The NFL season started last weekand recaptured the attention of the American people. The NFL is clearly the most popular sport in America, and this week, its most talked about player this year, Michael Vick was placed on the active roster for the Philadelphia Eagles, and he is eligible to play in week 3.
Michael Vick is clearly the most controversial player to enter the NFL due to his conviction for dog fighting two years ago. The thoughts of protest and boos, debates of whether he should play or be suspend have consumed the sports world for a while now. Maybe we find his crime so disturbing because we are not used to stories of the torture of animals and dogfighting making the front page of newspapers, or maybe it is because we can't envision someone we cheered for doing something so terrible, or most likely we can't imagine the mind set of someone who would do something so terrible.
While Vick's crime was shocking other NFL players and other sports atheletes do terrible things. NFL player Brandon Marshell has repeatedly been accused of domestic violence, but if he does it one more time then he gets a four game suspension. However, no body is protesting whether or not Brandon Marshell should be allowed to play or should have to work with his community to repair his image. Fighting dogs and torturing living animals is terrible(clearly an understatement), but domestic violence is often overlooked. The message becomes don't kick a dog ever, but you can hit your wife or girlfriend and eventually you might be in trouble. Maybe the American public needs more education about the seriousness of domestice violence, but we seem to care less about abused women than we do about abused animals.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Do Americans Care More About Dogs Than Women?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16062
Ok first of all, yes, you're right, there isn't as much protest by far against athletes who commit crimes against women.
However, I think if a professional athlete were convicted of murdering multiple women, putting them in rings to fight to the death, and feeding live babies to starving women to teach them to be violent against other humans, they'd never be allowed to play again. They might never be released from prison.
Running dog fighting rings isn't just kicking dogs. It is SO WAY BEYOND that kind of abuse.
While I don't think people convicted of domestic violence should be allowed to make millions of dollars, either, I'm definitely more disgusted that Vick was allowed to continue a career in sports.
Er, that last sentence should read SHOULDN'T be allowed...
Oh nevermind I can't read today apparently. Last sentence was just written poorly, but the idea is, violent criminals shouldn't be allowed to make massive amounts of money. Should they be allowed to play? Sure. Maybe donate the majority of their salary to charities who help victims of violent crimes, though.
"violent criminals shouldn't be allowed to make massive amounts of money"
Why not?
Now, don't get me wrong, a violent criminal ought to serve time in jail for their crime. They ought to pay civil damages to their victim(s). They ought to be heavily monitored upon release.
However, an ex-criminal ought to be able to pursue whatever career they want, and make whatever money the market will allow.
Your statement flies in the face of the very idea of reform. If you're willing to permanently infringe on someone's economic/labor rights for being an ex-con you're not far away from other arguments against the possibility of reform, like the ol' "lock 'em away forever" ideas.
Well in Vick's case in particular he was not only making millions with his football career, he was also making massive amounts of money with the dogfighting. Why should he get a chance to make MILLIONS again (when that isn't actually necessary in life) when he was overly greedy once? Why should ONE person get two chances to make a disgusting amount of money? I don't think he should be ostracized from the rest of the world his whole life, but I don't think he deserves another chance to let his greed take over.
Vick made no money from the dog fighting. Truth be told it was a favor for his friends and he was hardly involved in it.
Re the op's point I think it's not just a question of domestic violence. Many players have committed a number of crimes and been allowed back in the league. The animal rights folks are simply fanatic.
Hmm....nope.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2884063
Honestly you should probably educate yourself on a subject before you make a comment. No one fights dogs as a "favor". The main objective of dog fighting is to make money, and he never denied it. I have no idea where you are even getting that concept from, its really pretty bizarre.
Because economic rights don't go away once you get out of jail. If your acting principle is that a person ought not be given the opportunity to make money because they misused money in the past I don't see how many ex-offenders would have the right, in your mind, to make a decent living.
Michael Vick isn't making an "obscene" amount of money. He's making the amount of money that a skill like his is rewarded in this society. You may disagree with this, but you're only one consumer among many.
Millions aren't necessary to live life, but so what? Should all ex-criminals have their paychecks garnished to take away all non-essential pay? And who decides this?
The advocating on this site for extra-judicial punishment just stuns me sometimes.
What astonishes me is your lack of empathy for the animals he tortured, and that he admitted himself killing. Yes, he killed the dogs with his own hands that he didn't feel fought well enough. He isn't just some random criminal that made a mistake, or had to make a living. He did this out of greed and it is disgusting.
Huh? How does my support for Michael Vick's human rights in any way denote lack of sympathy for the animals that suffered at his hand?
This isn't a mutually exclusive proposition. Michael Vick doesn't waive his human rights (specifically the right to a share of the profits of his labor in this instance) for his entire life as a result of the crime he committed. He went to jail. Now he's out and has the right to seek gainful employment using the skills he has.
If you want to argue that killing dogs ought to be a capital crime or subject to life imprisonment then that's a separate argument, but currently the justice system does not mete ought such harsh penalties for dogfighting.
So what if Michael Vick isn't a random criminal? That he's a public figure is relevant only to his admirers or detractors. His human rights aren't subject to debate, or at least they ought not be subject to debate.
As an ex-offender Michael Vick has the right to life, liberty, and property within certain limits imposed by the law. Rest assured that if he fails to reform he'll end up back in jail for longer, or at least be out of a job.
However, Vick's labor rights don't go down the drain because he killed dogs. In the same way that we can't torture offenders we also cannot deny offenders their economic rights outside of such penalties as are issued by the law.
Michael Vick is a human being with rights. Those rights include labor rights. Empathy for dogs does not in any way conflict with my support for human rights.
I actually agree with you 100% on this. I think that the heart of the matter really boils down to the fact that there are many people (myself included) who do not feel that Vick's punishment was sufficient for the brutality of his crimes. I genuinely do feel that once someone has paid the price for their crime, that they should be able to resume their life with no further sanctions (or, I suppose, with very few sanctions). I just don't think that Vick has actually served his time.
I disagree that Vick hasn't served his time. He has.
Now, if you lobby for harsher penalties for animal cruelty in the future that's all well and good, and you're well within your rights to do so, but Vick paid the penalty apportioned by the law at present. He also served on a plea deal, which made his sentence more lenient, and he served for a federal crime that led to state charges being dropped.
There are people who think that plenty of crimes should be considered capital crimes, and that the only fair punishment is death. So we can't really use these individual definitions of "enough time", because they conflict, and we can't hold offenders to different sets of justice based upon personal whims.
I'd argue, though, that a very long sentence for Vick would be counter-productive. Recidivism rates are highest when folks out of jail fail to secure a decent living. Since Vick's earning potential drops drastically every year he's in jail the best scenario for him is probably release with heavy monitoring.
If the goal of jail is vengeance then Vick didn't serve enough time. If the goal of jail, however, is to protect society and reform criminals then Vick has a chance to show us all that he served exactly enough time through his actions from here on out.
I apparently wasn't clear. I didn't say that Vick didn't serve his time, I said that I don't feel that his punishment was sufficiently severe. I'm not advocating tossing the guy back in jail after the fact; I'm saying that I don't think the penalties for animal cruelty are as severe as they should be.
I'm with you in that the level of reaction here is a scale issue and not a 'who is the victim' issue.
I think a better question to ask is "Do Americans Care more about Dogs that People
Athletes (and musicians) attract quite a bit of attention when they act violently for acting violently. They strangle one another in locker rooms, shoot one another, and get into fights on the court or in clubs and bars.
To a certain extent I think we do value loyal pets more than we do people, who are kinda sketchy.
Remember when the last Harry Potter book was coming out and people were wondering who was going to die, how it was going to happen, what was going to cause the fight and who was going to do the killing?
Despite the fact that the characters are imaginary, it takes quite a bit of callousness to play those imaginary games.
Compare that to Charlotte's Web and the love we had for Wilbur and Charlotte. A pig and a spider.
I really hate the false dichotomy that is created by questions like "Do Americans care more about dogs than women?" I understand the point that the criticism against Vick has been more virulent than what has been directed at other athletes accused/convicted of crimes against women. That said, however, I think it is troubling to insist that concern for animals and women is somehow a zero sum game.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to post "this is not a zero sum option."
I'm a feminist who works with survivors of assault. I also do what I can to support animal shelters and donate when I can to animal welfare agencies.
Saying that I (or others) have to pick one or the other or one OVER the is insulting. Both are extremely important to me. I hate the thought of dog fights and potentially wonderful animals and companions dying cruel and tortuous deaths because people can't empathize. I also hate the thought of women living in fear because of abusers and the threat of sexual assault.
I work to fight both. And really, I find the whole idealized hyper-masculinity so touted within the football (and many other athletic) industries extremely disturbing and don't support most of them.
The question, rather, has to be "Why don't more Americans embrace feminist values?"
This question has been explored before by many feminists, and the answer, I think, is that we've come to accept violence against women as common. This is not to say that we as a society condone violence against women, but because it happens everyday, as opposed to the violence against pets, we've grown desensitized of it all.
Our work, then, is not going to be effective by merely using celebrity athletes as examples, because violence against women does not happen just in said community. To be effective, we've got to reach out to common Americans to fight the issue.
Publicity is great, and making an example of an athlete is going to turn some heads, but at the end of the day, as long as Brandon Marshall continues to catch touchdowns (good luck with the crappy quarterback they have in Denver), Broncos fans are going to continue to cheer for him.
The NFL is not in the business of spreading feminism - nor is society. We've got to fight our own fights rather than relying on others.
Wait... do you mean that people don't think pets get beaten everyday or that people don't realize that pets get beaten everyday? Cause I watch animal cops, and that's just 5-8 cities in all of the U.S. Pets get abused way more than people think or want to believe.
I just want to know what you meant, I'm not attacking, I promise.
I have to say that line bothered me too, but then I interpreted it to mean that it referred to media coverage. Violence against women by someone famous is a news story literally every day. (Hello Shawn Merriman/Tila Tequila). Animal abuse less so. I can think of Vick and Roy Jones Jr. (Cockfighting) and thats it.
(Plus, Marc lives in Virginia, where dogfighting is a well-known, everyday occurrence, so I feel safe assuming he grasps how pervasive animal abuse is)
It also bears mentioning that in general, domestic abuse is more common than animal abuse.
I am glad you raised this question, because I got into an argument the other day with someone who is very Anti- Michael Vick but then had no opinion of Donte Stallworth.
Stallworth currently plays for the Cleveland Browns. (From Wikipedia to sum things up) Stallworth was charged with DUI and second degree manslaughter on April 1, 2009; He pleaded guilty, and received a sentence of 30 days in jail, plus 1,000 hours of community service, 2 years of house arrest, and 8 years probation. He has also received a life-time suspension of his Florida state driver's license. (This is also less time and money Vick had to pay.)
The NFL has only suspended him for one full season while Vick was suspended from the NFL for 2 years, although he was serving his prison sentence at the time.
I know my example does not involve a woman as the victim was a man, but I think it it plays to this question. It is easy to be outraged over abuse of animals because I have never met a person who wasn't outraged or upset over the idea of dog fighting, but drunk driving or assault, etc seem to fly under the radar and not get nearly as much media attention or public outcry. Ben Roethlisberger of the Pittsburg Steelers is accused of sexual assault and the case has not gone to trial but there seems to be little attention to this story as well.
Here in Pittsburgh it got a lot of attention after that first week or so, and every time there is a change or something new in the case, the local news reports on it. On Feministing at least, there were 2 community posts on Rothlisberger and at least one on the main page. I'm not sure outside of that how much attention it gets, though...
I think your example doesn't really work to this exact comparison because while a DUI and subsequent manslaughter are both absolutely disgusting and horrendous crimes, one would not assume that Stallworth purposefully got in his car that night with the intent of killing someone. Vick's crimes were not only intentional, but they were repeated and there are many reports that he got enjoyment out of his victims suffering. I think that this conversation is interesting, but think the question is more compelling when its regarding offenders who intentionally and repeatedly committed their crimes.
yes, duh.
Wealthy people care more about their dogs/pets than they do about their fellow humans.
It's is evidenced in the posh doggy day cares and dog spa's in L.A. and NY.
yes, duh.
Wealthy people care more about their dogs/pets than they do about their fellow humans.
It's is evidenced in the posh doggy day cares and dog spa's in L.A. and NY.
that are located just a few miles from the "shelters"
we house our fellow humans who don't have money or earning potential in.
There are homeless walking by those establishments.
Twisted IMHO
Way to paint a whole subsection of people with a very broad brush. I'm sure there are some wealthy people who act like you described. I'm also sure that there are wealthy people who care about their pets AND about violence against women.
You don't know if the same people who put their dogs up in posh doggy day cares aren't contributing to homeless shelters or domestic violence organizations.
This is not an "either-or" scenario and I hate that it always seems to be treated as such.
I think that there are a lot of people out there who like animals pretty much unconditionally. There aren't so many people out there who like all people unconditionally.
I also think that people respond more viscerally to animal cruelty than they do to human cruelty because animals are seen as utterly helpless and without recourse in a way that most humans are not. This may be why there is a much more vehement and pronounced reaction to child abuse as well.
Also seconding the comments above that this is not an either/or proposition. I absolutely have it in me to be outraged at dog fighting and still be outraged at violations of human rights.
"The message becomes don't kick a dog ever, but you can hit your wife or girlfriend and eventually you might be in trouble."
I think the message is actually that, as long as you are a great athlete, you can do whatever the hell you want, as long as you give us an "apology". Its all disgusting, but it doesn't have to be either/or. Vick admitted to not only fighting dogs, but literally KILLING them himself if they didn't fight well enough. Not to mention that if someone is that distant emotionally from animals, I think its just a step away from being that way towards humans.
Then why has he not committed these crimes against people in all his years. If it's so close to doing the same to people what's he waiting for. Sounds very 'minority report' to me. Let's lock up em up for the crimes they may commit.
Besides there is no objective evidence of Vicks participation. His confession as part of a plea is not proof.
His confession as part of a plea is not proof.
IANAL, but this was not my understanding of how the US legal system works. An admissible confession does not qualify in court as proof of guilt? Can you clarify this further?
an confession is an admission, at least in civil matters and imagine its the same in criminal matters. its evidence. a confession means the accused agrees with the complaint and the court can move to the sentencing phase.
in vick's case nothing was proven. his career was threatened and it made sense to plead to the charges, serve some time, then get out. his other option was face rico charges and potentially never play football again
So... are you arguing that his confession is irrelevant and that it is likely that he is, in fact, not guilty? Or are you just making an unrelated point that a confession =/= guilt?
I don't want it to appear that you either care about women or care about dogs, what I meant was that the Vick case caused such an outrage, but all too many times athletes get away with domestic violence and no one seems to care in a national/culture sense. It seem sad when you consider all the factors of domestic violence, and if there was a stand taken against these players, as there was against Vick, it would put as much focus on this issue as Vick has about dog fighting.
This post raises some good points, but it doesn't frame the context well and misses why the reactions to dog fighting and domestic abuse were so asymmetrical.
Domestic violence is common. Sadly, tragically common. So reports of domestic violence have a "just another" feel that makes people less likely to get interested. Dog fighting rarely comes up in the media. Therefore, the novelty really engaged people. Moreover, what the investigation revealed was an elaborate dogfighting operation that involved the killing of many dogs. If an athlete was convicted of systematically attacking or killing women for profit over the course of several years, it would be a much bigger deal than dogfighting. Incidents of domestic violence, while egregious, generally lack the element of cold blooded premeditation or prolonged behavior that really turns people's stomachs and create news sideshows.
Additionally, when the accusations surfaced, Vick was one of the highest profile players in the NFL. He wasn't a mid level starter or a journeyman. He was the first draft pick QB of the Atlanta Falcons and he played football in a way that no one else in America could. In short, his celebrity was akin to Kobe Bryant's in the NBA. Few would argue that the Kobe Bryant rape charges were under-reported.
This is why domestic violence and dogfighting seem to have received disproportionate coverage. It doesn't mean that Americans care more about dogs than women. Far from it.
This.
This.