Rod Dreher

Rod Dreher


Tiger Woods: Integrity for sale, cheap

posted by Rod Dreher

Tiger Woods hits bottom, digs:Preach it, Favog:

Tiger Woods is a wreck. His family is a bigger wreck because of Tiger’s appetite for fresh meat. And now Nike gets the perpetrator in a tabloid tragedy to trade on his sins against his wife and children — and even drags his dead father into the sewer for good measure — just so it can sell you s***.

That ad is truly grotesque. I think I’ll avoid Nike products for a while. Meanwhile, Robert Wright, nobody’s idea of a religious man or a conservative one, writes about why Tiger Woods’ moral turpitude is everybody’s business. Basically his argument is that we reallly need monogamous marriage to make our society work, and when a prominent (therefore influential) person tramples on the sanctity of marriage, it hurts all of us. Excerpt:

Though monogamous marriage may be, on average, the best way to rear children, a lifetime of monogamous fidelity isn’t natural in our species. And extramarital affairs have a way of leading, one way or another, to the dissolution of marriages — not unfailingly, by any means, but with nontrivial frequency. And even when an affair doesn’t end a marriage, it can permanently change the marriage — and child-rearing environment — for the worse.So we’re stuck with this unfortunate irony: the institution that seems to be, on average, the least bad means of rearing children is an institution that doesn’t naturally sustain itself in the absence of moral sanction — positive sanction for fidelity, negative sanction for infidelity. And negative sanction often involves sounding judgmental — something that, in addition to incurring the wrath of a columnist’s readers, raises genuinely thorny intellectual problems.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(32)
post a comment
Nora

posted April 9, 2010 at 3:00 pm


Go to HuffPo and check out the parody ads — much better and make a better point. Or just google “Tiger Nike ad parody”, or somesuch and see what comes up. Nike has pulled some already, why I have no idea, they weren’t any more vulgar or raunchy than the ones you can still find.
And, as Jimmy Kimmel said after airing the original ad “Really makes you want to go out and buy a pair of shoes, doesn’t it?”
It’s awful. It’s all just awful. Better he should just shut up and play.



report abuse
 

Richard

posted April 9, 2010 at 3:06 pm


Makes me wonder if Tiger ever had any integrity.



report abuse
 

Lord Karth

posted April 9, 2010 at 3:09 pm


This is supposed to come as a surprise to anyone ?
Mercenary athletes at that level are corrupt, by definition. Whatever “integrity” they had when they started has been utterly subsumed in the never-ending quest to keep the big money flowing.
The same applies, from what I have observed, to performing “artists”, politicians and corporate Lords, almost without exception. There are exceptions, to be sure, but they are so few and far between that such people may as well be lottery winners or space aliens.
Your servant,
Lord Karth



report abuse
 

groan

posted April 9, 2010 at 3:24 pm


speaking of integrity, what about the AP exclusive on the 1985 letter concerning defrocking a priest…



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted April 9, 2010 at 3:28 pm


As long as there are rich and famous men (and women) there will be a large sea with many fish available to them. So, after Tiger married his “Trophy Wife” Elin, he decided he couldn’t stick with just one woman, and apparently his entourage made it easy for him. I agree that the ad is disgusting, and the spectacle is disgusting, but Tiger Woods is just a part of it. Not a victim, but it’s not really about him, either, is it? It’s about our culture, of which he is a part.



report abuse
 

Clive Moebeetie

posted April 9, 2010 at 3:34 pm


The other day it was “penis-madness” bombing the rubble. Today it is an cynical ad campaign to sell us more stuff made in China with a swoosh on it.
Ho hum, just another typical day in the burnt-out shell of what used to be “Western Civilization.”



report abuse
 

Cecelia

posted April 9, 2010 at 3:35 pm


I don’t know why this is coming as some sort of shock to people – most athletes and other celebs are all about taking money out of your pocket and putting it into someone else’s.
As for Nike – when their sneakers got to 150$ a pair – I stopped buying that – who spends that kind of money on a pair of shoes that cost about 5 bucks to actually make? So you can be cool? You are paying for the big fees people like Tiger get when you buy a pair of over priced Nike’s. I am not much into financing Tiger’s girlie trips to Vegas or any of the other excesses we routinely discover athletes and the like are up to.
I think people who allow themselves to buy into this whole scam are really foolish.



report abuse
 

Judith

posted April 9, 2010 at 3:47 pm


Well at least he’s making golf appear interesting.



report abuse
 

Geoff G.

posted April 9, 2010 at 3:54 pm


I think I’ll avoid Nike products for a while.
I have been for years, albeit on the grounds that they are overpriced crap.
Marketing is marketing. It’s always going to be this way. And by posting this and giving them attention, even negative attention, you’re playing into their hands. Companies are like dogs. You need to ignore them when they misbehave.



report abuse
 

BrianF

posted April 9, 2010 at 3:58 pm


What amuses me most is the Wright has to be so timid about stating the common sensical fact that hetersexual monogamy is the ideal environment for raising children.



report abuse
 

MWorrell

posted April 9, 2010 at 4:03 pm


They were flushing their marketing money down the toilet for a long time before Woods fell, at least as it concerns me and my family. Sure, I buy Nike shoes, when I find them for under $25.00 (and I do). I don’t care what any athlete has to say about anything outside of their particular field of expertise, and I sure as heck don’t make purchasing decisions based on their appearance in a commercial, regardless of their level of personal integrity.



report abuse
 

BobSF

posted April 9, 2010 at 4:22 pm


“Really makes you want to go out and buy a pair of shoes, doesn’t it?”
If waders count, yes.



report abuse
 

tscott

posted April 9, 2010 at 4:34 pm


“I know the most modern manufacturer who has been really occupied with making a large needle. Also a biologist selectively breeding a small camel. If we assume the words of Christ to have meant the very least they could mean…then rich men are not very likely to be morally trustworthy…a man who is dependent upon the luxuries of this life..is spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, and financially corrupt…to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck”. Orthodoxy(Chesterton)1908, pg.122.



report abuse
 

Sharon Astyk

posted April 9, 2010 at 4:59 pm


Why Tiger Woods, though? I honestly don’t care one way or another, but I just wonder why every other celebrity who plays around doesn’t get the same microscopic analysis. Is it just because we don’t expect much from Charlie Sheen but thought Woods was a good guy?
It strikes me on the other subject, that we rarely use the carrot on monogamy of any kind – how often do we see real marital love, long term monogamous love set up as a real ideal, with aesthetic, social and cultural rewards attached to it? I’m reluctant to go straight for the stick, simply because I think the stick gets used faster than the carrot.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 9, 2010 at 5:12 pm


Sharon Astyk, @ 4:59 PM, writes:
“It strikes me on the other subject, that we rarely use the carrot on monogamy of any kind – how often do we see real marital love, long term monogamous love set up as a real ideal, with aesthetic, social and cultural rewards attached to it? I’m reluctant to go straight for the stick, simply because I think the stick gets used faster than the carrot.”
“An ass can use up a bushel of carrots, but you only need one stick.”
—-Dean Ing, “Systemic Shock”
Your servant,
Lord Karth



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 9, 2010 at 5:14 pm


Though monogamous marriage may be, on average, the best way to rear children,
I prefer the priesthood.



report abuse
 

M.Z.

posted April 9, 2010 at 5:41 pm


I was at a friendly gathering and the topic of Woods came up. I stated he had shown he was scum and always will be. My host retorted that I didn’t understand the pressures and opportunities a Tiger Woods had. I said you didn’t have to be Tiger Woods to cheat. He agreed with that. Then he another went on about Tiger being a good golfer and that is how he should be judged. I didn’t add anything further, but the thought has crossed my mind that the most important thing to a lot of people is that they have a golfer to look up to rather than a decent person.



report abuse
 

oldnassau

posted April 9, 2010 at 6:15 pm


So: If monogamy is “the least bad means of rearing children is an institution that doesn’t naturally sustain itself in the absence of moral sanction –”, then what, Mr. Wright, would be a lesser bad means, a plain bad means, the least good means, and a good means?” Tribal rearing? Commune? Professional foster parents?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 9, 2010 at 6:27 pm


One problem with this whole situation is that people have wrong expectations of public figures. Tiger Woods deserves every bit of the respect he has received over the years for his consistently high quality of golf play. Why, however, is he supposed to be an example to me of a good husband and father? This is a fundamentally fallacious, and therefore flawed argument.
Christians need to remember that they should follow the Bible and Biblical precepts rather than the athletes, artists, and politicians of the world. IMO, Tiger’s decriers, along with all the media ghouls who have made financial mileage of his family life, need to recall the biblical teaching, “the one without sin should cast the first stone”.
As to “why Tiger” – people LOVE to see a good man brought low. The fact that his reputation was so flawless prior to this makes him an excellent target.



report abuse
 

Nora

posted April 9, 2010 at 6:45 pm


Why Tiger? Because he’s the ONLY pop culture star who is also a golfer. Baseball players, basketball players, football players and celebs who are serial womanizers are a dime a dozen.
Tiger made golf cool. Tiger made golf the kids’ game, not their dads’ game. He’s also the only guy golf has that any marketer outside those who market products exclusively to golfers will sign on for an endorsement deal.
And there’s the whole squeaky clean, up-from-the-masses, color-barrier-breaking aspect of his story.
He’s unique among celebrities and he captured the attention of a nation who normally wouldn’t, in general, give golf a mintue of their time.
Those who knew him, who knew golf, were aware he was a serial womanizer, but he did so much for the game, brought so much money in, they kept it quiet.



report abuse
 

Boz

posted April 9, 2010 at 7:12 pm


Some of those parodies were pretty good. Hopefully, this becomes as widely used as the Hitler scene.



report abuse
 

M.Z.

posted April 9, 2010 at 7:30 pm


One problem with this whole situation is that people have wrong expectations of public figures. Tiger Woods deserves every bit of the respect he has received over the years for his consistently high quality of golf play.
Why? Since when was golf an activity warranting great appreciation for skillful execution? How about a little perspective for crying out loud?



report abuse
 

Roland de Chanson

posted April 9, 2010 at 9:07 pm


Tiger appears to have had a more intimate encounter with that hydrant than with any of the minxes he trysted with.
I agree with M.Z. I have complete contempt for play for pay.
I must add that I have the greatest respect for monogamy. And any man or woman that can tolerate it.
BTW, “groan”, what’s your point? What did the AP letter say?



report abuse
 

Scott Lahti

posted April 10, 2010 at 12:34 am


Nike – not your baby-grand-daddy’s N-word.
From the Future Encyclopedia of American Popular Music:
Nike® spirituals ™, 2010- 30-second spoken-word laments over the bondage suffered by one’s people, aka self + entourage, resulting from the deprivations in one’s birthright incarnate in a temporary drop-off in endorsement income resulting in turn from having played one’s most recent off-Tour holes with an unsportsmanlike demeanor synonymous with having been caught at it – all cleverly disguised as somber retrospective filial piety.



report abuse
 

thehova

posted April 10, 2010 at 1:05 am


It seems like the people who don’t like the ad don’t follow sports closely and don’t know much about Tiger (no offense, but Rod and most of the crunchies who read his blog land in that group).
I’m not a big Tiger Woods fan. But I have followed his career closely. Tiger’s love for his dad is 100% genuine. There is no doubt in my mind that Tiger was closely involved with the making of this commercial and that he authentically feels like he let his Dad down.
I guess you can argue that Tiger shouldn’t express such deep feelings in an ad. But don’t give me the crap that he’s exploiting the situation to sell Nike stuff and that the feelings he’s expressing in the add aren’t genuine.
It’s a haunting, unsettling ad. Tiger is in a dark place and the ad reflects that.
Rod’s analysis of this ad is simply shallow and predictable.



report abuse
 

Julia

posted April 10, 2010 at 2:25 am


Sharon said:
“Why Tiger Woods, though? I honestly don’t care one way or another, but I just wonder why every other celebrity who plays around doesn’t get the same microscopic analysis. Is it just because we don’t expect much from Charlie Sheen but thought Woods was a good guy?”
I agree. And that’s why I think this whole thing is the height of hypocrisy. I was pretty surprised when that conservative darling Mel Gibson dumped his wife and many children for the young gal, with whom (I believe) he just had another child, but no one made anything over that. Odd, eh? Gibson was more Catholic than the pope, even going to the point of having a chapel built on his property so he and his family could attend Mass in Latin. At least Tiger Woods never claimed to be anything but an excellent golfer.
I don’t understand the selective moralizing. Note, too, that the bimbos with whom Tiger philandered are getting all sorts of valuable notoriety, paid interviews and photo spreads, etc. They’re not paying any sort of penalty or going to counseling for “sex addiction.”
The outrage rings hollow. People are simply enjoying the spectacle and/or making themselves feel better about their own peccadillos by piling on Tiger. Apparently, they forget that by doing so, they’re also piling on the pain for Elin and the children. Or maybe they just don’t care about that aspect.
How can people who say they care about marriage, family life, and children continue this craziness? Every additional broadcast, news story and column about Tiger’s infidelity has made it less likely that this family can work out their issues and stay together. Anyone with even half a heart wouldn’t contribute to it — not for Tiger’s sake but for Elin’s and for those precious children.



report abuse
 

MH

posted April 10, 2010 at 6:43 am


Media train wrecks like the Tiger woods spectacle only exist if you look at them. When not observed they cease to exist.



report abuse
 

Quiddity

posted April 10, 2010 at 7:47 am


I don’t buy Nike products. Their ads during the Atlanta Olympics were terrible (all about wanting to literally crush the competition).
Now this, which doesn’t surprise me at all. Also, Woods shares the blame because he must have okay-ed the whole concept.



report abuse
 

Baba

posted April 10, 2010 at 10:43 am


Isn’t anyone aware of the numerous infidelities of Tiger Woods’ father? Doesn’t that make the Nike ad even more odious?



report abuse
 

Siarlys Jenkins

posted April 10, 2010 at 9:23 pm


I’ve never bought Nike products. I don’t see any reason to pay $20 for the material product and $80 for the label.
I’ve never been a fan of golf.
I’ve never cared much, one way or the other, about Tiger Woods, except it is nice to see a man with a dark complexion succeed in a field that many kids of his own color use to write off as a “white man’s game,” just like seeing people with a dark complexion succeeding as concert pianists.
If we teach our children that successful sportswomen and men are not idols, and are not worth emulating except in their ability to use a particular set of skills through disciplined training and practice, then their marital successes and failure would be of no great importance.



report abuse
 

janet

posted April 12, 2010 at 6:33 am


I can’t believe this ad! Using the voice of Tiger Woods’ dead father in a Nike commercial to try and save his image is really low. I think this is immoral by Nike to stand by a man who has quite clearly lost his mind and has cheated on his wife an unbelievable 18 times! How can we even consider him a genuine sports star any more. Most of the sports blogs listed on http://www.dozensports.com say he is not going to recover from his image setback. Even using your late father can’t help Tiger, I’m sorry, that’s the way of the world.



report abuse
 

1111111111111111122222222222

posted July 19, 2010 at 3:28 am


here is your favorite dressThe trend of clothing



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Rod Dreher. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Most Recent Scientology Story on Beliefnet! Happy Reading!!!

posted 3:25:02pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Mommy explains her plastic surgery
In Dallas (naturally), a parenting magazine discusses how easy it is for mommies who don't like their post-child bodies to get surgery -- and to have it financed! -- to reverse the effects of time and childbirth. Don't like what nursing has done to your na-nas? Doc has just the solution: Doctors say

posted 10:00:56pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

Why I became Orthodox
Wrapping up my four Beliefnet years, I was thinking about the posts that attracted the most attention and comment in that time. Without a doubt the most popular (in terms of attracting attention, not all of it admiring, to be sure) was the October 12, 2006, entry in which I revealed and explained wh

posted 9:46:58pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

Modern Calvinists
Wow, they don't make Presbyterians like they used to!

posted 8:47:01pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

'Rape by deception'? Huh?
The BBC this morning reported on a bizarre case in Israel of an Arab man convicted of "rape by deception," because he'd led the Jewish woman with whom he'd had consensual sex to believe he was Jewish. Ha'aretz has the story here. Plainly it's a racist verdict, and a bizarre one -- but there's more t

posted 7:51:28pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.