have a trained soldier who could follow orders and kill as many of the enemy as possible. I believe this was the philosophy up through thd Vietnam War. I believe training methods in the military have changed since then as soldiers now have to be trained to be able to interact with the civilian population in a manner which doesn't turn them toward opposition. With the increase in female personnel in combat roles, there is also a move away from hazing and trying to "break down" the soldier as a result of issues where such conduct has led to sexual assaults on female soldiers in many instances. I believe the Marines have an Anti-Hazing policy on the books.

[RedEye]

I don't get why trying to put reasonable policies in place regarding bullying and workplace abuse necessarily has to be a sign of the emasculation apocalypse. Generally people do better in environments where they respect others and feel respected by them.

Some posters here make civilization sound like emasculation. I think we could still get a lot more of the former without getting anywhere close to the latter. Does that make me a griefer? Nah. Just a guy who believes human beings can do better by each other than we often do.

[wheels]

I don't get why trying to put reasonable policies in place regarding bullying and workplace abuse necessarily has to be a sign of the emasculation apocalypse. Generally people do better in environments where they respect others and feel respected by them. Some posters here make civilization sound like emasculation. I think we could still get a lot more of the former without getting anywhere close to the latter. Does that make me a griefer? Nah. Just a guy who believes human beings can do better by each other than we often do.

That being said...Who enacts these policies?

Do you think the government needs to point guns at people in order to enact this change?

What are the penalties if I freeze someone's underwear? What if I refuse to be punished?

Let's say I punch an old lady on the street (obviously the wrong thing to do)....there are laws against that. Shouldn't the same law apply in the clubhouse or locker room? Why would we need yet another law?

Saying mean things to someone isn't a great thing to do either, but do you want the cops barging in with handcuffs when it happens?

I hope that's not what you're saying. I hope you mean private business should ask for more decorum from their employees, and that it's up to the employees to decide whether or not they want to work for the company.

Otherwise, you want an authoritarian society, which is always an awful, terrible thing.

[RedEye]

Saying mean things to someone isn't a great thing to do either, but do you want the cops barging in with handcuffs when it happens?

I hope that's not what you're saying. I hope you mean private business should ask for more decorum from their employees, and that it's up to the employees to decide whether or not they want to work for the company.

Otherwise, you want an authoritarian society, which is always an awful, terrible thing.

I think you are taking the slippery slope the other way. Then again, I didn't really write clearly. But no, I'm not hoping for some sort of American gulag, if that's what you mean. :)

When you are talking about the NFL, you're talking about an institution that (to my mind) runs on a lot of testosterone and masculine energy. Anyone in their right mind is going to realize that some of this stuff is going to go on regardless of the rules. Laws can't control everything. By the same token, if the Martin/Incognito affair pushes the powers that be to establish clear language and reasonable policies about what constitutes acceptable workplace behavior and how to enforce it when needed, I'm all for it.

On a larger scale, I think it is complicated. I actually think this sort of thing has to be handled case-by-case, and there could be some frameworks where policies like this are best handled from a state or federal government level. In general, though, I think the scale of these infractions is such that they are best handled on a micro, person-to-person level. So I guess in that sense I agree with you about best practices being best conceived and enforced on a local scale.

[wheels]

I think you are taking the slippery slope the other way. Then again, I didn't really write clearly. But no, I'm not hoping for some sort of American gulag, if that's what you mean. :)

When you are talking about the NFL, you're talking about an institution that (to my mind) runs on a lot of testosterone and masculine energy. Anyone in their right mind is going to realize that some of this stuff is going to go on regardless of the rules. Laws can't control everything. By the same token, if the Martin/Incognito affair pushes the powers that be to establish clear language and reasonable policies about what constitutes acceptable workplace behavior and how to enforce it when needed, I'm all for it.

On a larger scale, I think it is complicated. I actually think this sort of thing has to be handled case-by-case, and there could be some frameworks where policies like this are best handled from a state or federal government level. In general, though, I think the scale of these infractions is such that they are best handled on a micro, person-to-person level. So I guess in that sense I agree with you about best practices being best conceived and enforced on a local scale.

The NFL putting by laws in place to curb the problem? Sure. I'd get behind that.

Any government official thinking that they have to right to police the words that come out of someone's mouth(remember, there are assault laws already in place for the physical harm)?

No way. That's utter tyranny.

[RedEye]

The NFL putting by laws in place to curb the problem? Sure. I'd get behind that.

Any government official thinking that they have to right to police the words that come out of someone's mouth(remember, there are assault laws already in place for the physical harm)?

No way. That's utter tyranny.

I don't think I said anything about policing language, did I? Maybe I missed something you said, but I was talking about patterns of abuse and bullying. There is a difference. But again, I didn't realize we were talking about having door-to-door language police. Yes, that would be disturbing.

[wheels]

I don't think I said anything about policing language, did I? Maybe I missed something you said, but I was talking about patterns of abuse and bullying. There is a difference. But again, I didn't realize we were talking about having door-to-door language police. Yes, that would be disturbing.

Okay. Good. I was starting to worry about you.:laugh:

[RedEye]

Okay. Good. I was starting to worry about you.:laugh:

Yeah, I tend to get picky about language. But no, I don't think the government should be in the business of enforcing "proper" practice of it.

The exceptions, of course, would be in situations of abuse... which very rarely involve only language, but could be mostly that (the Tino Martinez example, for instance, comes to mind). But again, my sense is that even if bylaws are put in place for various institutions, the enforcement of these issues is generally best left to those who are involved on a local level.

What the Dolphins case demonstrates, I think, is why some basic "best practice" guidelines could be useful for NFL coaching staffs who have a lot more to worry about than what their players are saying to one another. I know people often roll their eyes at HR Department procedures like "sensitivity training", but those of us who actually have been involved in abusive situations realize that this sort of thing can be worth its weight in gold when certain situations arise that spin into a vicious cycle.

[wheels]

Yeah, I tend to get picky about language. But no, I don't think the government should be in the business of enforcing "proper" practice of it.

The exceptions, of course, would be in situations of abuse... which very rarely involve only language, but could be mostly that (the Tino Martinez example, for instance, comes to mind). But again, my sense is that even if bylaws are put in place for various institutions, the enforcement of these issues is generally best left to those who are involved on a local level.

What the Dolphins case demonstrates, I think, is why some basic "best practice" guidelines could be useful for NFL coaching staffs who have a lot more to worry about than what their players are saying to one another. I know people often roll their eyes at HR Department procedures like "sensitivity training", but those of us who actually have been involved in abusive situations realize that this sort of thing can be worth its weight in gold when certain situations arise that spin into a vicious cycle.

What happened with Tino Martinez?

I totally understand where you're coming from now. Every business has the right to have a system of standards in place regarding workplace behavior. No one is being forced to work for them. I'm a business owner, and while I can put up with a lot, one employee getting on another to the point of harassment is something I won't tolerate.

[RedEye]

What happened with Tino Martinez?


http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/22923345/report-marlins-hitting-coach-tino-martinez-abused-player

Basically, he resigned from the Marlins before an abuse case blew up in his face. Sounds like it mostly involved verbal intimidation, though that usually goes hand-in-hand with physical threats -- whether just implied or actually carried out.


"I just thought with some young players you needed to be a little firmer and try to get them on the right track," he said (AP). "I probably used some four-letter words. I thought I was doing the right thing. Obviously, I wasn't."

[RedEye]

I'm a business owner, and while I can put up with a lot, one employee getting on another to the point of harassment is something I won't tolerate.

Agreed. It really is a case-by-case issue, too. Different types of workplaces have different cultures and different ways in which lines can be crossed. In terms of larger bodies like the NFL (or government bodies, in certain situations) these sorts of bylaws would have to tend to be drawn pretty broadly -- but they can still be helpful to enforce stuff at the local level.

[Redsfaithful]

De-humanize, eh? Odd term, given that humans have been killing each other since we were baboons. It's as human as eating or (...).

It's not. It's estimated that in pre-industrial war a very small percentage of soldiers did a large percentage of the killing. Human beings are social animals, it's a rarity for a human to be a killer, whatever you may have learned from CSI and the news or what have you.

It's really stressful to the average human psyche to hurt others. It's where a lot of PTSD comes from (it would not shock me at all if you don't believe in PTSD.)

[kpresidente]

It's not. It's estimated that in pre-industrial war a very small percentage of soldiers did a large percentage of the killing. Human beings are social animals, it's a rarity for a human to be a killer, whatever you may have learned from CSI and the news or what have you.

I'm not sure what era you mean when you say pre-industrial war, but Stephen Pinker has shown that violent death rates for males in primitive cultures were several order of magnitude larger than during even the heights of WWII. Sometimes as high as 50%. So, like I said, human beings have been killing each other since we were baboons...much less so today.


It's really stressful to the average human psyche to hurt others. It's where a lot of PTSD comes from

Sure it is, but mostly as a function of modern ethics.

[RedEye]

Sure it is, but mostly as a function of modern ethics.

Some would say it is a good thing that people find killing stressful.

[Redsfaithful]

I'm not sure what era you mean when you say pre-industrial war

Not a clear line, but probably pre-World War I. But I dunno, even in the 19th century there were cannons, etc.

Point being there was a time when in battle one human being killed another human being, but then machinery became involved, war became industrialized, and things changed.

I read an amazing article about war on battleships in World War II on the Japanese front, and it was just horrible, but the heck if I can find it.

I believe there was a study on Vikings that reinforced what I'm saying about most of the killing coming from a small number of fighters, I'll see if I can find it.

I've read stuff like you are saying also about pre-civilization violence, I just don't know that it is relevant. Human nature has changed.