Women, Dogs, and Michael Vick: Department of Feminist Outrage

Piece ignores the depraved nature of Vick's actions

By: severitt | Tue, 09/01/2009 - 16:58

This piece stems from the unfortunate reasoning of "it's only dogs" or "it's only animals" and "why don't we care more about humans"? -- as if our society always favors animals over humans, when the opposite is true. Vick did not just participate in dog fighting or in running a dog fighting ring; he personally killed dogs by beating them to death -- i.e., by torturing them to death. His actions were evil and the result of a depraved mind. The author essentially says no crime against an animal can equate with a crime against a human, and especially a woman, but this makes no sense when the proportions of the crime are taken into account. I'm sorry if it insults "humans" to say it, but inflicting this much pain intentionally on hundreds of animals is worse than a more minor crime against a human. I am not saying a human life is equal to a dog's life (or that even 5 dogs' lives would be equal to a human) but at some point the amount of depraved injury inflicted against hundreds of animals tips the balance. Yes, torturing and killing that many animals is worse than someone driving drunk or commiting one act of domestic violence -- the latter don't have the same level of intent. These were animals who were totally innocent and over whom he had complete control; there was no justification or mitigating circumstance whatsoever.
And why the rush to "forgive" Vick -- who cares whether he plays ever again? His former dogs are still suffering (he certainly is not going to "pick up the pieces" and take care of these dogs; it is left to nonprofit groups and volunteers) and he has never displayed the slightest amount of remorse for them, as opposed to an "apology" written by his handlers.

Culture of abuse, maybe?

By: Dark King | Sun, 08/30/2009 - 21:12

I'm commenting from a distance here, but the main thing I hear about American football at the high school and college level is that the "stars" can get away with just about anything. School administrations anxious to hang on to their "stars" who might win the school prestige with some useless pennant bend over backwards to cover up bullying, drug abuse and worse.

If this is the culture that these "star athletes" grow up in, how can the rest of society expect them to care about players who beat their girlfriends (or who are rapists)? They've lived with a sense of "the law cannot touch me; I am entitled" since they were teenagers. And given how incestuous the football world is (coaches and administrators alike are ex-players), I suspect there is a culture of covering things up and simply not caring.

Vick has been singled out because (a.) the media cares more about cute puppies being hurt than it does about people (forget abusive boyfriends for a second - where was the reporting on Darfur while Vick was in the headlines?) and (b.) he broke the 11th commandment and got caught.

Michael Vick

By: RealConservative | Sat, 08/29/2009 - 18:28

If Vick had beaten, tortured and drowned a women, I can assure you that there would be no issue with him rejoining the NFL. There MIGHT be a question about whether he could ever walk the streets free again.

Professional sports, along with other activities that either pay well or have good looking men with power and influence, attracts a lot of hangers on. It may be unfortunate for those who are really victims of violence from these men, but people are becoming cynical about such relationships and the posturing that usually accompanies their eventual breakups.

For most, the latest accusations and allegations are just not news anymore. Just the inevitable fallout of a celebrity intoxicated culture and a sense of entitlement of anyone who provides sex to such men.

This has never made sense to me...

By: theviewfromtheground | Fri, 08/28/2009 - 16:30

Donte Stallworth kills someone while driving drunk and gets a few weeks in the slammer and a year away from football. The video of Adam "Pacman" Jones "making it rain" in a club on a night that led to a gruesome shooting was one of the more disturbing things I saw in 2009. I understand that the unique nature of Vick's crimes added a freakshow element to things. But I think the point of this article is well taken.

Most of my friends on the south side of Chicago feel like Vick's treatment has been borderline racist -- he did some bad things, but he also did a somewhat reasonable amount of real jail time for his crimes. It is perverse that Vick should be the object of such outrage when many others are given a pass even though their crimes hurt and have even taken the lives of other human beings.

I don't think we can blame

By: jasonr | Fri, 08/28/2009 - 16:22

I don't think we can blame the NFL nearly as much as the fans. When the NFL did re-instate Vick, there were a lot of fans of the Philadelphia team who stopped buying tickets and swore never to follow the team again. On the few times I've heard about violence against women from an NFL player, there seemed to be almost no response from the fans.

alternate explanation

By: diggyg | Fri, 08/28/2009 - 15:08

MelM... here's an alternate explanation that I think has some merit:
Abusing dogs the way Vick did is too weird, and unique to fade from the public's memory (sadly, domestic violence is much more common). PETA knows that they'll probably never have a better chance for reaching a sports audience, so they're making an effort beyond what women's rights groups usually make when athletes beat their wives.

Good point

By: MelM | Fri, 08/28/2009 - 14:29

Teaspoon makes a good point about women's advocacy groups. Sure, when a woman is beaten by a sports star, you hear sound clips from women's groups or domestic violence groups, but it ends quickly. When Vick was convicted, and then again on his release, PETA, the ASPCA and many other animal rights groups rushed to put out press releases and open letters asking the commissioner of football to expel Vick from the NFL. They sent emails and letters to their members asking them to contact the NFL. They bought ad space on billboards, in magazines and newspapers. Who has ever seen anything like that for a woman who has been beaten?
We say that we must be advocates for animals because they cannot speak for themselves. Why aren't we advocates for women, who even though they can speak, are often too scared to do so?

Locksmith

By: usalocksmith09 | Fri, 08/28/2009 - 13:44

womens have to be independent always.Cerrajeros Locksmith Locksmiths

Unfair comparison

By: fsilber | Fri, 08/28/2009 - 13:24

If Michael Vick had merely beaten a dog, I don't think the NFL would have gotten involved. Likewise, if those other players charged with violence against women had actually forced their wives fight other people's wives to the death -- killing the women who refused to fight or who were too wounded to fight again, they would have been treated far MORE severely both by the state and by the league.

interesting perspective

By: teaspoon | Fri, 08/28/2009 - 13:02

I'd venture to guess that the NFL harbors the same attitude as that of people in my hometown when it comes to females that "accuse" men of rape. Many people from back home, which is admittedly a "red" state, regard the victim with a lot of doubt and blame. As in, "How dare she attempt to ruin that man's family/career/reputation?" A lot of women that are abused by high profile men are met with disbelief, and even physical threats from his fan base.

Also, as a former vegetarian, I've heard from more than one vegetarian/vegan that they would rather watch another human die than an animal. Perhaps PETA's outrage is louder than modern womens advocacy groups.