National Football Commissioner Roger Goodell rightly suspended Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for six games for violation of the league's good conduct policy. But one of the curiouser aspects of this matter is the relative silence of women's rights groups over Roethlisberger's transgressions. When Michael Vick was merely accused of dogfighting and torturing dogs, animal rights groups were front and center in expressing their outrage and galvanizing public opinion to their cause. In contrast, women's group have been conspicuously silent over Roethlisberger's predatory behavior and it is difficult to understand the reasons why.
2 comments:
Ben is such a slimeball that public opinion doesn't need to be swayed. He's a parasite and EVERYONE agrees-the NFL has done their "duty" because there is no "evidence" of a crime-just a personal conduct violation. Now, as far as Mike Vick-people were divided on the issue, thus, lines were drawn. BTW, I take issue with you using the word "merely".
Well, I'm gonna guess that it's b/c the victim never filed a criminal complaint, and she comes across as a bit crazy, so even if BR is a dirtbag, it's hard to tell what actually happened here. Women's groups are not going out on limb over this. The evidence against Vick was strong and he plead guilty to the criminal charge. The real question is, how long before BR is playing for the Raiders?
Post a Comment