Look, I'm as feminist as they come, but I was more sickened over the dog-fighting thing than anything else I'd been sick over in a long, long time. I know the last time y'all wrote about this, some people mentioned that people and dogs are both animals who feel fear and pain. There's no need to talk about dogs in a pejoritave (sp?) way.
I get more worked up about animal abuse than I do about child abuse (which is pretty worked up).

I think it all boils down to the fact that humans are moral agents who can make choices. But dogs and other animals have absolutely no control whatsoever over their lots in life.
They don't do malicious or careless things to us like our fellow humans do.

SarahMC, I was also completely sickened. Esp as a mommy of a new pup. But I have a real problem with the "humans are moral agents who can make choices" argument because it's been used to suggest that beating a dog is worse than beating a woman because the woman has the "choice" to leave. (Which I think most of us know just isn't true.) I'm not suggesting that's what you were getting at, of course, but that's where my uncomfortableness comes in...

Thanks, Jessica. You just articulated what I've been trying to for the past few minutes after reading the first comment.

This isn't directed at anyone, just in general: I'm a suvivor of domestic abuse and it hurts me that some people, and the law, equate my life as being less than a dog's. I am a dog owner and love and respect animals, but I didn't ask to become a victim...and neither did those dogs. I also didn't have as easy a choice to leave as people might have thought. It's never easy.

I think we can agree that both are horrible horrible things that need to be stopped, and both stem from the belief that it is okay to harm and manipulate others for one's own gain.

I think it is worth noting, however, how people responded to the Kobe case vs. the Vick case. Nobody blamed the dogs in this case.

"I get more worked up about animal abuse than I do about child abuse (which is pretty worked up).

I think it all boils down to the fact that humans are moral agents who can make choices. But dogs and other animals have absolutely no control whatsoever over their lots in life."

Children can make choices? You said animal abuse gets you more worked up than child abuse, but that doesn't really follow from your choice perspective?

I think the thing that is different is that not only are the dogs being harmed, they are being socialized to be vicious, and then pit against each other. If people did that to children, you'd be equally (or more) outraged.

The "persons are agents" thing works both ways. When people are abused, not only do they feel pain, but they also have their personhood and dignity trampled on and restricted. They suffer both the pain but also a type of psychological harm that animals simply can't experience.

Check out this article on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/22/vick/index.html

I don't agree that Vick should be allowed back in the NFL, but it's sickeningly true that if Michael Vick had killed someone, there would be less of an outrage.

Take the case of Ray Lewis. Ray Lewis was involved in the murder of two people and though he got off on a plea bargain, he was found guilty in a civil court and paid millions of dollars. When you ask football fans what they think of him, they don't say "He's a murderer and belongs in prison", they are far more likely to say "He's an extremely good linebacker that delivers punishing hits and is exciting to watch."

Here's a good quote from the article. "White also said he didn't understand the uproar over dogfighting, when hunting deer and other animals is perfectly acceptable." True, and I also don't get how people can be outraged over this but not be outraged over animal abuse in the food industry.

As for Michael Vick, he will never come back to the NFL. The fans won't allow it. Any team that takes him will have to deal with protesters, the players won't want to deal with someone like him, and let's face it, he's just not that good. He is terrible at throwing the ball and needs an entire offensive gameplan oriented around his speed. If you are an NFL team, why bother?

FROM THE ARTICLE: "The message is clear. Beat a woman? Play on. Beat a dog? You're gone. What could possibly account for this bizarre situation?"

Okay, that really doesn't make sense. The difference is Vick created and financed an entire dog fighting operation.

If he was guilty of one or two counts of animal abuse, he would be forgiven. The two aren't directly comparable.

I'm pretty sure that increased respect for the autonomy of women will not come only when people stop caring about animal cruelty less. Also note that the NFL didn't actually pre-emptively suspend Vick prior to his guilty plea, but only suggested that he skip out on training camp, thereby placing the decision in the hands of the Falcons' team owner.

In addition, the article is a bit off: it's comparing the NFL's new zero tolerance policy (several players have been suspended without convictions) with the lax attitudes of the NBA and MLB. Ms. Kobrin asserts that the current NFL commissioner wouldn't suspend/hasn't suspended a wife-beater, but cited no examples.

I definitely know what you're saying, Jessica, and I'm admitting that even I fall into the trap of feeling more for dogs than people sometimes because with people you can always say, "Well so-and-so had it coming for X reason." I'm not talking particularly about battered women, but human beings in general.

And UCLA, you are right about the animals being socialized a certain way. It happens to people and dogs alike when they're abused.

Since when do we only have a set amount of compassion? When are we only allowed to be outraged over a certain number of injustices or instances of cruelty? If we give some to dogs, it's taking some away from human women?

I am feminist AND an animal activist. I apologize for neither. Why are we taking the stance that.."this is bad, so that can't be AS bad or it makes this look not as bad".

Why do we have to downplay one atrocity to highlight another? Why are they both not considered 100% unacceptable?

I felt the article, by mentioning a few animal organizations, was implicative of being critical that they aren't helping women.
Peta, HSUS, and other animal orgs work for animals. They are specialized and more effective that way. I don't criticize human organizations for not donating to help homeless animals. That's not their focus. That's like criticizing Food Not Bombs for not rallying for AIDS research. Each group has a focus.

This reminds me of after Katrina, I was eating dinner and some people at a table next to us said "They shouldn't be focusing on animals while people need help". That's just the sort of bullshit entitlement-to-everything-because -I-belong-to-this-species that gets us nowhere. No one was turning away drowning people to rescue dogs. Animal rescue organizations came and helped, just like people-oriented groups came to help people.

Sandra Kobrin (the author of this article) has every right to be outraged at the seeming lack of attention paid to abusers. I don't even necessarily disagree with her.

But don't dare downplay animal cruelty to make your cause look better. "Beating a dog" is NOT what Vick did, even though beating dogs isn't acceptable either. He sponsored vicious fights that pitted innocent animals, ruined by being trained to fight, to fight to the death or near death, and participated in animal killings by electrocution, hanging, and drowning. I am angry this is being lumped in with "common" animal cruelty.

Sandra, you aren't winning any friends over here by trivializing animal abuse.

Now I feel like I have to clarify my position.

Originally I looked at this from the position of, "Why shouldn't people care about dogs?" But I realize that this is not a call for people to care less about dogs but MORE about women and children. And the fact that there was NO publicity re: all those domestic abuse cases in pro-sports (and that so little time was served) is further proof that domestic abuse barely raises an eyebrow. It should.

Sarah- I am not sure if your last comment was in response to my comment or not. I agree with you- domestic violence SHOULDN'T be tolerated in any circumstance.

My anger is more directed at the author than anyone in this comment section. I just wanted to reiterate we don't have to have an either/or position on these things. We can care about a lot of things! We have the right to highlight all injustices and acts of cruelty. We don't have to pick women or dogs.

No, no, it wasn't directed at you. I completely agree with you, actually. It was more in response to those questioning my initial post.

I sympathize with this perspective, b/c I think the outrage sports atheletes incite for different crimes does not make sense. But I also agree with some of the other commenters that this is not directly comparable to a single case of spousal abuse. How many people (with Vick's financial resources) accused of spousal abuse are looking at 12-18 months of prison? You could say that also reflects our priorities, but I think it something else. In Vick's case the evidence is extremely clear that this was an extended, premeditated and ongoing effort on Vick's part to be heavily involved in dog fighting. The public perception on spousal abuse is that few cases are that clear cut. You might disagree with that claim, but that is a disagreement about understanding, not prioritization.

One of the interesting things about atheletes is that for most of them, they get the benefit of the doubt. If it only happens once and they're not convicted, they get forgiven. You have to keep that in mind when comparing Kobe or Ray Lewis to Vick.

"I think the thing that is different is that not only are the dogs being harmed, they are being socialized to be vicious, and then pit against each other. If people did that to children, you'd be equally (or more) outraged."

This does happen to children. You've heard of child soldiers, right? Most people don't know much about them besides what they saw on Blood Diamond. It's sad.

For me, personally, I'm definitely "guilty" of being more emotionally bothered when I hear about dogs being hurt, than when I hear about people being hurt. Tell me a sad story about a person who's died, and I'll make a sympathetic face. Tell me a story about a dog who's died and I'm likely to be begging for tissues within a matter of minutes.

This isn't a rational response, but I think the reason for it stems from what I see as a fundamental difference between humans and dogs: humans can commit moral wrongs. Dogs can't. That doesn't mean *any* human deserves to be abused -- but it also means that, in my (very emotionally laden, in this case) mind, hurting a dog is hurting someone who is purely innocent. Dogs are not bad. Period. PERIOD. There are no bad dogs. There are bad people who cause dogs to act badly. If you know or hear of a dog who is "bad," s/he is ONLY bad because of the actions of a human. Every time.

BUT, rationally speaking, hurting a dog *isn't* worse than hurting a human. That doesn't mean it isn't horrific, or even that on some level it probably takes a "worse" sort of person to hurt a dog (in that, you have to be especially depraved to hurt someone/something that is PURELY INNOCENT). But in terms of a wrong committed against society, it is "wronger" to hurt people. People matter more than dogs. Even if we like dogs better a lot of the time, people *matter* more. And so that's why it's outrageous that the same people who rightly call for harsh penalties against Vick (and I hope this disgusting cretin of a "man" is punished to the full extent of the law and never has any career to speak of, ever, and loses every penny of his money) don't bat an eyelash when all their other favorite athletes are busily beating, raping, and killing their wives, girlfriends, mistresses, and children. What is wrong is not that Vick is rightly having the reprobation piled onto him; what is wrong is what this story illustrates: that, as a society, we don't care enough, we aren't outraged enough by domestic violence. But I don't think *anyone* who's saying this thinks that Vick is anything more than a microscopic bottom-dwelling piece of atomic scum. It's just that there are a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT of athletes who are right down there with him, and yet we're still paying them bajillions of dollars a year. Now *that's* sickening.

You might disagree with that claim, but that is a disagreement about understanding, not prioritization.

I'm not so sure the difference between the two is as clear-cut as you suggest. That is to say, perhaps there is disagreement *because* of our disproportionate prioritization. Maybe if we cared more about making sure women and children (and men, for that matter) aren't abused, we'd be better at clearly recognizing it and would not be able to brush off what a less interested person would call a "borderline" case, so easily.

Even though there should be equal compassion about all issues, the way that our society chooses to punish people does reveal a lot about what we value.

In addition to the fact that the courts and media are demonizing Vick's animal abuse more than it does abuse against women, there is also a racial issue here.

Rich, predominitely white people regularly participate in the torture and murder of animals. It's called foie gras. The production of foie gras is offensive enough that Chicago has banned it. Lots of people do lots of horrible things to animals. Why do we single out the practice of dog fighting?

mpowell: You say, "I also agree with some of the other commenters that this is not directly comparable to a single case of spousal abuse." Rarely is there a single case of spousal abuse. When the spousal abuse gets to the attention of the public, there is typically a long history of abuse and control in the relationship. This is also a "premeditated and ongoing effort".

It disgusts me that anyone would automatically assume that animal abuse of any scale is so much less important than the abuse of women on any scale that animal abuse isn't worth outcry. That's like saying that violence towards women shouldn't get publicity while there's still violence towards men, because men are more important. However, men don't suffer any more than women, dogs don't suffer any less than either. We're all complicated animals with complicated desires and needs. I wouldn't be surprised if other animals suffer MORE than humans because they can't logic away their pain. Suffering is suffering, it's all bad, it's all important, it all needs to stop. Can we stop with the bigoted reasoning that we claim to want to end, that the needs of our own group are automatically more important than the needs of another?

In addition to the fact that the courts and media are demonizing Vick's animal abuse more than it does abuse against women, there is also a racial issue here.
Rich, predominitely white people regularly participate in the torture and murder of animals. It's called foie gras. The production of foie gras is offensive enough that Chicago has banned it. Lots of people do lots of horrible things to animals. Why do we single out the practice of dog fighting?

Dangerous territory. Foie gras is horrific, just as veal is, and yes we do have a soft spot for the "cute" animals and the "baby" animals, myself included.
If you are going to mention foie gras, then you must mention other animal products to be fair. Factory farming contributes to >90% of the animal abuse in this country and I am positive you aren't going to imply that only white people are responsible for that. "standard" meat production contributes to a lot more suffering (in numbers of animals) than foie gras.
You are right about an element of racism...but in the sense that the systems put in place are race-biased.
Ex: Latino workers make up the majority of slaughterhouse workers, and it's a dangerous job. They oftentimes get no benefits and some are here illegally and pretty much have to to what bosses want or their families starve.
Also, the WIC program (Women Infants Children) until VERY recently didn't allow fruits and vegetables (?) and no milk substitutes. They recently in some areas allowed fruits and vegetables (our local health dept has a produce market every week and accepts WIC coupons). Also, not allowing for milk substitutions is inherently racist, as a large part of the people unable to properly digest milk are black or Hispanic.

I do not agree with Vick being punished more because he is black. That's complete bullshit. He is being ridiculed because he is rich and famous...oh yeah and a scum animal abuser! If there were another very similar case involving a white person and they didn't give the same ridicule, then I would agree with you. I am not trying to attack you. I am just sick of hearing that crap and a lot of his supporters said that, first thing, and tried to change it to a white/black issue instead of focusing on the victims.

Oh Law Fairy, sometimes I think you must be my long lost twin.
You said, in a much more eloquent way, what I was trying to say.

Sarah -- what is it that they say about great minds? ;)

I'm going to have to start reading your blog too. How I still have steady employement, I do not know.

"I'm going to have to start reading your blog too. How I still have steady employement, I do not know."

Yeah, tell me about it :-). My degree of posting has been increasing as my dissertation exams get closer. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

LawFairy - Battlestar Galactica - Best show ever.

Ugh! Look at this bullshit.

Ugh! Look at this "bullshit."

Wow. I guess I won't be buying any Marbury basketball shoes.

SarahMC,

Here's what Stephon Marbury actually said (as quoted by Fox Sports):

"I think we don't say anything about people who shoot deer or shoot other animals," the Knick point guard told Capital News 9, an Albany TV station. "You know, from what I understand, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors."

And I have to agree with him.

Lots of atheletes hunt deer, geese or other animals, and nobody says anything about it.

And certainly none of them are going to go to jail.

But there's this all this controversy about Michael Vick - and they've literally made a federal case about it.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - there is a double standard about killing animals; some animal killing is OK, other animal killing is "horrible" and "criminal".

Vick just made the mistake of doing the "wrong" kind of animal killing.

If he was breeding racehorses, instead of fighting dogs, it would be perfectly acceptable and legal for him to kill animals who didn't win enough money.

Yes, that's standard practice in the horseracing world (the gamblers in the stands actually shout "send him to the glue factory" when their horse doesn't win - and, if a horse doesn't win enough races, that's pretty much what happens!)

Finally, if Michael Vick had raped a woman instead of killing a dog, he would not be facing jail time or the end of his career.

And theres' something fundamentally wrong about that!!!

Pamela V,

What are you talking about here?

"Also, not allowing for milk substitutions is inherently racist, as a large part of the people unable to properly digest milk are black or Hispanic."

Black people can't digest milk?

That's really funny, since BLACK PEOPLE ORIGINALLY DOMESTICATED THE COW (the Turkana people of what is now Kenya)

The Turkana are Black, and their main source of protein has been cow milk for the last 5,000 years or so.

Folks all over Africa drink milk, and have been doing so for thousands of years.

As for Hispanics, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay are the largest beef exporters in the world - and folks in those countries, as well as other Hispanics in countries from Cuba to Chile, from Puerto Rico to Mexico, drink milk every day.

Guess you've never had a cafe con leche, have you?

So where did you get this crazy racist idea that we can't digest milk?

Is that just a roundabout liberal way to call for cutting WIC, food stamps and free school lunches in the inner cities?

"Well, 'those people' can't digest milk anyway..."

God, I hate liberal racists!!!

LawFairy - Battlestar Galactica - Best show ever.

YESSSSSSSSSSSS.

Okay, now that I have two cool new readers, I guess I should get around to actually updating the thing every once in a while :P

You know what? I hate people who get off on making unfounded accusations of racism. Gregory, you're way out of line.

Pamela didn't say that Blacks and Latinos can't digest milk, she said that a large number of people who can't belong to those populations. This assertion isn't "crazy"; if you'd bothered to do 2 seconds of research, you'd know the National Dairy Council notes that 65% more African Americans, and 38% more Mexican Americans than Caucasians are lactose maldigesters; this doesn't mean that all of them manifest symptoms of lactose intolerance, but it's a significant difference that should be addressed by any food programs that disproportionately serve these populations.

Pamela's post deplored the fact that the foods generally available through WIC programs are not ideally suited to meet nutritional needs. I can't speak for her, but I doubt that she made this observation as the beginning stage of a sinister racist plan to rob inner city kids of their school lunches.

Seriously, WTF? I normally abide by the policy of starving the trolls, but your post is inutterably obnoxious.

Gregory, come on. Obviously there are humane and inhumane ways to kill animals. Or do you think that the fact that I had my 12-year-old sheltie, who I grew up with and loved so much it hurt, put down when she came down with terminal, inoperable cancer and would have been in incredible pain if she'd lived much longer, is the same as if I had beaten her for most of her life and forced her to fight with other dogs, until eventually one of the fights killed her?

You REALLY think those two things are the same? Really? Or is there maybe, just maybe, a difference between the right way and the wrong way to kill an animal?

I'm more offended by what Vick did than anything else I've seen in a long time. So I don't see any kudos earned.

When a star athlete is accused of violence against women the media will not usually jump all over the guy unless he admits his wrongdoings. The main reason, in my humble opinion, is because almost all of those cases are based around a "he said/she said" situation between two people.

In Vick's case, there is a mountain of evidence against him, his buddies are pleading guilty left and right, and there is evidence of so many instances of abuse.

I don't believe that it is the case of one crime garnering more outrage than another, I believe it is more to the fact that Vick has little explanation to the contrary.

It disgusts me that anyone would automatically assume that animal abuse of any scale is so much less important than the abuse of women on any scale that animal abuse isn't worth outcry.

I saw no posts in this thread that intimate the idea that animal abuse isn't worth outcry. I am a vegetarian and I have a visceral response to animal cruelty. The problem here is that while there is public outcry over this case of animal cruelty, there has been none over the brutalization of women by professional athletes. None. It is not that I think a person's life should have more weight than a dog's, but damn, shouldn't a woman's life be at least equal to a dog's? The reaction to this case and the lack of reaction to the domestic violence cases shows us that women are valued less than animals. It speaks volumes about our culture.

On another note, I've read that most people who don't have northern European backgrounds have a higher tendency towards lactose intolerance. My family is from southern Italy. I am lactose intolerant. I'm sure there are lots of southern Italian people who have no trouble, but a lot of us do. And many of the cheeses created in these areas are lower in lactose (Parmesan, for instance.)

Oh, well this is sad :-(.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2986955

RICHMOND, Va. -- More than 50 pit bulls seized from Michael Vick's property face a Thursday deadline to be claimed. If no one comes forward, they could be euthanized.

Federal prosecutors filed court documents last month to condemn 53 pit bulls seized in April as part of the investigation into dogfighting on the Vick's property. No one has claimed any of the dogs, which are being held at several unspecified shelters in eastern Virginia, the U.S. Attorney's office said Wednesday.

AS A SIDE NOTE, I have a beautiful rottweiller ("Maychie!") - he is sooooooo sweet. I couldn't imagine anyone ever using him for fighting. Sick.

I honestly don't think this case has anything to do with how much our society values or respects women. As Jeremy F. pointed out, if Michael Vick had killed someone, there might not be this much outrage...and it's the same thing with rape. We hear about rape & murder on a daily basis, so I think at some point we as a culture become numb to the news about it...whereas with dog fighting, well, how often do we hear about that? To put it bluntly, dog fighting is a more unique, fresh crime that people haven't heard of before, so they're both more interested & more outraged. Does that make it right? No. But is that how the human mind works? Yes. I think it's the same reason horror movie addicts love to see new types of torture in their blood fest films - the weirder and more out there it gets, the more intriguing and horrifying it is. I honestly think the case with Michael Vick is no different from this.

Pamela V,

Black people can't digest milk?

That's really funny, since BLACK PEOPLE ORIGINALLY DOMESTICATED THE COW (the Turkana people of what is now Kenya..

So where did you get this crazy racist idea that we can't digest milk?

Is that just a roundabout liberal way to call for cutting WIC, food stamps and free school lunches in the inner cities?

"Well, 'those people' can't digest milk anyway..."

God, I hate liberal racists!!!

Hey Gregory, maybe you should calm down and actually ask instead of assuming. Also, all caps= shouting online. In addition to that, please cease the douchebaggery.

What I am saying (and what you apparently twisted into some ridiculous accusation of hate speech) was reiterated above by Ankthry. (Thank you, Ankathry)

What I am saying is actually the opposite of what you are accusing me of. I am suggesting healthy alternatives for people in programs who cannot or choose not to eat dairy products. When you have abdominal pain because you cannot afford to drink anything but low-cost milk, someone needs to provide you with an alternative. Since it's more Hispanics and Blacks that have this problem than whites, then it is inherently racist to not provide alternatives to anyone.

PS- MY mother and my brother were on WIC when I was a baby. Thanks.

God, I hate liberals who accuse other liberals of racism before they even clarify what they are talking about.