Thoughts on Michael Vick's return

So some of the news out of professional football this week is the return of Michael Vick to the NFL. Where exactly he will end up--and he will end up somewhere--is still unknown though word is he's getting close to signing with the Seattle Seahawks.
Vick's return to the NFL after serving nearly two years in federal prison for running a dogfighting ring comes with conditions.
Interesting, eh? As Dave Zirin says, it isn't likely that the NFL is a huge proponent of animal rights. They are all about appearances. And given the public outrage over this incident, the NFL is playing the PR game with the conditions and all the statements. And, of course, Vick is too, having met with the president of the Humane Society of America.
So the question over how the public will react to Vick's return lingers.
And it's all a little disturbing. Because, as Zirin also notes, the NFL is full of people who have done something wrong including domestic violence and sexual assault. Some have never done any time. Some have no conditions on their return--assuming they were ever kicked out. Granted what Vick did was wrong. But where is the outrage for players who beat up women? Are they meeting with the heads of domestic violence groups?
It seems that dogs are more sympathetic victims than humans. Maybe because a lot of people see dogs as defenseless and women as asking for it, for knowing what they are getting into when they get involved with a professional athlete. It is an attitude that we have seen repeatedly--in situations with Mike Tyson, with Kobe Bryant, and maybe now with Ben Roethlisberger.

Comments

Kristin said…
Hi, I've been an NFL fan since childhood and you've really hit the nail on the head for me. While I feel what Vick did was cruel the amount of negative reaction to him is so many thousands of times as large as the reaction to the various players who have hurt women. I'm not saying that dogfighting is something to be brushed aside but violence to women is brushed aside often.
August 01, 2009 1:13 PM
Diane said…
As a non-human rights activist, I, too, am disturbed, not just because the NFL has ignored rampant violence toward women (and men, for that matter), but because their P.R. campaign with Vick makes it sound as though animal rights (a phrase I dislike) is important in this culture.

It isn't. The same people who are "outraged" over what Vick did to the dogs are actively participating in institutional violence toward farm animals, and many of them also fail to properly care for their own pets.
August 01, 2009 4:31 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The trans athlete ban: Part 3a: NCAA hypocrisy

 [this is cross-posted with Title IX Blog where I will also post something about the announcement that NIL is not subject to Title IX] The NCAA's new policy banning transwomen from competing in women's sports arrived (seemingly) minutes after the administration issued its executive order banning transwomen and girls from participating in school-sponsored sports teams.  The NCAA did include verbiage though which is worth looking at.  This is the synopsis at the top of the press release:  Men's category open to all eligible student-athletes, women's category restricted to student-athletes assigned female at birth, schools directed to foster welcoming environments on all campuses. But it is not accurate.  The women's category--for competition purposes--is open to people students assigned female at birth who are not taking testosterone. What we see here is a different standard. Testosterone levels matter only for some people. Taking it knocks you out of the women's...
Read more

The trans athlete ban, Part II: Capitulation

 The same day as the president signed the executive order banning transwomen in school-sponsored sports (which WILL have more widespread effects--i.e., recreational sports for youth and adults), the NCAA issued its own change on transwomen in collegiate sports which, for the purpose of "consistency" will also prohibit transwomen from competing in women's NCAA sports.  [I wrote about the effects the EO will have on Title IX compliance which is something that NCAA purports to care about, at Title IX Blog .] I would have been surprised (in a good way), if they had not. They give in to outside pressure regularly (with positive and negatives effects). But this policy is another example of their failure to protect athletes. [Lack of penalties for schools that shield predatory coaches and doctors as well as athletes who commit sexual assault; their exploitation of Black men who help them make their billions every March; their laughable adherence to an ahistorical definition of ...
Read more

No NIL for you!

  This much belated post about the administration's reversal of Biden (out-the-door) era g uidance on distribution of NIL  monies is cross-posted at the T itle IX Blo g.  I feel a lot of anger...I feel, and not just anger because of a [military] ban, I feel anger and disappointment at large, just you know trans and non binary people have become public enemy one; and once you start taking away the rights of trans and non binary people, the rest of the chips begin to fall.               Sam Rodriguez, Petty Officer US Navy ( Today, Explained ; Vox Podcasts) This has clearly come to bear already and I would hope most of us are not surprised. Appalled, yes. Surprised, no. The Kennedy Cente r canceling the Gay Men's Chorus  performance is just one example of how public acceptance for violence against trans people. Denying women athletes equitable shares of NIL monies is another chip. This news is old by now. (Though t...
Read more