Selective Outrage Is Still the Script
So this is an example of the social media fire lit by the sharing of images allegedly showing Patriots HC Mike Vrabel and NYT football reporter Dianna Russini spending time together at an adults-only resort in Arizona. BOTH are married to other people, and this appears to raise issues not only for those personal situations, but also around the idea of journalistic integrity.
IF the photos posted are truly showing infidelity, I suppose this type of comment is expected. (The add-on of Joy Taylor is based on allegations of her behavior at FS1 while growing her career imprint.) But this is where the TeamsOfMen conversation begins.
Why is there such a quick erasure of disdain for Vrabel — and for any other men on the other side of the “she slept her way to the top” coin? The woman becomes the center of the outrage, the villain of the story, the one whose career legitimacy gets put on trial. Meanwhile, the man involved often fades into the background as if he were simply present rather than an active participant.
Let’s say for a moment the allegations are true. He is married. He made a decision. He is also someone entrusted with leadership, judgment, and representing an organization. Those qualities are not just football words. Those are life words. So why does the public response so often erase disdain for the man on the other side of the story?
This is Manbox framing 101.
The script teaches us to blame women, repeat the same lazy tropes about men being wired to sleep with whatever moves, and then quietly erase consequence and responsibility for male action. Somehow the woman is framed as the architect while the man is cast as powerless, confused, or simply overtaken by temptation. Come on.
That framing is not just intellectually dishonest. It is dangerous.
Because if a woman is supposedly “using sex to climb,” then by definition there is a man in power who is willing to exchange opportunity, salary, access, promotion, or protection for sexual access. That does not make him invisible. That makes him equally accountable.
Our guys need help seeing this script when it shows up in the world around them. The lesson is not about celebrity gossip. The lesson is about how quickly culture defaults to shielding male agency while putting women on trial. If we don’t name that, we are reinforcing the same belief system that excuses harm in locker rooms, classrooms, workplaces, and relationships.
And here’s the part that matters most to me: this cycle almost always moves on faster for the man. By preseason, the sports world will likely tell us to focus on the next opponent and let the story die. Meanwhile, the woman may continue to face attacks on her credibility, her career, and her character long after the headlines fade.
That imbalance is the lesson.
Once our players can see the script, they can stop unconsciously living inside it.
Coach Prompts
When stories like this hit social media, whose responsibility does your team instinctively focus on first?
What language around men’s “nature” have your players been taught that might excuse accountability?
How do we help athletes separate attraction, power, and responsibility?
Player Prompts
Why do you think public blame so often lands first and hardest on the woman?
Can someone in power claim they were not responsible for the choice they made?
Where do you see this same script show up in everyday life, not just celebrity stories?
