Comments on: Justice is not a zero-sum game: some thoughts on Michael Vick, feminism, and animal rights

By: intcountzero

intcountzero — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:59:15 +0000

How bout this? There BOTH bad.

Let’s deal with BOTH the issues. While we soap box, both of these evils escape the justice system. Address the punishment, crime, and circumstances. The rest will fall in place.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:08:48 +0000

On a visceral level, far too many men may empathize with a celebrity athlete who strikes his female partner, assuming that she “made him do it”. Most men don’t condone domestic violence (or won’t do so publicly, particularly in mixed company), but many, I suspect, “understand” how a “normal guy” might “just happen to strike his wife” in the course of a heated argument.

bullshit. Offensive, anti-male bullshit.

On the other hand, many non-star-athlete men might not have a lot of sympathy for women who get involved with men who have a well-known reputation for being more likely to be abusive, and who keep going back into such situations.

By: bmmg39

bmmg39 — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:45:02 +0000

“Wow, I didn’t realize this board was such an MRA magnet.”

Well, Ginger, it’s good that Hugo is tolerant of various viewpoints, because hearing from different sane people who don’t always agree with one another is generally a good thing. MRAs and feminists are really two sides of the same coin, and not necessarily mutually exclusive.

By: labyrus

labyrus — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:23:54 +0000

Again I’d like to point out there have been cases (like the Pickton trial) where men have actually done the same things to women that Vick did to Dogs. Those cases do indeed result in a media frenzy and serious consequences. Most cases of animal abuse that make the news are cases of mass animal abuse. We’re talking about dozens, sometimes hundreds of victims rather than just one. If Mike Vick had done to human women what he had done to dogs, he would’ve been (aptly) called a serial killer, not an “abusive husband”. That’s what the equivalent crime is.

Drawing a moral equivalence between torture of an animal and the torture that abusers inflict on people is all well and good but it doesn’t mean that we can expect people to be equally shocked when a man abuses one woman as when someone cuts up 50 women.

By: Ginger

Ginger — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:54:33 +0000

Wow, I didn’t realize this board was such an MRA magnet.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 01:11:55 +0000

Any American sports fan will tell you this has been one of the most difficult summers to swallow in recent history. The commissioners of the big three sports leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB) are all facing some of the most stressful times in their respective tenures. The public is ready for some strength from Bud Selig, Roger Goodell, and David Stern to bring regularity back to sports. Now might be the time to implement some tough precedents against DA, particularly in the NFL where the NFLPA is against the ropes and doesn’t have the muscle or public support to oppose such a measure. By making significant moves against DA, NFL Commish Goodell could also push Vick’s case away from being a race issue and clarify the NFL’s stance against all kinds of off-field violence.

If in the NBA, a player can be suspended for leaving the bench during an altercation on the court or for being a repeat dress code offender, there should be clear guidelines for on-court consequences for domestic abuse.

By: davev

davev — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:38:57 +0000

I’m surprised that no one has brought up a key difference between dogs and adult women. I’ve never seen them as remotely equivalent . . . . Most adult women of normal IQ or better are capable of making decisions and acting autonomously.

These dogs are ENTIRELY helpless. They couldn’t call 911. I think a good deal of the public sees them as the mental equivalents of two year olds. Their utter helplessness (they were bred to fight and die) combined with the systematic and brutal methods of VIck and co. have outraged a significant part of the public. Then there are the pictures . . .

On top of this whole thing we have the specter of the Duke case. The Vick case is so cut and dry compared to that thing and the public loves clarity.

Ginger-
Just curious. Are you trying to write the phonetics for Black English Vernacular or some type of West Indies pidgin? What are you referencing?

Hugo-
Why is consensus, in and of itself, good?

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:00:19 +0000

Again, folks, this is not about DV unless it is committed by athletes.

By: Falsely Accused

Falsely Accused — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:33:08 +0000

You really need to read, “Unhooked” by Laura Sessions Stepp.

“We live in a culture that teaches many men that women are still property. We live in a society where many young men — particularly privileged athletes — are allowed unfettered access to women’s bodies.”

You may discover that it is the women themselves promoting this culture of sexual liberation. As a college student I can attest to Stepps observations… It is nearly impossible for “nice” guys, meaning respectful of a women’s body, to get dates anymore.

If there is tolerance for DV then it might be because there are so many false allegations. I don’t think the thought process is: ““understand” how a “normal guy” might “just happen to strike his wife” in the course of a heated argument.”

A more accurate thought process might be: “there is about a 50% chance she is making it up.”

The reality is, enforcing DV legislation with the motto of “err on the side of safety” has the natural side effect of making people less sympathetic to real victims. Men are more increasingly becoming the victims of false allegations, more so than the “proven” cases of Dometic Violence. Usubstantiated cases of DV are beginning to outpace the substantiatiated ones.

It doesn’t take rocket science to see how the public just doesn’t buy it anymore, especially guys.

By: Mr. Bad

Mr. Bad — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:01:27 +0000

Ginger, the post is about male athletes and violence, per Kobrin’s comment: “The message is clear. Beat a woman? Play on. Beat a dog? You’re gone.” Further, it’s also about “double standards,” per Hugo remark: “But I understand Kobrin’s frustration. The double standard is real. Our cultural tolerance for violence against women — especially when committed by male athletes –is much too high.” Therefore, my comment was entirely appropriate and on-topic. What are you and other people who constantly try to shut a certain group of stakeholders (wink, wink) out of the conversation so desperately afraid of? As I said, in the context of violence perped by male athletes (e.g., in nightclubs, on campus, etc.), men are considered less important than dogs. And as bmmg39 correctly notes, many times those athletes have been victims of abuse by their wives or girlfriends, but if they were women, society would be looking to find excuses for her actions and saying things like “he must have done something to deserve it.”

The idea that violence against women is generally tolerated by our society, let alone tolerated more than animal abuse is ludicrous, to the point of ridiculous, especially in light of examples of societal responses to the problem that others have correctly identified. Both violence against women and violence against animals is abhorrent and wrong, but both are also a very, very small subset of violence against living beings. We focus, many times to the point of obsession, over a very small subset of victims - in this case the victims of male athletes - while ignoring the vast majority. These types of extremely narrowly-focused conversations that allow for no comprehensive examination of the complex problem of interpersonal violence always raise a huge red flag for me because I know that the goal is not to reduce or end violence, but rather, to promote a political agenda.

As I said, there’s a double standard all right, but it’s not the one Hugo alleges it to be.