Saturday, August 25, 2007


The question that eats at me is, Why is the public so upset that Michael Vick was involved in the actual killing of dogs but we do not see any public outrage over the hundreds of rapes that occur everyday? I believe rape of any kind is a heinous crime. The law considers murder a more serious crime. But with murder, the victim suffers no more once the act is complete. With rape, the suffering, the agony, the sense of violation can go on for years, for a whole lifetime, so I consider the seriousness of rape on a par with murder. Yet, the media is playing up the outrage over the alleged hands-on killing of about six dogs. Are dogs supposed to be innocent? Are humans supposed to be the ‘protector’ of dogs? Are rape victims viewed as less innocent or, perhaps, better able to fight back? Maybe the public feels that rape is a sex act (it is not) where dog killing requires the gathering of a special set of tools to complete the act.

I do not have a good ending to wrap up this post. These are thoughts with which I am grappling. Society must grapple with them also.


Katharine O'Moore-Klopf said...

Welcome, Chief.

I wonder why the murder of Iraqis doesn't provoke more outrage than the torture of dogs. Yes, what Vick did is awful, but what our country is doing in Iraq is even worse.

Chief said...


My original thought process certainly did not consider the scope of any heinous crime on the scope of Iraqui's dying or the killing in Darfur.

We all should be outraged by these atrocities. Yet we seem fixated on Anna Nicole Smith and Lindsey Lohan.

Joan said...

HI There!

Chief, I LOVE it when men attempt to talk about the rape of women. As a woman, I do not equate rape with murder. I do not want to be raped, I think it is one of the worst things that could happen to me or my daugher, but death is definitely worse. Also, I am a strong woman, I can recover from a rape and take my life back. My life may never be the same again, but I am not helpless. Secondly, I think your post is completely off the wall. Who is advocating the rape of women? Are you claiming that people who were sickened by Vick's abuse of innocent animals are in favour of women being raped? I am at a lodd to find the connection between the two sunjects.

There are terrible things going on the world, people are dying in Iraq and in Darfur, but how does that make torturing innocent animals a better deed? Do people in Iraq and Darfur suffer less when we allow Vick to torture innocent animals? Can't we be angry about both things?

Does this mean it is wrong to care about the environment? Why worry about a bunch of trees and spotted owls when there are people dying all over the world. I think you get the picture.

Take Care

Kathy said...

I LOVE it when men attempt to talk about the rape of women.

You didn't seem to mind it when I posted about cases of rape in which men claimed the rapes never happened. I distinctly remember your taking issue with my outrage over men making jokes about rape: You told me that I should not be so outraged about rape jokes or male putdowns of rape accounts because that's just what men do and it doesn't mean they don't take rape seriously.

Kathy said...

Just to clarify:

You did not seem to mind male commentary about rape when the males commenting about rape were making jokes about it. So I find it odd that you are so offended by a man (Chief) comparing rape to murder.

One may disagree with that comparison, but to feel such anger that you imply it's not legitimate for a man to comment on rape strikes me as really strange in this instance because you are angry that the condemnation of rape is TOO strong -- whereas it apparently does not bother you as much, or even at all, when the seriousness or reality of rape is actually *denied.*

Comparing rape to murder (whether you agree with that comparison or not) is more objectionable to you than making fun of a woman's claim that she was raped?

Joan said...

Hi kathy!

I don't recall the situation you are referring to. Can you remind me? Generally, I am not offended by a man making a joke about rape. I am not really offended by Chief's comment, I just think it is inane. Does he think we women are such fragile, little hot house flowers that we can't cope with life and the bad things that sometimes happen?

I am not offended if someone disbelieves a woman who says she has been raped. There are sad cases where women do lie about being raped. I would be offended if someone put forth the idea (in a serious manner) that women CAN'T be raped or something of that nature.

Take Care

Kathy said...

I am not really offended by Chief's comment, I just think it is inane. Does he think we women are such fragile, little hot house flowers that we can't cope with life and the bad things that sometimes happen?

Joan, in actual fact, Chief did not say that women are fragile hothouse flowers or that they could not "cope with life and the bad things that sometimes happen." Nor did he even hint at implying anything of the sort.

Chief made two main points. The first was that rape is a more heinous crime than killing dogs, yet the news that Michael Vick is involved in a blood sport that kills dogs has caused a public uproar, whereas the daily rape of hundreds of women raises barely an eyebrow.

I love dogs, and I'm horrified by what Michael vick has done; but Chief is right. Rape is worse than killing dogs, and something is wrong in our society when one man who has killed dogs causes more of an uproar than many men raping women every day.

Chief's second point was that rape is comparable to murder in terms of the seriousness of the crime. He did not say rape was worse than murder, or that it's better that a woman be murdered than that she be raped. He said that he considers the seriousness of rape to be on a par with murder, even though murder is a more serious crime IN LAW.

There is nothing inane about that position. It's true. To say that the murder victim's pain and terror end after the murder has been completed, but that the rape survivor's pain and terror continue, in some form, for a lifetime, is not to imply that rape is "worse" than murder, or that murder is not a heinous crime. Rape is actually a form of murder, in a metaphorical sense, in that the rape victim's sense of self is severely damaged, and in some cases destroyed, permanently. Rape takes away part of a person's soul, part of who they ARE.

Of course a woman can "recover" from rape in the sense that she can develop ways of managing the emotional pain and trauma so she can get on with her life, but that part of her that has been taken away will never return. This is not a totally apt analogy, but one might analogize it to losing a kidney. Can you survive and manage without the kidney? Of course you can. But you've still lost a very real part of your body, and the repercussions are unavoidable and lifelong.

Joan said...

Hey kathy!

I re-read Chief's post, and I still think his position is pretty weak. At one point he says that perhaps the public sees rape as a sex act, and hence sees the killing of these dogs as a worse act. Why didn't he choose the crime of mugging, home invasion or any of the other things a person can do outside of the law? I don't see the connection.

People seem pretty worked up about crime in society, they are always demanding bigger and better jails. I think rape is taken seriously in our society. The problem with dealing with rape as opposed to mugging, is that a mugger can never aruge consent. X either mugged Y or she didn't. In rape the defendant often argues that sex did take place, but that it was consentual. That muddies the waters terribly. In trying to determine if the act was a rape, it may make it seem that the legal system takes rape less seriously, but I do not think it acutally does. I think the legal system is not properly equipped to deal with a crime like rape and that is where changes have to be made. Yet, I must admit I don't know how or what changes would work.

Vicks is a public figure and he was caught doing a sickening thing. This has nothing to do with the rape, murder or mugging of human beings. It is shocking to see animals treated this way and people reacted to that. Chief posits this is so because society does not see rape victims as innocent. That really is an inane post.

I agree with you that victims of violence lose a part of their well-being and that is something they deal with every day of their lives. Some deal with it better than others. I did mistake what Chief said there. I thought he was saying that rape is as bad as murder. I apoligize to Chief for my mistake.

Take Care