What is illustrative about this incident is the messiness of what happened. Whether Greinke initially hit Quentin with the ball is partially unclear, although most analyses point to it being unintentional. (Greinke’s stance in the batter’s box is such that he’s one of the most frequently hit players in baseball. Also, it’s very unlikely for a pitcher to intentionally throw at a batter on a 3-2 count in a 1-run game.) What’s messy is that Quentin initially started walking towards first base when Greinke said something (it’s unclear what exactly he said) and then Quentin charged him. Also, much has been made of the fact that Greinke put his shoulder down to hold his ground as Quentin rushed him. Much like survivors of domestic violence, Greinke isn’t shown as the perfectly innocent victim in the incident, and thus, focus has moved away from the perpetrator of the violence and onto the person injured. It’s a real word example of how expectations of a clear contrast between who is a victim and who is a perpetrator are often unrealistic.
Excusing bad behavior
The commentary after the brawl has been very similar to the troubling reactions generally offered to make sense of domestic violence events. Much of the public reaction has accepted the premise that Greinke did not plan to hit Quentin, but commentators continue to blame Greinke for saying something to Quentin that “caused” him to react the way he did, which to be clear, was to BREAK GREINKE’s COLLARBONE. This same type of excuse for unacceptable behavior is attached to incidents of domestic violence, too. While we might not argue over what horrific act an abuser committed against his partner, the media and public speculate anyway about what she did to trigger his intolerable behavior. Quentin himself, much like men who abuse their romantic partners, also offered an excuse that blamed Greinke for his own broken collarbone.
"Like I said, there is a history there, which is the reason I reacted like I did. Who knows what happens if he doesn't say anything or if he motions that it wasn't intentional?" Quentin said afterwards.
Quentin repeatedly suggests that being hit with the ball by Greinke was the final “trigger” that caused him to act like he did, even though it’s unlikely there really was any animosity between the two players before the game. Even if there was history between the players, it is NO JUSTIFICATION for harming someone. If Greinke really was purposefully aiming for Quentin, there are already sanctions in place in the game for this inappropriate behavior.
Even my beloved Seattle Mariners’ TV announcers spent time the next day recapping the event and concluded that Greinke shouldn’t have said anything, but spent no time at all questioning whether Quentin should have charged the mound and broken another player’s collarbone. The same thing happens when trying to make sense of domestic violence. So much time is spent on what the victim did or didn’t do, and hardly anyone speculates about why some men are abusive, aggressive, and physically harm others.
Many chalked Quentin’s choice to charge Greinke up to an emotional reaction, as if his paranoia of Greinke hitting him on purpose was justification for his actions. For instance, reporters pointed out that Quentin broke his wrist in 2008 after smashing his hand against his own bat in reaction to striking out. The picture they painted was one of someone who just doesn’t have impulse control. Quentin may very well need help with anger and impulse control, but it should not be used as a response to explain away someone’s bad behavior. One of my favorite Batterer Intervention Program (BIP) specialists, Mark Adams, always tells this story of asking men in his BIP how drunk they would have to be to French kiss their grandmothers. All of them always say it doesn’t matter how drunk they were, they wouldn’t do it. This is Adams’ way of making the point that there is ALWAYS a choice for our behavior, no matter how emotional (or in Adams’ example, drunk) someone might be.
Victim-blaming is pervasive in baseball & domestic violence
Sports Illustrated posited that Greinke was suffering the consequences (a broken collarbone and missing 6 weeks of games) because “he didn’t back down.” To be fair, the article spends a fair amount of time putting the blame on Quentin, but Sports Illustrated can’t help but question Greinke’s role as somehow inviting the batter to pummel him:
“Greinke could have thrown up his hands in the international symbol of, ‘Hey, I wasn't trying to hit you.’ Instead, Greinke seemed to bark nothing more than one or two words at Quentin. Only then did Quentin charge the mound.”
I don’t know about you, but I feel fairly justified in thinking that I can say whatever I want, no matter how offensive, and have the expectation that someone won’t charge me and break my collarbone. Survivors of domestic violence also face this unreasonable scrutiny and blame for their actions when seeking support. The Padres manager and CEO also jumped on the victim-blaming train and offered this to season-ticket holders:
"Zack Greinke is a different kind of guy. Anybody seen Rain Man? He's a very smart guy. He has social anxiety disorder. He doesn't interact well with his team; he doesn't have meals with his teammates. He spends his life studying how to get hitters out.... This is my opinion, and I can't say this publicly, although I guess this is public, so please don't tweet it out. We're in the trust tree here, in the nest. He hit him on purpose, that's what I believe. And then the next thing is, I don't know about you guys, but I'm 6'3", 225. If Carlos Quentin was running at me, I would not put my shoulder down."
Again, the parallels to what happens to domestic violence survivors is striking. It is more common than it should be for people to speculate and downright make up potential mental health diagnoses for victims of domestic violence. This is not only perpetuating the harm to the victim, but it aligns society with the abuser and obscures his reprehensible behavior.
Consequences most severe for the victim
Also, like the outcomes of domestic violence, the lasting consequences to the incident impact the victim more than the perpetrator of the violence. In this baseball brawl example, Quentin will be barred from playing in 8 games while Greinke will be unable to pitch for at least 6 weeks. While some public reaction called for stronger disciplinary action for batters who charge the pitcher, the precedent for significant consequences is nonexistent. As long as the responsibility for rushing the mound continues to be minimized, it’s unlikely that there will be a change in the rules. Similarly, the consequences for survivors of abuse are usually much more severe and longer lasting than any sanctions faced by their perpetrators. The impact of abuse on survivors’ lives is seemingly endless (missed work, isolation, decreased self-esteem, physical injuries, PTSD-anxiety-depression, loss of a job, need to move, evictions, judgment by friends and family, etc.) while perpetrators of abuse rarely face consequences and when they do, they are often minimal.
If Quentin truly thinks that the disincentives to (repeatedly) hitting a batter are not sufficient as they currently stand, maybe he could spend sometime lobbying MLB for a change in the consequences. However, given that Quentin said after the brawl, “It's a man's game,'' I have a hard time believing he really is concerned about the rules and was mostly just looking for a justification for his appalling behavior. In sports and in relationships, we need to stop defending, tolerating, and justifying men’s violent behavior.
I have strong doubts that fewer people are getting married due to rising gender equality. It’s obvious that gender equality has impacted marriage and divorce rates in the past (no-fault divorce, women’s increased employment, etc.), but it is a diminishing part of the story of marriage trends today. We know that the gains of the feminist movement have actually stalled out over the last decade or so, but marriage rates have continued to decline (maybe somebody with fancier statistical skills can make me a graph demonstrating this point!). Also, you don’t have to look too far to see that weddings and marriage continue to be overpowered by gender roles.
There was an article going around Facebook this month contending that those who are against same-sex marriage are FOR sexism. Well, I’d have to broaden that argument – a lot of people are trapped in stereotypical marriage frameworks, not excluding those of us in favor of same-sex marriage. For example, the website Jezebel, which has been outspoken for same-sex marriage, assumes the heteronormative script that couples engage in proposals (pun intended), and that men do the proposing (while only taking issue with the spectacle and consumerism of the proposal): “If you're the person we decided we want to spend the rest of our lives with, as long as there's a little romance and maybe a splash of booze, it just doesn't fucking matter what you do.” The news Jezebel was critiquing actually perfectly represents the still very dominant expectation that men propose: a groom made headlines for spending $45,000 on a proposal. While making news because of the extravagance, lifelong romantic commitments continue to be a spectacle which centers men in the provider role and depicts women as longing to get married. A quote from this groom confirms this:
“Asked if the expense was worth it, Ogle replied that he was spending money on what was important. He said that men often didn't have control over what happened at their weddings but said he had total control over the proposal." (abcnews.go.com)
Does rising gender equality have something to do with the decline in marriage? Yes, but it certainly doesn't tell the whole story and I don’t think it accounts for current trends.