I haven’t blogged about the Michael Vick case yet, largely because I haven’t been sure I had anything I wanted to add to the conversation. I get e-mail updates from just about every animal rights organization you can think of, so I’m following the story both in the mainstream media and through those charities.
On Tuesday, Sandra Kobrin wrote an interesting piece at Women’s E-news: Beat a Woman? Play On; Beat a Dog? You’re Gone. (Hat tip: Feministing.) Excerpt:
…just wish the NFL had the same outrage toward spousal abuse and other forms of domestic violence. But they don’t. Not by a long shot.
Scores of NFL players as well as players from the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball have been convicted of domestic abuse, yet they play on with no fear of losing their careers. Most pay small fines, if that, and are back on the field immediately.
The message is clear. Beat a woman? Play on. Beat a dog? You’re gone.
Well, to be fair, Vick did more than beat dogs. He tortured many of them to death. That’s more than physical abuse. For those of us who care profoundly about animals, Michael Vick’s case is more like O.J. Simpson’s than, say, Jason Kidd’s. And O.J., despite his acquittal, has been justly ostracised.
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. Much of that is rooted, I think, in the reality that the majority of sports fans and sports writers in this country are heterosexual males. And though most heterosexual men in this country don’t physically abuse their girlfriends and wives, a great many of them are frequently very, very angry at women. 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.
On the other hand, very few men or women in this country regularly murder dogs. Dogs are thought of as members of the family, and rightly so. And because so few men can (thank Goodness!) imagine themselves electrocuting or drowning Spot and Rover, they have no empathy for Michael Vick and the appalling crimes to which he has apparently agreed to plead guilty. It’s this cognitive gap that lies at the heart of the different response to Vick than to those athletes convicted of domestic violence: most men can’t “get” what the Falcons quarterback did in the way that they “get” hitting a spouse when one is exasperated.
Kobrin:
Vick has already lost most of his sponsorship deals worth millions of dollars and he deserves to lose a whole lot more.
But the disproportionate punishment of Vick–while athletes who commit violence against women are let off the hook–has to be wondered at.
Might it be that domestic violence and spousal abuse is so pervasive in sports that it’s simply too costly for leagues to suspend so many men? What would happen after all if those poor dear teams couldn’t fill their rosters?
I wince at Kobrin’s use of “disproportionate.” As an animal rights activist, there’s nothing excessive about Vick’s suspension and loss of endorsements. Indeed, if his jail sentence is in the range of a year or two, it’s woefully inadequate in light of what he did to so many precious, sentient animals. (I’m assuming Koprin meant Vick’s punishment was disproportionately harsh in the light of what is meted out to those who abuse women, and that she didn’t intend to minimize cruelty to animals. At least, that’s my sincere hope.)
It would be very sad if the historically strong alliance between the animal rights community and the feminist movement were to be weakened by the Michael Vick case. I understand completely feminist outrage at the “slap on the wrist” that most male athletes who abuse women receive. But the answer doesn’t lie in minimizing the horror of dog-fighting. Calling Vick’s punishment “disproportionate” and mentioning only that he “beat” dogs (rather than drowning and slaughtering them) minimizes his crimes — which, of course, is exactly what far too many people do in cases of domestic violence. Saying Vick only “beat” dogs is comparable to saying that breaking your wife’s jaw is just “keeping her in line.”
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. Sexual assaults and acts of domestic violence are excused or punished very lightly. (I wrote about this a long time ago.)
We live in a culture where the horrific abuse of animals is also tolerated. Michael Vick killed animals that most folks identify as pets; plenty of other equally intelligent animals are slaughtered in barbaric conditions every day for our food. We raise our children to believe that animals exist for their pleasure (just as we raise many men to believe women exist for theirs) and when our kids ask how the Easter ham came to the table, we tell them “don’t think too much about it.”
Justice is not a zero-sum game. Taking animal abuse more seriously does not mean ignoring violence against women. We need stiffer penalties for these crimes, and we need to hold our celebrities equally accountable. As the Michael Vick case dominates the news cycle this steamy August, feminists are right to demand an end to the pattern of excusing the violence that male athletes commit against women. But we can demand more substantial penalties for those who hit their wives and girlfriends without minimizing the horror of Michael Vick’s crimes.
Those who struggle for animal rights and for women’s equality ought to be natural allies, partners in a great coalition seeking justice and demanding protection for the vulnerable and the exploited. It would be very sad indeed if this case were to widen a rift between these two vitally important movements.
I agree with you that Vick’s crimes should not be minimized.
My problem with the situation(s) is not the outrage towards Vick, but the lack of outrage about violence towards humans - both male and female.
And from the vast majority of the articles that I have read on the situation from a feminist perspective, they have all said the same thing.
I really do think that perspective is needed. Is it evil to beat, torture, and kill animals? No question, and any outrage towards Vick is very justified. But it is also evil to the same to women (or men). And for some reason people do not have the same outrage and anger towards professional athletes who use violence against people.
Agreed, Dave. And as long as we make that case without minimizing cruelty to animals or suggesting that his punishment is “disproportionate”, it’s all to the good.
My larger goal is to help intensify the bonds between the animal rights and feminist movements (a bond, I’m sorry to say, that my dear friends in PETA periodically seem bent on fraying, much to my exasperation).
Some people just can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, it seems. I think that it’s relevant to point out that Vick would have received less outrage if he’d hurt a woman, but there’s a way to do that without minimizing the serious problems he’s got with this dog thing.
The Michael Vick case caused so much outrage because it could not be ignored:
1) Video clips showing fighting dogs tearing each other apart appeared on all the cable news channels.
2) An 18 page indictment that described in graphic detail the horrors that went on at Bad Newsz Kennels was available to everyone with computer access to the Internet.
These visual and verbal graphics are never made availabe in human abuse cases. Therefore, it’s easy for the general public to stay distant from human abuse cases–even when the perpetrators are well known professional athletes.
I think it’s pretty incorrect of Koprin to call these “disproportionate”. Vick’s crimes against dogs resemble far more those of Robert William Pickton against women than those of an average abusive husband. Which isn’t to minimize the crimes of an average abusive husband, but I think it’s fair to say that the media frenzy around the Vick case actually is pretty proportional the way the media would treat a serial killer (of people).
On the other hand, people who abuse animals in more normal, less spectacular ways, are pretty unlikely to ever get caught at all, letalone punished.
We have a problem where society doesn’t respect human or animal lives enough, but I don’t think that there’s anything disproportionate about it.
Great article, as usual.
I agree with you. You’re absolute right when you say, “we can demand more substantial penalties for those who hit their wives and girlfriends without minimizing the horror of Michael Vick’s crimes.”
But I think in your analysis of why people seem to care more about dogs than women, there’s another piece of the puzzle missing: animal rights activists are a bit better organized and well funded than women’s rights advocates, methinks. Think what you will of PETA, but if there’s anything they understand well, it’s marketing.
There is certainly overlap between animal rights activists and feminists, but there’s more overlap with animal welfare advocates and the general populous.
However, I also think this is species specific. If Vick had been cockfighting and not dogfighting, barely anyone would care. Our culture LOVES dogs.
This is one of those cases where analogies prove nothing except that most analogies are worthless. Like you said, Vick did more than beat his dogs. Equally importantly, I think, it’s clear his acts were motivated purely by a sadistic desire to inflict suffering for suffering’s sake, not a case of being provoked, losing one’s temper, and turning violent in the heat of passion. Any athlete who rounded up random women he didn’t even know and beat them for fun (not to mention murdering the ones whose “performance” did not impress him) would be imprisoned for life, or worse/better, and would in any event be far more of a pariah than Vick is now. Conversely, if Vick had “only” abused his pet dog, and then only by kicking him around every now and then in a fit of rage, he wouldn’t be in the papers at all.
The O.J. analogy was spot on. He killed “only” two people, and then in a fit of rage, not for sadistic sport. Yet, for some reason he is infinitely more reviled than Vick ever will be for torturing and killing dozens of dogs. Gee, I wonder why?
There’s a wonderful amount of consensus in the comments here. I’m probably jinxing it, but I’m delighted.
animal rights activists are a bit better organized and well funded than women’s rights advocates, methinks.
I’m not really convinced of that. I think animal rights groups have a bit of an easier go of it, though, because it’s significantly less difficult to engage people in a public dialogue about animal rights than it is to engage people about intimate violence. Intimate violence is an incredibly ackward thing to talk about for most people (especially men). I’ve never known anybody to have the same kind of difficulty articulating a position on animal rights - many people will start voicing their opinions about it at the mere mention of a vegetarian meal.
“The message is clear. Beat a woman? Play on. Beat a dog? You’re gone.
Well, to be fair, Vick did more than beat dogs. He tortured many of them to death.”
I disagree with your insinuation that the two situations are all that different.
1. Abuse within a relationship is not always physical and does not always leave physical markers. The physical abuse alone DOES emotionally torture and kill women. Aside from there, there is an incredibly high correlation between physical abuse and emotional/psychological abuse. Where there is one, there is almost always the other.
2. Physical abuse within a relationship may, and often does escalate to murder, threats of murder, threats of harm to loved ones or simply the fear of all of the above.
3. I would say that being beating and possibly raped (as rape or coerced sex is also often a part of abusive relationships) with frequency is equal to torture.
“feminists are right to demand an end to the pattern of excusing the violence that male athletes commit against women.”
Feminists should do it? What about men? How about the NFL leadership? How about the athletes who work with these jackasses? How about women who sympathize with the athletes, because they’re fans of the sport, or would rather ignore the fact that it could happen to them too?
“I think that it’s relevant to point out that Vick would have received less outrage if he’d hurt a woman, but there’s a way to do that without minimizing the serious problems he’s got with this dog thing.”
I don’t think the article underplayed the brutality displayed to the dogs at all. It establishes how horrible it was, points out that Vick should be severely punished, but then goes on to compare our outrage towards Vick with our apathy towards athletes who beat and rape women. I think that is accurate, and I think that realization just makes people uncomfortable.
You know, on a lot of feminist boards that talk about violence against women, I see a lot of “What about TEH MENZ?!” comments. Please, let’s not start with “What about TEH DOGZ?!” Nobody is arguing that the dogs deserved it, or that Vick doesn’t deserve to be punished.
Actually, if you go to CNN.com, you’ll find lots of emails from NFL fans (male and female) who think that Vick should go right back to playing football after he does his time.
Maybe Vick should just be put down? I’m sure there’s a very eager young player who’d love to take his spot on the team.
Oh, Ginger, you just don’t understand. Any of these little problems should be handled only by feminists, and if they’re not completely solved it’s clearly because feminists are spoiled, upper-middle-class white women who were asleep at the switch.
Conversely, if Vick had “only” abused his pet dog, and then only by kicking him around every now and then in a fit of rage, he wouldn’t be in the papers at all.
Perhaps there are fewer dog-lovers where you live, but I’d bet he would, indeed, have been in the papers. People react very, very strongly to animal abuse.
“People react very, very strongly to animal abuse.”
Much more so than they do to abuse against people. My granparents beat the crap out of their kids, but treated their dogs like gold. Come to think of it, they beat their kids with dog chains, then told them to fend for themselves at dinnertime while my grandmother cooked a steak - for the dogs.
I have nothing against dogs, mind you. All animals should be treated with respect. Humans are also animals, lest we forget.
I know it’s probably useless to point out the double/triple standard to the crowd here, but for those lurkers who might visit I’ll go ahead and point out the 2-ton elephant in the room: Men who are victims of domestic violence are considered less deserving of consideration and compassion than dogs by feminists and the general public.
Not wanting Hugo to once again compare me to a “neo-Nazi,” that’s all I have to say on the matter for now.
Oh noes! WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ?!
This is exactly what I was talking about in my first comment. Nobody is saying that violence against men is ok. This is not a zero sum game, Mr. Bad. But this discussion isn’t about men. It’s about how our culture is less sympathetic to domestic violence than it is to animal abuse. Thanks for trying to derail the thread, though.
But this discussion isn’t about men. It’s about how our culture is less sympathetic to domestic violence than it is to animal abuse. Thanks for trying to derail the thread, though.
Please go back and read the post Hugo made to start this discussion. Just looking at the content of that post makes it clear that this discussion is about violence against women. If, as you assert, this discussion is about domestic violence, then I believe Hugo would have said so. He repeatedly emphasized violence against women. If you really believed this thread were truly about domestic violence, then you would not have said the discussion “isn’t about men,” unless, of course, you deny that men can be victims of domestic violence in both heterosexual and homosexual intimate relationships.
Mr. Bad said:
Men who are victims of domestic violence are considered less deserving of consideration and compassion than dogs by feminists and the general public.
If one really wanted to talk about a zero-sum game, then one could reply to Mr. Bad’s comment honestly by saying that violence against women, men, or dogs is wrong and deserves the same degree of condemnation. However, it is far easier for you to toss out a red herring and accuse Mr. Bad of trying to derail the discussion when, in fact, that is precisely what you are doing with your feigned ignorance of the fact that men do suffer from domestic violence directed against them.
If we could just get the sexism, mysogony, and misandry out of the way of any of these things and issues the world would be a far better place. I dont agree with the author completely. The traditional women’s movement is rife with hatred for the male. Therefore I am not for giving the traditional feminists any deference against this scenario of whether those who beat animals are given more punishment then do those (males) who beat women. The women’s movement is changing slowly with input form such folks as Phyllis Schlalfy, Erin Pazzey, Wendy McLeroy, and Cathy Young.
All a man has to do to make this point is look at the VAWA- Violence Against Women Act. This law provided only three shelters for abused men but Federal statistics show that females beat men as much if not more than men beat on women.
Therefore I cant give an inch unless these domestic violence issue discussions get real and so far as with this article, its more of the same old tired stuff of the ‘put upon’ woman.
I urge everyone to look at http://www.mediaradar.org
Actually, isn’t this all specifically in regard to athletes?
Robert Gartner: “All a man has to do to make this point is look at the VAWA- Violence Against Women Act. This law provided only three shelters for abused men ”
Robert, the VAWA does not provide these three shelters for abused men. The VAWA does not allow one dime for any abused man even though they admit 40% of the abuse victims are men. The three shelters for men are funded by private donations or possibly some local government help by the rare enlightened county or city. Those of us who are helping abused men such as Shattered Men, Battered Husband Support do not get any help. Although there are some corporate sources for abuse victims, these too are always designated for female victims, some of which also greatly twist the facts.
“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.”
It bears pointing out that, for every person who’d wrongly “understand” that, there are probably two or three who’d wrongly “understand” why a woman might “just happen to strike her husband” during a similar argument. You mentioned that there have been numerous athletes accused of abusing their significant others; I shall point out that the nature of domestic abuse is that we often don’t know the whole story behind the “he said, she said.” For example, former Seattle Seahawks player Chad Eaton was recently accused of assaulting his wife, but she had previously been accused of assaulting him just a few years before. In Vick’s case, however, I don’t think anyone is going to argue that the people involved were suddenly attacked by a group of dogs, and were merely defending themselves when they hanged and drowned them.
“However, I also think this is species specific. If Vick had been cockfighting and not dogfighting, barely anyone would care.”
I do think there would be an outcry, but that it would be less. Gary Francione had a good piece about this in some newspapers, stating that (for one thing) Nike and Reebok have decided that Vick’s allegedly torturing and killing dogs make him a poor spokesperson for their products — many of which are made of tortured and killed cows.
Folks, let’s stay off the topic of domestic violence perpetrated by anyone OTHER than professional athletes. No more about VAWA; next such mentioning gets deleted.
bmmg, Gary Francione is one of my more radical heroes. Man rocks.
We are moving, I think, toward one of the issues that complicates people feeling as intensely about violence against women as they do about violence against animals, and that is the tendency amongst many people (especially some men) to attempt to find a justification for the violence in the behavior of the woman herself. You know, the “she asked for it” syndrome.
I’m not saying it justifies the gap in feeling, but it may be in part responsible for the issue. There is still a large segment of society that believes that when a woman gets “out of line,” it is only to be expected that a man may lose his temper with her and lash out at her physically. I wish that were not the case, but it is. We still have a lot of consciousness-raising to do.
I think that there is one small, very tiny sliver of a reason to be a titch more outraged about violence against animals than about violence against one’s fellow human beings, and that is this: As risky and difficult as it may be for a human being to try to protect herself from the violence, or to stop it, it is possible for her to get help. Even in the most dire of situations, even not knowing what other fresh hell may await her if she makes the break, she possesses the free will, the fingers and the voice with which to pick up a phone and dial for help. But no animal in the world, faced with human violence, can call 911 or the local animal shelter to be rescued from the situation.
But, as I said, this is just a titch. Violence toward human beings OR animals should have no place with civilized people. I think it is possible for us to wish to bring an end to both forms of unacceptable action.
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.
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.
Again, folks, this is not about DV unless it is committed by athletes.
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?
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.
Wow, I didn’t realize this board was such an MRA magnet.
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.
“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.
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.
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.