As I promised you the other day, here is my post about Michael Vick. Vick is a quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, and if you've heard of him, you probably know that he plead guilty in 2007 for running a dogfighting ring. He served 19 months in prison and was suspended by the NFL. In 2009, when he was released, the Eagles signed Vick to a one year contract. This season, they have decided to exercise an option.
The Vick controversy has re-surfaced most recently because of some comments by President Obama. Obama praised the Eagles for giving Vick a second chance, saying that "individuals who have paid for their crimes should have an opportunity to contribute to society again." Not surprisingly, Obama's comments have generated quite a bit of controversy.
I don't condone Vick's actions, but I'd like to point out that it's unfortunate that he abused dogs and not women. Sadly for him, he tortured dogs and they died. Had he assaulted or raped a woman, I'm convinced that we would be much quicker to forgive and forget. After all, maybe they asked for it, right? Maybe it's really they're fault? Unfortunately for Vick, we can't try to hold dogs accountable in the same way that we attempt to with women. Nobody can say "well, what did they expect to happen?" or "what were they wearing?" or "they asked for it" about dogs. It is impossible to suggest that dogs are somehow responsible for their abuse in the same way that we try to with women.
Had Vick exploited a woman and not a dog, we wouldn't hold him completely accountable, and instead we'd judge him solely by how well he throws a football. You see, when celebrities hit and rape women, we have a short term memory. As soon as Kobe Bryant's rape victim refused to press charges, Lakers fans were cheering him on to a national championship. After beating up his girlfriend Rihanna, Chris Brown was worried about the future of his music career. He didn't have to worry for long; his latest single is currently climbing the charts.
At this point, you may be thinking that I'm being too sympathetic to Vick. Dogs died, and he is a felon. Sure, this is different from rape or getting beaten up. You might also say that Bryant and Brown deserve our forgiveness because they were never convicted (but this still doesn't mean that they aren't guilty, only that their victims didn't press charges). I'm not going to engage in a debate about what's worse, killing dogs or assaulting women.
What I will say is that at its core, what all of these atrocities have in common is exploitation, abuse, and forgiveness. Why are we so quick to forgive celebrities like Bryant and Brown, but not Vick? Guilty in the courtroom or not, they are all guilty of violence and abuse. If we are willing to forgive other celebrities, we owe it to Michael Vick to judge him solely on how well he throws a football and nothing else.
(see here for other blog posts on the link between athletes and violence against women and Chris Brown)
The Vick controversy has re-surfaced most recently because of some comments by President Obama. Obama praised the Eagles for giving Vick a second chance, saying that "individuals who have paid for their crimes should have an opportunity to contribute to society again." Not surprisingly, Obama's comments have generated quite a bit of controversy.
I don't condone Vick's actions, but I'd like to point out that it's unfortunate that he abused dogs and not women. Sadly for him, he tortured dogs and they died. Had he assaulted or raped a woman, I'm convinced that we would be much quicker to forgive and forget. After all, maybe they asked for it, right? Maybe it's really they're fault? Unfortunately for Vick, we can't try to hold dogs accountable in the same way that we attempt to with women. Nobody can say "well, what did they expect to happen?" or "what were they wearing?" or "they asked for it" about dogs. It is impossible to suggest that dogs are somehow responsible for their abuse in the same way that we try to with women.
Had Vick exploited a woman and not a dog, we wouldn't hold him completely accountable, and instead we'd judge him solely by how well he throws a football. You see, when celebrities hit and rape women, we have a short term memory. As soon as Kobe Bryant's rape victim refused to press charges, Lakers fans were cheering him on to a national championship. After beating up his girlfriend Rihanna, Chris Brown was worried about the future of his music career. He didn't have to worry for long; his latest single is currently climbing the charts.
At this point, you may be thinking that I'm being too sympathetic to Vick. Dogs died, and he is a felon. Sure, this is different from rape or getting beaten up. You might also say that Bryant and Brown deserve our forgiveness because they were never convicted (but this still doesn't mean that they aren't guilty, only that their victims didn't press charges). I'm not going to engage in a debate about what's worse, killing dogs or assaulting women.
What I will say is that at its core, what all of these atrocities have in common is exploitation, abuse, and forgiveness. Why are we so quick to forgive celebrities like Bryant and Brown, but not Vick? Guilty in the courtroom or not, they are all guilty of violence and abuse. If we are willing to forgive other celebrities, we owe it to Michael Vick to judge him solely on how well he throws a football and nothing else.
(see here for other blog posts on the link between athletes and violence against women and Chris Brown)
3 comments:
or perhaps we owe it to the female human victims not to forgive their abusers either.
This is why I do not support professional sports of any kind in any way. 40% of NBA players have criminal records (www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7422), and pro football isn't much different (check out Wikipedia's list of pros w/ criminal records: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sportspeople_convicted_of_crimes).
I used to enjoy watching the Superbowl, and was a fan of the Chicago Bulls back in the Michael Jordan days, but I was done with it all after the O.J. Simpson trial. These guys make too much money and they literally get away with murder. Other folks can spend their money on stadium games or gleefully allow their tax money to be spent on privately-owned stadiums if they want. For me, I say "No, thanks."
Found another article about this subject, only this time concerning college athletes: http://m.si.com/news/wr/wr/detail/2829989/full
Some disturbing quotes:
"We've gotten pretty accustomed to reports of athletes getting in trouble with the law. But 125 cases involving basketball and football players in an eight-month span? That's more than one every other day."
From a study of several Division 1 institutions "... we found that male student-athletes comprised 3.3 percent of the total male population, yet represented 19 percent of the perpetrators reported for sexual assault."
Maybe it's because I went to art school where in no way are athletes glorified, much less subsidized (and we did have sports teams), but I can't imagine anyone willingly paying for education at a school where sports are more important than education.
Post a Comment