Recently, I’ve been following from afar Ben Roethlisberger’s most recent run-in with the law. This is the second time in the past year or so that he has been accused of sexual misconduct–in other words, of forcing someone into sexual contact against her will.
Now, I know that according to the principles of law, we are supposed to withhold judgment until a person is proven guilty. But, in case you hadn’t noticed, that’s not how things work in the good ol’ U.S. of A.
When someone is accused of something that we pretend to find reprehensible, there is an uprising. We feign righteous indignation at the drop of a hat!
When people found out about Michael Vick and his dog fighting ring, we were morally outraged, talked about how he should be suspended for life from the NFL, and should rot in prison until past his athletic prime. No killing dogs! This is America!
But a quick survey of what people are saying about Big Ben on the interwebs indicates these deep seated concerns: (1) in the face of a looming 2-4 game suspension, is Roethlisberger a bad pick-up for your fantasy football team? (2) aren’t you starting to question his decision-making?
Why is there no outrage that this guy is allegedly repeating a pattern of using his physical power and bodyguards (literal and figurative) to force women into sexual contact?
I wish I could say that the answer is that there’s not been enough evidence, or that there are no criminal charges filed. But we never wait for the verdict! We get mad when we hear mere allegations of, for example, dog fighting.
No, we’re not angry because as a collective society we simply don’t care.
The lack of outrage indicates, IMHO, a culpable absence of concern for the exploitation of women as sex objects, exploitation that takes many forms through whatever power a man might have at his command.
So you think it’s as easy to exploit women as to exploit dogs?
Actually, I think I said it was easier…
Thank you, Daniel. Yes, it is easier. People never ask a dog if the dog “asked for it”, either.
Before ministry, I was a director of a shelter for battered women & children. My view isn’t rigid on culpability because I know we’re all sinners; however, every single one of us is responsible before God for the way we choose to act, and excusing anyone for abusive behavior on the basis of another’s actions, words, dress, or attitude eviscerates the foundation of the law. (whether that law is secular or biblical)
“But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.”
Might as well add children to the discussion. See “Vatican.”
Could race be involved as well? I don’t want to downplay the issue of women vs. dogs, but could the fact that Big Ben is white while Vick is not play into this issue? Kobe Bryant might be another interesting case to include in the discussion.
I don’t think dogfighting is okay, but I do think that the moral indignation was disproportionally high in Vick’s case. The apparent lack of moral indignation in the case of BR throws that into sharp relief, and begs all kinds of questions. If dogfighting is as bad as everyone, univocally, seemed to think a couple years ago, shouldn’t we be more outraged at this?
Whether it’s our undervaluing of women or our nervousness about saying something too bad about a white quarterback, we’ve got a major case of dissonance here.
Great questions, Cabe. It’s a big mess.
Indeed it is. Great post though; I was a huge fan of Sibboleth, and am glad you are back in the theo-blogosphere.
I was listening to NPR on the way home last night and heard this interesting take on the story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126194493