Readers Write: What Have We Learned from the Vick Case?

The Michael Vick case triggered a vigorous debate within the U.S. progressive movement that could be seen unfolding here on AlterNet. In the controversy we saw a confluence of race, animal rights, masculinity, and questions of fairness and due process -- elements amplified by million-dollar contracts and intense mainstream media coverage.

These varied factors prompted different takes on how to conceptualize the Vick case, most notably in Sandra Kobrin's "Beat a Woman? Play On! Beat a Dog? You're Gone" and Earl Ofari Hutchinson's column, "The Crucifixion of Michael Vick." These commentaries then caused varied reactions from readers either rejecting the perspectives given, applauding them, or offering their own.

A general response to Kobrin's article was that the comparison -- specifically between how men convicted of spousal abuse are treated and Vick -- was, on its face, invalid. A reader writing under the handle, EKSwitaj called it a "false dichotomy" arguing that people "don't have to choose between anger [sic] about the torture of animals and the mistreatment of women" and that we "should be outraged [sic] when any living being is made to feel unnecessary pain."

PopRox80 went further, stating, "I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why one human's life is more important than all the plants and animals and insects of this world. All things are equal, and should be treated as such." Poster vasumurti said, "The article is speciesist." At the heart of such arguments is the question, "Are animals equal?" -- in that, should they be accorded rights within the framework created for humans?

Reacting to Hutchinson's comparisons to a lack of anger on issues like Darfur, posters like bg41 said those issues distracted from the one at hand. "Genocide and wars are obviously among the most despicable legacies of humankind. No one here debates that," said bg41. "But pointing to the most horrible things in the world and then saying that what Michael Vick is accused of pales in comparison is just stupid. You can downplay the importance of ANY crime by doing that, but you've accomplished nothing of substance."

Others, like goeswithness, felt that drawing a parallel between women's rights and animal rights was inconsistent because, "A dog has absolutely no choice in how it's [sic] raised and who its owner is. Women do have that choice, at the outset anyhow." Doodahman chimed in, "Women are awesome, but dogs are perfect."

More learned readers preferred to draw a connection between feminism and animal rights, saying that we need to think of the way in which we treat living beings generally. Beatlefancb said:

Animal abuse and violence against people are directly linked. Animal abuse is considered to be one of the leading indicators of violent criminal behavior.

A study of battered women in Utah found that 71% reported that their animals had been threatened, harmed, or killed by their abusers.

Violence against animals desensitizes people to violence in general. This facilitates violence against people.

Many responses charged that outraged individuals were hypocrites by treating dogs differently from other animals. Cinattra wrote:

Yeah, we don't eat dogs, but other cultures do ... We hunt for sport stacking the cards against the animals by using high powered scopes and other tricks to make killing them convenient."

There is a cultural arrogance about America that is hypocrisy filled and leads it to distort some moral and ethical issues and to totally treat others less seriously or not treat them at all.

In a similar vein, cheressemm gives the example:

You can teach a pig to fetch a newspaper, and we still treat animals horribly in our current food-supply system," telling readers to "look up factory farming on YouTube, go to farmsanctuary.org [sic], and read up about sow gestation crates and current slaughterhouse practices, which are dangerous to the humans who work there (the most dangerous job in the U.S.) -- mostly illegal immigrants -- and horrendously cruel to the animals that are killed by the thousands upon the hour ... read about pigs that are not even stunned properly [sic] before being dunked in vats of boiling water ... and then tell me that you don't see the hypocrisy of which this article speaks when it comes to how much we supposedly love animals and don't want to see them abused.

Other posters like Bambi maintained that there was a difference. "Eating meat and taking responsibility for where that meat comes from has nothing to do with animal abuse and cruelty; it's ridiculous and shows a lack of awareness and intelligence to make a connection between the two."