In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

What he said

Jill

I don’t want to drag out the Save Monty drama any longer than necessary, but I will point you all to Elaine’s response to my post. It’s worth a read, and I appreciate her engaging these issues. She makes many interesting points, but I think it’s rather obvious that we are coming from fundamentally different places, and there are some gaps that just aren’t going to be bridged. Although, damn, I’ve never had someone call me “anti-animal-rights” before. But it’s your movement, and if you want to draw the “If you aren’t with us then you’re against us” line, I suppose that’s your prerogative.

We’re mostly at an impasse, so I’ll just let Brooklynite do the talking for me:

Criticized for describing animal breeding as “slavery,” Elaine Vigneault comes back with this:

The only difference between a mentally disabled human and a cow is that one is my species and one is not.

Look. I’m sympathetic to the pro-animal cause. I’ve been trending in that direction intellectually over time, and I’ve recognized recently that I really should do more to bring my actions into line with my abstract beliefs.

But even in circumstances where the moral and historical parallels are strong, equating different oppressions is a dicey business. Even if you’ve done all your homework and you’ve tailored your arguments narrowly, you’re going to catch flak. If you haven’t done that — if you just toss out an analogy to appropriate some heft — you’re going to get slammed, and you’re going to deserve it.

There is no good ending to a sentence that begins with the words “The only difference between a mentally disabled human and a cow is…” Not any. If you ever find yourself typing such a sentence, make a beeline for the delete key. Press it and hold it down until the impulse passes.

You’ll thank me later.

One more thing: Let me be clear that I realize Elaine doesn’t speak for all animal rights activists, and that there are many animal rights activists who also cringe at this comparison. It’s unfair to paint all ARRs with a broad brush. So this post is directed specifically at Elaine’s comment, not at the animal rights movement in general (or at least, not at the very large contingent of that movement that would bristle at the cow/disabled person comparison). Like the feminist movement, the animal rights movement is a diverse one. And just as my posts here don’t speak for all feminists and don’t represent anyone else’s feminism but my own, Elaine’s above comment should not be construed to represent anyone’s animal rights beliefs but hers, and my response is directed at her statement, not at everyone who subscribes to the animal rights movement.

323 thoughts on What he said

  1. Elaine responded to my comment (the gist of which was – dude, that’s offensive) by saying it wasn’t because the comparison was about personality. As in, a cow has more of a personality than a person with a mental disability.

    I mean, good GRIEF. Quite aside from the problem that there is no one generic Person With A Mental Disability, or even one Generic Mental Disability to speak about, has she never met anyone with a mental disability? They do, in general, tend to have personalities!

  2. Very, very bad way to make a point.

    In fact, better to just say there is no difference between a cow and a person.

    Unfortunately, we (we = animal rights activists) feel uncomfortable and ideologically compromised saying that, so we don’t; we know people will laugh at that comparison, even if that is how we really feel. People feel the necessity to talk about sentience and awareness as proof that a creature is worthy of respect and therefore the freedom NOT to be food. Part of whole thing with dogs (and why people don’t eat dogs, and trash Michael Vick for objectifying them, etc.) is that dogs are smart and appear to have human-like emotions. (As Samuel L. Jackson famously said, a dog has a personality, and a personality will take you a long way.)

    So, to make the point, animal rights people come back with the argument: hey, what about these people with no ‘awareness’? Huh? What about THEM? (Peter Singer started this line of defense, if memory serves.)

    That is using the dominant culture’s biases. We need to come up with new ways of making our points, not old able-bodiest tropes. If animals have equal rights with humans, then that means all humans. Stop distinguishing between which ones: dogs, rats, cows, young, old, able or disabled, etc.

    That’s why it’s such a hard argument to make, once you get started. That’s why you’ll never see ME arguing that way, since on some level, not sure I believe rats and people are equal, and I DO discriminate… as we all do.

    Sorry to ramble, but I’ve thought SO much about this stuff…

    (Cross-posted this reply at Brooklynite!)

  3. You know, at this point, I’m beginning to think Elaine is an anti-animal-rights mole put into the animal-rights movement to destroy it from within, by removing any and all possible credibility.

  4. The only difference between a mentally disabled human and a cow is that one is my species and one is not.

    Also, the milk tastes a little different.

    (Sorry, I couldn’t resist. The above should not be construed as a belief that anyone, human or otherwise, should be milked for food, especially given that most human adults are lactose intolerance, and cow milk is not as good a nutritional source of protein and calcium as the dairy industry would have you believe, especially when laced with hormones.)

  5. You know, at this point, I’m beginning to think Elaine is an anti-animal-rights mole put into the animal-rights movement to destroy it from within, by removing any and all possible credibility.
    It’s like every time she says something, it’s ten times worse than what she originally said. I used to work with mentally ill people–mostly elderly people with dementia. They had more personality and reasoning ability than Elaine currently displays.
    Of course, I’m generalizing. And I’m sure her reply will be the same as it was on my blog, when I pointed out that people currently enslaved probably don’t appreciate having their situations compared to breeder puppies. How DARE I presume to know what enslaved people think?
    Frankly, I’d rather be around a mentally disabled person than a cow. Cows reek and their shit is horrific.
    I’m not a huge meat eater, but dealing with people like Elaine always makes me crave a nice, rare steak…

  6. Wow. What kind of mental disability are we talking about? Do cows have more personality than, say, a person with Aspergers? ‘Cause, you know, people with Aspergers would probably love being equated with beef. I’m sure Einstein would’ve thought it a blast.

    Pet ownership is slavery? Um… sure. Harriet Tubman would have had a field day with that concept… right after she got done working her ass off to save the lives of human beings willing to risk life and limb to get out of bondage.

    If you want to talk animal rights, talk about animal rights. Don’t get into ridiculous arguments about valuing animals over humans, or painting some types of humans as equal or superior to animals. Remember, that’s what led to eugenics and genocide in the past (and present). When we start comparing any human to an animal, we dehumanize them, and deem them of less worth.

    It seems cruel to me to expect animals to be equal to us. I’ve seen my parents treating their dog as they treat themselves, and it’s not a pretty sight. The dog has health problems, he’s obese and neurotic. I think it’s far nicer to treat a pet as the animal they are: learn a little bit about its behavior, what it would be eating in its natural setting, its particular likes/dislikes, and act on that knowledge.

    I’ve seen female dogs and cats with little to no maternal instinct–should they have to go through the torture of heat, wanting to follow their mating instincts only to have a litter they don’t want to care for? Should my parents’ dog be eating “people food” (a gross misrepresentation of what they put in their mouths), only to become less healthy? Instead, wouldn’t it be more appropriate for my parents to treat their pet as a dog, one who needs to play, to eat dog-type foods (things like meat and not fried stuff), and be treated as one of the pack? I think so, so that’s how I treat my dog. The result? She’s a lot less crazy, she’s happy, and she’s far healthier. All because we recognize one simple truth: she’s a dog.

    You want to talk slavery? It’s a free country–you can do as you like. Just don’t expect me to hear the words coming out of your mouth and equate them with anything remotely resembling sense. Same goes for equating mentally-disabled humans with cattle–be as offensive as you like, just don’t expect me to acknowledge your views as anything but vile.

  9. It’s like every time she says something, it’s ten times worse than what she originally said.

    YES! That’s exactly how I feel. When she [Elaine] first commented, I thought she made some really great points (things that I hadn’t considered and was grateful that a knowlegeable person addressed them), and that maybe, just maybe, the venom she got in response was due to the fact that she criticized someone who’s smart and funny that we all really like. But then she started writing really offensive things, and it became hard to see the value in what she originally wrote! So unfortunate. It could’ve been a great conversation.

  10. They had more personality and reasoning ability than Elaine currently displays.

    And yet, supposing that to be literally true, it is still exactly as wrong to torture Elaine as it would be to torture them.

    The sad thing about her point is that nobody cares enough about it to even register disagreement. Her point is that pain doesn’t hurt any worse if you’re smarter. If we agree, and I have to believe we do, that it is no better to butcher someone with an IQ of 65 than someone with an IQ of 165, it is not too much of a stretch to believe that it is also wrong to inflict pain on someone who is missing much of their brain, who has lost the ability to think like us, but still feels pain like us. And then, also wrong to inflict pain on something that never did think like us, but does feel pain like us. I know it is not as much fun to figure out exactly why this leap is too hard for us to make as it is to bellow about how Elaine is an idiot, but it’s a real point she’s making, in however offensive a fashion.

    When you argue that the mentally disabled people you work with do so have personality and reasoning ability, it gives me the chills, because you are playing right into Elaine’s hands: you are tacitly agreeing that having these things is what makes them people and not like animals. What if they didn’t have them? How would you argue against her then?

  12. And then, also wrong to inflict pain on something that never did think like us, but does feel pain like us.

    Neither a dog bought from a responsible breeder nor a shelter-adopted dog is experiencing pain. That IS the specific situation we are still talking about, right?

  13. And then, also wrong to inflict pain on something that never did think like us, but does feel pain like us. I know it is not as much fun to figure out exactly why this leap is too hard for us to make as it is to bellow about how Elaine is an idiot, but it’s a real point she’s making, in however offensive a fashion.

    I must have missed the part where anyone said is was defensible to torture animals, particularly those with complex nervous systems. The problem I’m having with Elaine’s argument is that it’s not coming from a debate about commercial farming practices or anything like it. Her point is coming the fact that Monty came *from a breeder* as opposed to *from a shelter*.

  14. Soph,
    She’s not actually “playing into my hands.” She’s putting moral weight on differences where I think there should be none.

    If you read my analogies as putting other humans down, you’re reading them wrong.

    I am explaining that difference is not a justification for oppression. It doesn’t work with humans and it doesn’t work with animals. Saying you’re smarter, or bigger, or have religion and philosophy does nothing but show difference. And difference is not enough justification to make another living being your property. It is not enough reason to turn a creature into chattel.

  15. Her point is coming the fact that Monty came *from a breeder* as opposed to *from a shelter*.

    So long as people continue to buy dogs from breeders, they are condoning a system of slavery of dogs which results in the killing of millions of dogs every year. Jessica will treat Monty well, but her choice to buy from a breeder instead of adopting from a shelter caused the death of at least one shelter dog. And as a person of celebrity and influence, others will follow her lead and cause more harm to more dogs.

  16. Here’s an animal-human comparison to ponder: Elaine keeps chastising the demand side of pet overpopulation, and ignoring the supply side. That’s like trying to stop domestic violence by chastising those who don’t shelter the victims, while ignoring the perpetrators.

  17. Elaine, you’re raising that buying from a breeder=slavery, adopting from a shelter=not slavery thing again.

    What’s the functional difference, other than who receives the payment or adoption fee? The dog’s experience is no different; the dog is still chattel under the law.

  19. Jessica will treat Monty well, but her choice to buy from a breeder instead of adopting from a shelter caused the death of at least one shelter dog.

    Now you’re getting into real leaps of logic here. Anything could be said to cause the death of one more shelter dog: for instance, your failure to adopt another dog causes the death of one more shelter dog.

    And as a person of celebrity and influence, others will follow her lead and cause more harm to more dogs.

    Good lord.

  20. sterilizing animals causes them pain

    So does giving them vaccinations. Should I decline to vaccinate my dog for rabies?

    I think Elaine herself pointed out that the sterilize vs. euthanize choice is a utilitarian one and that minor surgery is a better option than death.

    (Em, if your comment was sarcastic, my apologies).

  21. Good lord.

    Everyone here is now under moral obligation to go adopt a dog, right this minute. If you don’t, it’s exactly the same as killing them yourselves. Even if you don’t want a dog, even if you’re allergic, too bad.

  22. Het women: If you meet a good man who makes good money, don’t selfishly keep him for yourself. Demand that he marry a single mother living in poverty. To let him continue to be with you simply dooms her and her children to misery.

    I’ll stop now.

  23. Do cows have more personality than, say, a person with Aspergers? ‘Cause, you know, people with Aspergers would probably love being equated with beef.

    Personally, as someone who probably has AS, I’m both offended and mildly amused. I could probably be compared both favorably and unfavorably to a cow. My speech, writing, and analytic abilities are better and despite relatively poor social skills, I can get along better in a pack of monkeyboys and -girls than the average cow could. On the other hand, my cud chewing and milk producing capabilities are clearly inferior (although I must say that when I was lactating I did it dam well for a mere human). And as for meat production, I’m afraid that despite the best efforts of the junk food industry I’m vastly undersized compared to a cow…

    I think that the underlying point that animals (at least vertebrates and probably most invertebrates, although insects are pretty questionable) can feel pain and suffer and that it is therefore best to avoid harming them if at all possible is a good one. But the “pet keeping is slavery” argument doesn’t respect the differences between humans and other animals–and I’m not talking intelligence here. Dogs, for example, are carnivorous pack animals. They need exercise, a pack (a human one will do) to interact with, peace, and enough food. If they get that, they are happy, regardless of whether they are officially “owned” by their alpha human or not. They don’t know and don’t care about ownership, they care about being part of a pack that will protect and feed them. Therein lies, I think, the main problem with the human-non-human comparisons. Intelligence is not the only difference between humans and other animals. One must recognize and respect the particular needs of a given species in order to treat them properly.

  24. Don’t you see everyone, not having sex with any man that asks if you’re a fertile woman means you’re effectively killing a baby! Think of teh babiezz!

    Jill’s original comment linking the rhetoric in Elaine’s extremism to that of the anti-choice crowd becomes more and more salient.

  25. Well, Em, presumably your domestic pets are given anesthetics and pain-killers when they’re castrated, so their pain is minimal, but food animals just have their balls cut off. Ouch.

  26. Everyone here is now under moral obligation to go adopt a dog, right this minute. If you don’t, it’s exactly the same as killing them yourselves. Even if you don’t want a dog, even if you’re allergic, too bad.

    So if I actually go out and kill a puppy right now, is it really the same as if I had killed TWO dogs? Because you know. Two puppies with one… whatever you use to kill puppies.

  28. How would you argue against her then?
    I wouldn’t bother with her. She’s proven, by her posts and the comments that she’s left at my blog, that she’s the same kind of loon as the people waving pics of stillborn babies at abortion clinics. There’s no point in debating with someone like that. I’d rather debate with someone who eats fast food and buys factory farmed meat–someone in the middle of the road that can change their mind.

  29. It was mostly sarcastic, FE. No biggie.

    I realized that as soon as I finished typing. 🙂 These threads have gone on so long (and with so many outlandish statements) that I’m losing my ability to correctly read sarcasm…

  30. When people say things like “slavery of dogs” I’m picturing dogs wearing loin clothes rowing a boat with a fat man playing a big drum at one end.

    I don’t just make living beings my property, I use them in laboratory experiments. I have a whole cabinet full of dried insects just because that’s my hobby.

  31. “slavery of dogs” I’m picturing dogs wearing loin clothes rowing a boat with a fat man playing a big drum at one end.

    Wasn’t that a Far Side cartoon?

  32. Wow. I’m impressed that the threshold for animal cruelty is how similar that animal is to a “mentally disabled human”. You see, my roommate is bipolar and, thanks to Elaine, I will be moving out and into a pasture, or maybe I should move into the pasture because I’ve been having mental health issues as of late as well.

    On a somewhat related tangent, I would love to sympathize with more AR stuff, but I always get to a point where I need to know what happens to working class farmers and undocumented workers (who make up the mass of employees in meat packing plants) once we get rid of meat eating all together. Maybe I’m just ignorant on this, but where are the tangible solutions presented that will work in the real world? I honestly prolly am ignorant on this.

  33. Don’t you see everyone, not having sex with any man that asks if you’re a fertile woman means you’re effectively killing a baby! Think of teh babiezz!
    Guys, stop masturbating now! You’re killing potential homunculi!!!!

  34. food animals just have their balls cut off

    With sheep it’s done with a teeny rubber band when they’re lambs. It just cuts off blood flow to the balls and they drop off eventually. Yes, I have performed this procedure. No, it didn’t bother me. It’s livestock.

  35. I don’t just make living beings my property, I use them in laboratory experiments. I have a whole cabinet full of dried insects just because that’s my hobby.
    Before I changed majors, I was pursuing a bio degree. I’ve had to dissect fetal pigs, sharks, and cats, plus a lot of different organs from sheep. But it doesn’t matter if the career I was pursuing would help people, it’s just wrong. /snark
    Actually, I did feel bad about the cats because they were all from a shelter. Poor kitties. I wish I could have adopted them all.

  36. what happens to working class farmers and undocumented workers

    Good question. My advisers raise cattle and sheep. Not that it makes up most of their income, but there are a lot of people out there who do make a living off of it. I guess they’ll switch to making Boca Burgers?

  37. You know, I’ve had an animal rescue me once, and it didn’t make me think of it as human (oh, and it was an animal that was bought from a breeder – bred to protect). It did inspire me to eventually rescue another animal (in the sense that I got my dog from a shelter).

    I’ve grown up with a very practical view on animals as the result of my past – they’re with you for a reason, and the two of you can mutually benefit from the relationship. And you do love them. And they love you back.

    We’re different, though. I won’t get into the ethical/moral issues in all this (being religious doesn’t help either). But it’s how I feel, and it does prevent me from being grateful for the companionship and the love and the fact that my dog was ready to give up her life for me once upon a time.

  39. I guess they’ll switch to making Boca Burgers?

    mmm….boca burgers are delicious, but they’re prolly made by some evil corporation.

  40. As I noted over at Elaine’s place, she’s thinking about subordination from the perspective of the person who is choosing whether or not to subordinate, not the person — or animal — who is being subordinated. It’s not a bad place to position oneself in thinking about this stuff, but it does make it likely that any analogies you then draw between subordinated communities will go seriously awry.

  41. I guess they’ll switch to making Boca Burgers?

    I have to say, Boca’s spicy ‘chicken’ patties bloody well rock! Yum! And I say this as someone that actually loves real chicken, but the Boca spicy version is just better.

    Course, I mean, that’s why I eat meat though, because it tastes good. If something else tastes better, I’ll eat that.

  42. I cannot even BEGIN to express my worldview about this issue, and there is NO WAY I can express it without making everyone hate me.

    So bear with me.

    Starting point: I like Cocker Spaniels. A Lot. People who have Cocker Spaniels tend for the most part to be people who spay and neuter and take good care of their dogs, as if the case with most purebred dogs. There are Cocker Spaniel rescue dogs, but not a lot of them, and I have NEVER seen a Cocker SPaniel rescue PUPPY. I have rescued Cocker Spaniels! I have also bought them from “breeders” (both times, the breeder was just a person with a cocker who bred one litter and then spayed).

    I have volunteered for years at my local shelter. Because of (apparently) ALL the MFs like Vick out there, there is a HUGE surplus of pit bulls and pit bull mixes, because people like Vick DON’T NEUTER. One reason they DON’T Neuter is because, you know, they want their pit bulls to be all macho, and their dogs are penis extensions for them.

    They also take terrible care of their dogs, usually never vetting them at all. (I know NOT ALL pit bull fanciers are like Vick. But a great great many are. There are lots of lovely peole who rescue pits and pit bull mixes. Especially since nearly ALL the dogs at the shelter ARE Pits and Pit mixes. At least here in Austin).

    Because of the FLAGRANT refusal to, in my opinion, care properly for their pit bulls, there are so, so many of them in rescue. If we follow the stance of the rabid Animal rights posters here, Pit Bulls would become the only kind of dog, the only breed, BECAUSE those who fancy them are (usually) so fucking irresponsible.

    Now, clearly, there is something WRONG with that.

    Good dogs with nice personality traits, like many purebred dogs (spaniels, collies, labs, etc) can either cease to be, or, only exist as genetically damaged puppy mill products, because it is WRONG to be, or buy from, a responsible breeder who is blessed with healthy, non-inbred dogs.

    And pit bulls take over the earth, despite the fact that they can be quite dangerous (esp those that have been bred for fighting), AS A RESULT OF the fact that so many pit bull breeder and fanciers are cruel, irresonsible losers.

    This chain of reasoning, that it is only OK to rescue, is a flawed reasoning. I suggest that it would be a better world, if ONLY provably responsible breeders were patronised. If all dogs could be healthy, genetically sound and well cared for puppies, brought into homes that truly want them, this is a better outcome and a better way of going about it.

    I think we ALL want puppy mills to be shut down, and for people to spay and neuter their pets. But limiting any dog lover to rescue ONLY and they are just a bad bad person if they buy a dog, that is not workable, and would result in a world of unhealthy, often psychologically damaged dogs, almost ALL of whom are pit bulls.

    If that is the outcome the animal rights posters on this thread WANT, well okay.I reserve my right to NOT think that is a desirable outcome for dogs as a species, or for himans who love dogs.

    Okay, everyone can start hating on me now.

  43. Can we please put the blame for the overcrowded animal shelters on the people it really belongs to — backyard breeders, puppy/kitten mills, and the idiots who let their animals run around free without being neutered?

    Responsible purebred breeders do a LOT to screen people before they allow them to take an animal with them. They try to keep the breed healthy, and often offer to take an animal back if it doesn’t work out in the home. They LOVE their critters. They occasionally make mistakes and trust the wrong people. Those people who adopt pets without thinking about how they will fit into the household, or specific breed needs are idiots, and if they dump that animal at a shelter, they deserve the blame.

    People who don’t bother to spay/neuter their pets and dump the resultant animals off at the shelter (or the mom-cat/dog because “she keeps getting pregnant!”) or WORSE are the people that should be getting the blame. People who deliberately allow their cat/dog to breed so that “the children can see the miracle of life/birth” should also be getting that blame. The people who breed their purebred without researching the consequences just because they think that “hey! WE paid $xxx(x) for this animal; think how much we could make by breeding our own and selling them!” should be getting the blame. Don’t even get me started on the pieces of filth that run breeding mills. There is *no* excuse for that.

    For the record:
    My cats were unexpected kittens born to a friend’s pet (he adopted her off the street, but never got her vetted, and, well…). I love them and care for them, even though the girl cat is a *high* maintenance kitty with some minor but persistent health issues. When we get another kitten, we are planning on going to the local no-kill shelter. They are members of my family. Junior, non- voting members, as befits creatures with the mental age of maybe a two year old, but members of my family. They are not my playthings, or my toys, or my slaves.

    Done now.

  44. Errr….
    What KMTBERRY said, in other words. I adore my moggies-of-indeterminate-origin, but the old saying that mutts are healthier than purebreds is very often not true. Good, responsible breeders try very hard not to perpetuate genetic health issues. The unhealthy and neurotic purebreds tend to be the product of unethical breeders who are very often breeding for type and not for health/brains. The key word is “unethical”.

  46. Um, oops. I’m simultaneously posting a Craigslist ad. The quote above should be:

    They are members of my family. Junior, non- voting members, as befits creatures with the mental age of maybe a two year old, but members of my family. They are not my playthings, or my toys, or my slaves.

    *hangs head in embarrassment*

  48. Though, I’m sure if you were to consult your kitties, and mine, they would be quick to assert that we are their slaves. 😉
    My cat totally owned me. I hate waking up early but when she lived with me, I would wake up at 5:30 or earlier to let her out of my bedroom. She died last august and I would kill to be woken up by her again.

  49. She died last august and I would kill to be woken up by her again.

    I will definitely keep that in mind when my Max (often referred to as “Mr Manface”, or “Snooglebum”) starts his “Feed me NOW” yowls tomorrow morning at 7:18 am. (On the nose. Every. Morning.)

  50. Lol. Don’t get me started on IKEA mattress abuses…

    Tell me about it. Why do you think I’m trying to sell it? 😉

  51. 90% of animal euthanasia would stop if pet owners fulfilled their responsibilities: that means not dropping off their animals at a shelter when there care becomes inconvenient and not failing to spay and neuter their pets and keep their vaccinations current.

    Given that, I think it’s much more important to encourage responsible pet ownership than it is to berate people who adopt from a breeder. Sure, everyone should be encouraged to adopt from a shelter, but advocating for responsible pet ownership is the single most important thing you can do if you really want to make a dent in the pet overpopulation problem.

  52. I will definitely keep that in mind when my Max (often referred to as “Mr Manface”, or “Snooglebum”) starts his “Feed me NOW” yowls tomorrow morning at 7:18 am. (On the nose. Every. Morning.)
    Isn’t it amazing how accurate they always are? Harley waking me up was better than an alarm clock.
    To get me up, she’d; meow, lick my face, lick any plastic she found in the room, or if I didn’t get up fast enough, she’d jump on my dresser and knock stuff down.

  53. As I said on Elaine’s site:

    The concept that “slavery is bad” is linked to the concept that “slavery involves human slaves.”

    If you want, you can expand your use of “slavery” to include cats and dogs–along with “slave” flash systems for your Nikon, and “slaves” subwoofers for your home stereo and “enslaved” animals who are the “victims” of parasites.

    But if you DO that… well, then I no longer think slavery is bad, at least not when I’m talking to you.

  54. I am suddenly having horrible flashbacks to a former roommate of mine who’s family refused to neuter their male dog because the father would be lonely in the house without an additional male presence.

    Apparently, living with his wife and two daughters was so tough that he needed a Westie to keep to be the keeper of the balls.

  55. YAY polarizing!

    This chain of reasoning, that it is only OK to rescue, is a flawed reasoning. I suggest that it would be a better world, if ONLY provably responsible breeders were patronised.

    How come nobody has mentioned good old K-Mart pets? Now it might be Walmart, but anybody with a “Free Puppies” sign. Dogs, like people, are better when kinds combine. =) IMO insisting on “pure” blood is unwise, as purebreeds will always tend toward weaker genes. Smaller gene pool = greater chance for unfortunate recessive traits.

    If you really want a better dog, wouldn’t it make more sense to combine breeds to select for traits? If your decision is based purely on your perceived superiority of “pure” blood, then I disrespect that choice.

    Also I don’t think “slavery” is the right word. “Cruel treatment”, “subjugation”, but slavery just doesn’t jive with my cultural understanding of the word. Slavery is something that people do to other people, exclusively. It has to occur between equals. On the other hand, animals don’t have to be People to deserve to be treated humanely.

  56. Junior, non- voting members, as befits creatures with the mental age of maybe a two year old, but members of my family.

    If your cats don’t have a vote, then they aren’t really cats. When my cats were alive the house ran to their schedule.

    “Rowr!” Time to feed the cats.
    “Mew!” Time to comb the cats.
    “Ffffft!” Nope, can’t go out to the store, the cat has the car keys.

  57. If your cats don’t have a vote, then they aren’t really cats. When my cats were alive the house ran to their schedule.

    “Rowr!” Time to feed the cats.
    “Mew!” Time to comb the cats.
    “Ffffft!” Nope, can’t go out to the store, the cat has the car keys.

    Interestingly enough, this is precisely what it’s like to live with a toddler.

  58. I will definitely keep that in mind when my Max (often referred to as “Mr Manface”, or “Snooglebum”) starts his “Feed me NOW” yowls tomorrow morning at 7:18 am. (On the nose. Every. Morning.)

    Ever since we switched his diet, my cat (known as Edmund, or Dammit) has taken to sitting by my face from 4 in the morning onward, and standing up and strutting around in an excited fashion if I give any sign of being awake, such as moving, until I get up and warm his chicken goop for him. And then he comes and rubs his chicken-breath face into mine. I love that old bastard.

  59. Conscientious breeders have been remarkably sensitized to genetic issues in the past thirty years. As one example, thanks to them and their financial support, Cornell vets have identified the gene associated with hyperparathyroidism, so that no more dogs have to be born with this life-shortening condition. Genetic counseling is needed for human inbred populations, too, such as the Amish, or Ashkenazic Jews. Such inbreeding will continue, because I don’t think a “Marry a Goy or else” program would be too popular, nor do I see modern Americans flocking to the Amish lifestyle.

  61. This is another example of where Elaine’s reasoning isn’t insulting if you take her argument that animals and humans are equal at face value. However, her rhetoric recalls an extremely offensive and insulting history of language used with the mentally disabled, rendering it offensive by association, in ways to which she is apparently completely insensitive. And that’s a perfectly good reason to get really pissed off.

    Elaine:

    Her choice to buy from a breeder instead of adopting from a shelter caused the death of at least one shelter dog.

    Do you believe that people who have their own child instead of adopting face the same moral consequence? Overpopulation isn’t a problem unique to dogs, after all.

    I’ve heard the response that reproduction is an inherent need for humans; I don’t buy it. Here’s why:
    1. Then you’d weigh that need against the moral implications of “causing the death of at least one starving child.” A lot of couples wouldn’t be comfortable with causing someone’s death, even indirectly, no matter how loud the biological clock.
    2. It’s emperically disproven by the peoples’ decision to semi-permanently sterilize themselves as a form of birth control: how inherent is inherent?
    3. We can only assume dogs and cats have the same inherent need—doesn’t sterilizing themselves against their will violate that need?
    I’d like to know your thoughts.

  62. And as a person of celebrity and influence, others will follow her lead and cause more harm to more dogs.

    I’m going out and buying a dog from a breeder. Because there’s no difference between a dog and my disabled son. Except that the dog is a purebred and my son isn’t. But that’s okay because Jessica has a purebred.

  63. People who deliberately allow their cat/dog to breed so that “the children can see the miracle of life/birth” should also be getting that blame.

    I have to agree that argument is one of the stupidest I’ve ever heard for not spaying/neutering your pet. If you want your kids to see the miracle of birth, show them the video of the day they were born. Problem solved.

    We’re going to look at cats this weekend now that Boris is gone and Keaton is driving us nuts, he’s so lonely. Going back to the same rescue group that we got Keaton from.

    But we’re only adopting one, which means that we are personally responsible for the death of EVERY OTHER CAT IN EVERY SHELTER EVERYWHERE!!1!1!!

  64. Zuzu,

    “What’s the functional difference, other than who receives the payment or adoption fee? The dog’s experience is no different; the dog is still chattel under the law.”

    Ask someone who believes their pet is their property how much they’re willing to spend if the pet gets ill. They will answer with a number. Ask someone who believes their pet is their responsibility how much they’ll spend if their pet gets ill. They will answer “whatever it costs.”

    That’s the difference. The dog who lives with the guardian/ parent will receive care tailored to them. The dog who lives with an owner will receive care tailored to the owner.

    (That’s not to say that people don’t change. Some people who buy a dog will remove that price tag immediately, but some will never remove it.)

    Will,
    Having a baby is not comparable to buying a dog from a breeder. You don’t buy your own baby.
    Moreover, we don’t kill the extra human babies in the world, but we do kill the extra dogs. We kill millions and millions.

    Pinky,
    you asked

    “On a somewhat related tangent, I would love to sympathize with more AR stuff, but I always get to a point where I need to know what happens to working class farmers and undocumented workers (who make up the mass of employees in meat packing plants) once we get rid of meat eating all together. Maybe I’m just ignorant on this, but where are the tangible solutions presented that will work in the real world? I honestly prolly am ignorant on this.”

    It wouldn’t happen overnight. The shift would be gradual and the economy would adjust. Just like it has when resources dried up or technology replaced human work. There would be plenty of other things for people to do.

    Besides, the majority of our meat doesn’t come from your local, little farmer, it comes from huge industrialized warehouses.
    See The Meatrix.

    Jenny wrote:

    “it’s much more important to encourage responsible pet ownership than it is to berate people who adopt from a breeder.”

    They are not mutually exclusive.

    You may not have noticed, but the discussion is decidedly NOT just about buying a puppy from a breeder. All kinds of anti-vegan and anti-AR insults are being spewed, along with massive doses of specism.

    The breeders are a keystone. Discussions about bred pets often highlight the undercurrent, which here is “humans are superior to animals and AR people are insane. Let’s make fun of AR people and discuss ways to torture animals, like castrating them without painkillers, killing puppies, making fur coats out of monkeys, and eating corpses. Oh, what fun!”

    Do you see now why I didn’t ‘just drop it’? If it really were just about breeders and fewer people got off on making fun of vegans and torturing animals, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. But it’s not. Breeders are just one example in a system of violence and oppression.

  65. So long as people continue to buy dogs from breeders, they are condoning a system of slavery of dogs which results in the killing of millions of dogs every year.

    Ownership or adoption, whatever you want to call it, there is still an exchange of money and resources for the privilege of taking home the pet. Merely using the “wrong” terminology in your mind doesn’t make pet “ownership” slavery. Ownership, adoption, buying, welfare, liberation, all of it seems pretty semantic, personally, if you’re comparing the likes of dog fighters to

    Look at the way people in this thread talk about their cats. Fuck, the other day I was reduced to sobs on the couch watching a PBS documentary on the animals of Katrina, with one satisfied cat in my lap, because I don’t have a three cat carriers for all three cats if something happened and we had to make a fast exit from home. Seriously, sobbing to the point that my family thinks I’m a loon.

    While I think about it, as a weak example, if I have to transfer my animal in a cage, or crate a dog during work hours, am I equally immoral as the infamous child abusers that put foster children in cages? Drawing these kinds of comparisons really doesn’t make any sense in the end, considering that one kind of being in this case is a sentient animal that will one day presumably be able to care for itself in the wider world, while the other is a sentient animal that was bred for companionship and largely cannot survive in urban, modern environments without, at the least, scraps of human development and empathy.

    Jessica will treat Monty well, but her choice to buy from a breeder instead of adopting from a shelter caused the death of at least one shelter dog.

    Based on what? Is this some rhetorical feat or is there some evidence to back this up?

    And as a person of celebrity and influence, others will follow her lead and cause more harm to more dogs.

    Celebrity and influence, I don’t know. Jessica is merely a popular blogger, which, in the real world, doesn’t amount to much. Most people don’t have the money to buy from a breeder, and clearly, many have already accepted the fact that pet stores and the puppy mills that supply them are pretty grossly abusive and ethically undesirable.

    I think there are reasonable arguments to be made for buying from breeders as well as shelters, but all of them generally result in expanding one’s *family*, which is, in the end, a good goal.

    _________________

    All of the pets I’ve ever owned independently have been shelter cats and I admit a bit of “buyer’s remorse” after I brought them home and found that one, for example, would have lifetime health and anxiety problems that require a lot of attention and money that I don’t have to spend (Pablo), while another was probably taken from his mother too early and has a whole slew of behavioral problems (Doug). The third, which I’ve inherited through my significant other, seems to believe there is a food shortage and has a serious eating problem with Norbizness finds HIGH-larious (Merle). Mine were shelter cats bought as adults and my SO’s was a Take One Free kitten. But despite my moments of fear that I wasn’t going to love them or be able to take care of them, we’ve simply grown a wider sense of humor and folded their idiosyncracies into our daily lives. The day something bad happens to one of these cats will be a Week Off Of Work kind of event for all of us.

  67. Ugh, KMTBERRY, I feel you.
    People (usually men) who refuse to neuter their dogs (or cats) infuriate me. Intact dogs are ruled by their hormones. Neutering them relieves them of their hormone-driven insanity and has numerous health benefits. AND it prevents unwanted puppies!

    But I’ve heard so many people declare that they would never “emasculate” their dogs by neutering them. As though dogs are insecure about their masculinity like human males. They are not; how could anyone not realize that!? They do not miss their balls or feel injured by neutering. Like I said, their health improves when they’ve been neutered, as does their disposition. People who anthropomorphize (sp?) their dogs like that should not be pet owners. It’s all about their own hang-ups and not about the dogs’ best interest.

    Re: pit bulls – my boyfriend adopted a 1 year old pit bull mix over a year ago. So he’s like 2 now. He was starving when the rescue found him but he’s extremely well-adjusted, sweet and happy now.
    They live in Baltimore. We can’t take him for a walk without being approached by at least one person who wants to know if he’s a red-nose, why he’s been neutered, if M will sell him, if Joey’s been bred, etc., etc. It’s scary. Certain scumbags see pit bulls and immediately think, “I want to see a dog fight!” or “That dog needs to breed!” M is a responsible pet owner; Joey was not rescued just to be exploited. It’s sick.

  68. Ask someone who believes their pet is their property how much they’re willing to spend if the pet gets ill. They will answer with a number. Ask someone who believes their pet is their responsibility how much they’ll spend if their pet gets ill. They will answer “whatever it costs.”

    That’s the difference. The dog who lives with the guardian/ parent will receive care tailored to them. The dog who lives with an owner will receive care tailored to the owner.

    (That’s not to say that people don’t change. Some people who buy a dog will remove that price tag immediately, but some will never remove it.)

    Elaine, I think I’m beginning to wonder if you’re performance art.

    Because guess what? Legally, your dog is your property, no matter how you obtained that dog and how you like to think of your relationship to that dog. And guess what else? The way you think of a dog bears little or no relation to who took your money for it.

    I’ve known dogs who were gotten for free who were left out in the yard to rot, and purebreds bought from a breeder who were beloved members of the family.

    Moreover, adopting a dog or cat doesn’t magically transform the relationship to one of rainbows and unicorns: Bill Frist, after all, got the cats he vivisectioned in med school from local shelters.

    So I can quite definitively conclude that your conclusions are ill-founded.

  69. Het women: If you meet a good man who makes good money, don’t selfishly keep him for yourself. Demand that he marry a single mother living in poverty. To let him continue to be with you simply dooms her and her children to misery.

    Although I realize you attempted humor, this het woman found the above comment quite offensive. I lived as an impoverished single mother for about 15 years, until my kids were old enough to start fending for themselves.

    What the comment does do is point up a good analogy to the shelter animal or any animal available for adoption (through friends, classified or breeders). As a poor single mother I was unable to compete with other women who offered better ‘breeding’ and ‘conformation’ to social codes, tightly scripted for women. Regardless of my worth as a human and what I had to offer in way of character and intelligence, women are judged and desired based on physical characteristics, then class assignment, economic value and finally quality as an individual. Thank you for reminding me that women still are basically seen as property.

    I have seen plenty of people who have animals and see them as merely entertainment pieces, accessories or a means to easy money. Such individuals fail to consider the impact of their decision to not neuter their pets and cause countless inferior animals to be spilled into shelters or abusive homes, or worse, to immediate death by neglect or torture.

    I have in my house presently two cats, one a result of a girl my daughter knew who adopted a cat and refused to spay her due to the bizarre and sick notion that one pregnancy was good for the animal and for her entertainment (she liked kittens). She intentionally took her female cat to a home with intact toms to stay until she was sure she was impregnated. The female cat was too young and was unable to care for the six kittens that were born. They were born at my house as the girl abandoned the cat once it failed to look much like the cute kitten it was. She had only one surviving kitten out of six, who stays here today. I had her spayed and vaccinated and found a home for her.

    The other I found in an alley as a kitten, with one other, being fed by occupants of a rooming house, who although they loved the animals, had no way to care for them properly, no financial means or interest in spaying, vaccinating or taking full responsibility for them. The other found a good home with someone else in the neighborhood.

    Recently a friend of mine informed me that a relative they knew just ‘bred’ their ‘purebred’ golden retriever to a male retriever their friend owns. They now fancy themselves official breeders, although they’ve never owned dogs, know little about the breed, don’t show or train and frankly, don’t have the financial means to care for the litter properly. I was an asshole as I didn’t wax sentimental about the great experience her children would have by watching the birthing of thirteen puppies and the resultant ‘enrichment’ value to their lives. Fah I say, what did this person’s actions do for the breed, or more importantly, for the dog itself? Was not its happiness important, or is an animal merely existent for entertainment and profit?

    May I also make the distinction between livestock and companion animals. To my understanding and experience companion animals are bred to be dependent upon humans and to bond with them. I don’t think sheep, chickens or cows necessarily bond with humans in the same way.

    I owned a purebred Afghan hound, two Great Danes and other purebred and nearly purebred animals over the last twenty years. They were all adopted, all great companions and were well cared for and loved. Most were adopted from local shelters in the areas where I lived.

    The companion animal breeding industry drives the market demand for their animals, which causes more individuals to enter the market for all the wrong reasons, causing needless suffering for countless animals, destructive traits to the breeds to flourish and a waste of resources in catching, attempting to prosecute (when they can) and caring for the results of their selfish and short sighted activities.

    There will always be careless pet owners, psychopathic pet owners and ignorant pet owners, the results of that will probably never cease. NOTE: I said pet owners as simply a matter of common syntax, I do not mean to represent that pets do not have the right to be treated well, free of pain or exploitation.

    Funding for enforcement and public pressure to establish legislation to improve the lives of animals, regulate breeders and stop backyard breeding by stiff penalties would help.

    Unlike Elaine, I don’t believe all breeding is useless or cruel. Like many have said here, responsible and careful breeding practices control bloodlines for better disposition and physical traits while screening out poor traits. Many purebred animals, especially dogs often have a distinct purpose (I’m thinking of shepherds, guard dogs and guide dogs for example) which proper breeding guarantees to preserve and for many organizations and individuals is well worth paying for.

  70. Het women: If you meet a good man who makes good money, don’t selfishly keep him for yourself. Demand that he marry a single mother living in poverty. To let him continue to be with you simply dooms her and her children to misery.

    also…lord knows that single women need a man to take care of them…survive on their own???? or have a relationship out of love rather than financial dependence???? (sarcasm, by the way…)

    good points about social views of women, kate…also about the kittens and puppies that were “bred”, animals for entertainment…the selfishness of some humans is unbelievable.

  71. Elaine:

    Having a baby is not comparable to buying a dog from a breeder. You don’t buy your own baby.

    Hold on—now our relationships with humans are unique and worthy of unique moral consideration? Gee, that impulse might be worth thinking more about…
    Whether you buy your dog/baby is completely irrelevant. The only way you can assign moral culpability to people who breed dogs is to make them responsible for those dogs being born, dogs who wouldn’t be born if people adopted needy dogs. That is the same in the case of a baby; you and your partner are responsible for bringing a new human in the world, one who wouldn’t exist if you had adopted a needy baby.

    Moreover, we don’t kill the extra human babies in the world, but we do kill the extra dogs. We kill millions and millions.

    Are you joking? Sure we do. Or does the fact that we’re allowing them to starve to death rather than pushing the needle in ourselves make it easier to ignore?

    My point isn’t that people shouldn’t have their own babies, it’s that you can’t hold someone responsible for the opportunity cost of their actions. You’re sitting at home on your computer when you could be on a plane to Darfur. Are you, therefore, responsible for all the lives of those you could have saved? Of course not: their killers are. Jessica bought from a responsible breeder. Is she responsible for dogs’ deaths? Of course not: irresponsible breeders are. So are people who don’t spay or neuter their dogs. So are people who buy fad-dogs that they can’t care for and give up after the novelty wears off. But missing (or even turning down) the opportunity to do good doesn’t make you bad.

  72. Fuck, the other day I was reduced to sobs on the couch watching a PBS documentary on the animals of Katrina, with one satisfied cat in my lap, because I don’t have a three cat carriers for all three cats if something happened and we had to make a fast exit from home. Seriously, sobbing to the point that my family thinks I’m a loon.
    You’re not the only one, I saw that documentary and was sobbing too. After Katrina, I *forced* my parents (That’s 4 parents, mom & stepdad, dad & stepmom) to buy enough carriers for our animals and to make plans in case something happened and we had to evacuate.

  73. You’re not the only one, I saw that documentary and was sobbing too. After Katrina, I *forced* my parents (That’s 4 parents, mom & stepdad, dad & stepmom) to buy enough carriers for our animals and to make plans in case something happened and we had to evacuate.

    My SO merely pointed out that he has a carrier for Merle, whereas Pablo and Doug will have to fend for themselves, which didn’t help the crying. Although it’s now a running joke about my cry-iness, I’ll be purchasing cat carriers soon.

  74. Ask someone who believes their pet is their property how much they’re willing to spend if the pet gets ill. They will answer with a number. Ask someone who believes their pet is their responsibility how much they’ll spend if their pet gets ill. They will answer “whatever it costs.”

    You appear to be assuming that people who buy their pets from breeders or even pet stores have the former attitude, while people who adopt from shelters espouse the latter. This is a faulty assumption.

    I bought my cat at a pet store (DO NOT start in on me; this was 11 years ago, and I was 19, and I had no idea that pet stores acquired their animals so unethically. Having been educated since, I will never patronize a pet store again). She has recently become ill, we don’t know yet with what, but I am sparing no expense (and I’m sure have already far exceeded her purchase price) to have her diagnosed and treated according to whatever the vet recommends because, well, she’s my adorable, perverse little Lucy-cat and I love her. There are no other options as far as I’m concerned.

    My parents adopted 2 dogs from a rescue operation. When one of the dogs developed much later some health and behavioral problems, they got rid of her because they didn’t feel they could spare the time and money to “fix” her. Although they pride themselves on adopting rather than buying animals, they’re poor pet owners, especially my father, who is personally affronted whenever one of his dogs misbehaves (actually, to you his attitude might seem correct, as his behavior towards his family is exactly the same. He has the same expectations of his dogs that he has of people, which results in completely unreasonable demands on their behavior).

    People’s attitudes towards their pets are not determined by how the animals are acquired.

  75. Moreover, we don’t kill the extra human babies in the world, but we do kill the extra dogs. We kill millions and millions.

    Are you unfamiliar with the sex-selective infanticide issues in China, among other countries? We kill many, many extra babies in the world.

  76. Get a banker’s box or two for cat transport, or get the cardboard one from Petco. I don’t have cat carriers, either, because mine don’t ever go anywhere. But the kind of disaster that will hit here and be as devastating as Katrina will be something like a tsunami generated by that Canary Islands rock face falling into the ocean, and I really wouldnt’ have time to save myself, much less the pets. Indeed, I’ve calculated that Robert Moses will be vindicated at last and any storm surge coming up from Coney Island will just shoot down the sunken highway outside and leave my building alone. Or at least only bother it no more than one or two stories (I’m on the third).

    If it’s a fire, they all go out the fire escape, which has stairs until the final ladder, and then they get tossed down and have to wander the neighborhood until I locate them.

  77. Although I realize you attempted humor, this het woman found the above comment quite offensive

    Sorry, Kate. It was not my intent to make any woman feel like property, but I can see how my attempted humor fell flat. Clumsily I had wanted to make a few points: that people are not animals; that you can’t tell people which beings to bring into their lives, and that expecting other people to live by one’s own moral code is not such a good idea. I hope things are better for you, now.

  79. “What’s the functional difference, other than who receives the payment or adoption fee? The dog’s experience is no different; the dog is still chattel under the law.”
    Ask someone who believes their pet is their property how much they’re willing to spend if the pet gets ill. They will answer with a number. Ask someone who believes their pet is their responsibility how much they’ll spend if their pet gets ill. They will answer “whatever it costs.”

    Actually, that usually breaks down to “people who know how much experimental or extraordinary veterinary care can cost” and “people who don’t know how much experimental or extraordinary veterinary care can cost.” And it still doesn’t even come close to adequately addressing the calculus of making complex medical decisions on behalf of dearly loved animals, or fall along neat lines according to who bought their pet from a breeder and who bought their pet from a shelter.

  80. zuzu, how do you take your cat to the vet without a carrier? On a leash?

    Banker’s box. They’re plentiful in law firms, and they have holes. And many have velcro on the lids.

    But, uh, I don’t really have cats I admit to.

  81. Banker’s box. They’re plentiful in law firms, and they have holes. And many have velcro on the lids.

    But, uh, I don’t really have cats I admit to.
    I am so glad you explained that. For some reason, I thought you meant something like a metal, safety deposit box with a lock. I was a little “WtF?”

  82. The breeders are a keystone. Discussions about bred pets often highlight the undercurrent, which here is “humans are superior to animals and AR people are insane. Let’s make fun of AR people and discuss ways to torture animals, like castrating them without painkillers, killing puppies, making fur coats out of monkeys, and eating corpses. Oh, what fun!”

    Do you see now why I didn’t ‘just drop it’? If it really were just about breeders and fewer people got off on making fun of vegans and torturing animals, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. But it’s not. Breeders are just one example in a system of violence and oppression.

    I’m interested, how much of this is really motivated by your belief that animals are your equals and how much of this is a little bit of stroke for your self esteem and sense of superiority over us savages? Yeah, I know, you’re probably indignant at the suggestion, but bear with me. You somehow went from talking about people being irresponsible through ignorance by using breeders (a valid argument) to the intentional and malicious torture of animals, which you promptly equated to someone hurting your feelings by making fun of you.

    See how you did that? You went from making a point about animal cruelty to complaining about how no one takes you seriously. Tellingly, you used examples which either haven’t been present here or are deliberately framed to make your detractors look like monsters. It looks to me as if the less than stellar response you got here triggered other times you’ve been ridiculed and suddenly it wasn’t about the animals, it was about you.

    Then you take the next step, you lower those who have made fun of you, you put yourself on a pedestal, you take the stance of the morally indignant crusader. You frame those who didn’t take you seriously as sadists, as people who “get off” on torturing animals. You use loaded terms to try to control the discussion, to shame those who dared to not agree with you. You conflate the abuse of animals with sexual violence (think about that term “get off”), and you do it in a setting in which that kind of imagery is likely to have great effect. I wonder how much of that was intentional.

  83. Will,
    Miniature aussie pups wouldn’t exist without breeders. Purebred dogs are like bonsai trees, they don’t exist in nature on their own. Their existence is a reflection of human intervention, of human dominance and control.

    ank wrote:

    “People’s attitudes towards their pets are not determined by how the animals are acquired.”

    I didn’t say they were.
    But how someone “acquires” a companion animal is indicative of their attitudes.

    There is probably a reason Jessica will not deny that Monty was shipped to her from Florida like cargo, like a suitcase, like a piece of property.

  84. I think that Elaine’s being unfairly demonized here, I understand that perhaps her wording was not the best, but then I have AS and I didn’t exactly get too offended (though being an AR type myself); that is to say, a cow and a human of similar mental ability, which is rather difficult to quantify, should have (at least ideally) the same right to consideration of interests. I’ve seen a lot of people get offended too easily about this, which often seems to be a way of trying not to address the argument. Obviously the issue is more complex than simply cognitive ability, but I’m firmly with the utilitarian argument of equal consideration of equal interests. This is why I usually avoid making comparisons that don’t involve a group that I belong to (so if I’m going to use a slavery argument, I have to talk about the slavery of the Greeks and Romans). Honestly, the horror of dehumanizing anybody by comparing them to animals makes it clear to me how far we haven’t come (think of Temple Grandin’s work on animal behavior from her perspective as an autistic woman, and yes I would save her over a cow). From my point of view, it’s the same sort of attitude that creates a lot of the widespread opposition to evolutionary theory (“My granddad wasn’t no chimp-pan-zee!”); our societal and personal views just haven’t caught up with science. (I’ll note that my personal views on animal testing for science are very mixed; a trace of ambivalence in my usually clear-cut opinions.)

    Additionally, when we say animals are slaves, it doesn’t really mean we’re comparing their situation with that of African Americans; more with that of, say, Wang Lung’s beloved “fool” in The Good Earth (and probably still a terrible and unfair analogy, but less…radioactive than the racial issue). What we really mean is that a pet ultimately has to follow his or her owner’s will; my dog has to come if I tell him, stay inside if I make him, I can discipline him and have him put to sleep if I so desire, because he is property under the law. I’m not saying I’ve completely rejected the concept of domestication, as I think that personal relationships with pets are one of the best ways to encourage sensitivity toward animals and nature in general; I just would say that ultimately my dog is much more a slave than a free agent, as content as he seems to be.

  85. Purebred dogs are like bonsai trees, they don’t exist in nature on their own.

    That would be true of all dogs, actually, including the wild ones. Like our crops, our pets were created by selective breeding millennia ago.

  86. Will,
    Miniature aussie pups wouldn’t exist without breeders. Purebred dogs are like bonsai trees, they don’t exist in nature on their own. Their existence is a reflection of human intervention, of human dominance and control.

    I’m not trying to be intentionally dense but, seriously, whats the problem? I know you think animals are the equals of human, that any suggestion to the contrary is speciesist, but I’m having trouble seeing how your viewpoint holds up in the broader scheme of things. If a person eats an animal its oppression, is that also true when a bear eats an elk? What about when a bird pushes it’s chick out of the nest? Do animals oppress other animals, or is there something special about us?

    If the answer is yes, then is it our responsibility to exercise our dominance to prevent some of the more terrible abuses in the animal kingdom (did you know that Komodo Dragons kill their prey by infecting them with bacteria, then eat the animals alive when they drop from fever)? Should the UN intervene when colonies of ants strive to destroy one another? How should we pick sides? How would we pick winners and losers?

    If animals and humans are equal, how should we adjudicate conflicts between us? Do we hold animals to the same laws as the rest of us? Do we appoint human representatives to animals? How do we determine that a conflict exists, who decides what the animals need? How is the core issue of dominance any different?

    I’m confused as to the end-result of your argument. What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish? What would you like to see happen, ideally?

  87. Ask someone who believes their pet is their property how much they’re willing to spend if the pet gets ill. They will answer with a number. Ask someone who believes their pet is their responsibility how much they’ll spend if their pet gets ill. They will answer “whatever it costs.”

    When my cat ate the bad cat food and his kidneys started failing, our first thought wasn’t, “We’ll spend whatever it takes to make him well.” He was 14 years old and he already had bad kidneys. There was nothing that could be done short of a kidney transplant that would require us to drive 400 miles to the closest location (and we’re lucky to be that close) and spend $4,500 to $8,000 on the surgery, plus the cost of Epogen ($75 for 5 doses) to get his red blood cell count back up, plus Cyclosporine injections (at $300 for 3 months) at exactly 12 hours apart for the rest of his life. Did I mention that he was already 14 years old?

    So you know what? We didn’t say, “We’ll do whatever it costs.” We said, “We’ll do what’s best for him,” which was taking him home and giving him subcutaneous fluid for the next 4 months until his immune system went out and his kidneys shut down. Because that’s what a responsible pet owner does — they decide not what’s best for themselves, but what’s best for the pet. And sometimes what’s best for the pet is to euthanize them rather than let them suffer with nonfunctioning kidneys and the mouth sores that cats develop once their kidneys have irretrivably shut down.

    I suppose we could have kept Boris at home — barely able to walk, half his weight, drooling because he could no longer swallow — and let him die “naturally.” He would suffer, but, hey, it would have been “natural” for him to die that way, and natural death is always better than euthanasia, right?

    If you’re going to do “whatever it takes” to keep your dog alive no matter what its quality of life is, you’re far crueler than the person who takes their dog to the vet to be euthanized when it begins to suffer.

  88. Purebred dogs are like bonsai trees, they don’t exist in nature on their own.

    Domestic dogs are like bonsai trees — they don’t exist in nature on their own. Humans bred them over thousands of years into the variety we have now. Dogs have been our slaves, in your parlance, for millennia.

    And yet you keep one of these unnatural animals as a slave in your house, subject to your whims. How do you sleep at night?

  89. Miniature aussie pups wouldn’t exist without breeders. Purebred dogs are like bonsai trees, they don’t exist in nature on their own. Their existence is a reflection of human intervention, of human dominance and control.

    Um, I know some others have said this, but *all* dogs are domesticated. No domestic dogs occur in nature. Dogs were domesticated before any other animal. Dogs were domesticated before plants.

    I don’t understand what you think we’re supposed to do with domesticated dogs, then. Set them all loose? If you think domesticating animals is a reflection of human dominance and control, fine. But the damage is done. They’re *all* dependent on us for their existence. Should we try to reverse-breed them for traits that would help them survive without us?

  90. Tellingly, you used examples which either haven’t been present here or are deliberately framed to make your detractors look like monsters. It looks to me as if the less than stellar response you got here triggered other times you’ve been ridiculed and suddenly it wasn’t about the animals, it was about you.
    Well, the monkey thing refers to me. She wrote an entry about the Feministing thread and linked to my LJ. I wrote an entry on my LJ about the Feministing thread and mentioned how she linked to my LJ and I could only assume it was so she could send her flying monkeys (Like in The Wizard of Oz and Wicked–not real monkeys!) to get me and how I make fur coats out of flying monkeys.
    It’s just this intensely stupid she-said/she-said thing, and in the end it leaves me making fur coats out of fictitious creatures.

  91. Should we try to reverse-breed them for traits that would help them survive without us?
    I think we should try time travel. Warn ancient humans about the consequences of domesticating dogs and save president Lincoln.

  93. Bravo, William. You’re not going to get anywhere, though.

    Thanks, but whatever made you think getting anywhere was the point? 😉

    Trying to win an argument on the internet is a fool’s errand. The only reason to step into these waters is to try to learn something or for the love of the game.

  95. Elaine – try actually answering the very reasonable questions posed in the thread, instead of playing the moral superior and blowing everyone off, please? I thought at first, way back when zuzu made the first post on this, that you might’ve had a point, but every. single. thing. you’ve said since has shown that to not be the case. It’s really galling to me because you struck me as a really reasonable person until this kerfluffle.

    Some of us are waiting for YOUR answers, not a list of links. Are you so convinced of your own moral superiority that you can’t be bothered to answer the questions of the unenlightened? If not, what the hell is keeping you from answering them?

  96. Also, Elaine – I have to eat meat due to a mix of health, availabiliy, and financial reasons. How does your animal-rights stance address the needs of people like me?

    (That can probably be phrased better, but I can’t think of a way to do it.)

    And don’t tell me I could be vegan if I really wanted to. I. Have. Checked. And it is impossible for me unless I start making a lot more than I am now.

  97. I don’t understand what you think we’re supposed to do with domesticated dogs, then. Set them all loose? If you think domesticating animals is a reflection of human dominance and control, fine. But the damage is done. They’re *all* dependent on us for their existence. Should we try to reverse-breed them for traits that would help them survive without us?

    I was kind of wondering that myself. Not about dogs, though, because I don’t currently have one. What I do have is a nice little herd of Ayshires and Jerseys (where does “dairy farmer” rank on the evil scale, I wonder? Do I need to get a big handlebar moustache and a top hat, or will a monocle be enough?). Obviously, they’re victims of my megalomanical tendencies, poor things, but I can hardly free my slaves just like that. A dairy cow in the wild? No such thing and never was. There’s nothing about these animals that isn’t domestic. But domestication is bad and wrong, so… So if keeping them is evil and freeing them is impossible, I guess my only option is to work the gradual extinction of dairy cows. Hm. Seems like a bummer for the cows.

  98. I have to eat meat due to a mix of health, availabiliy, and financial reasons. How does your animal-rights stance address the needs of people like me?

    For that matter, if animals are to be considered in the same way as people are, presumably with the same moral duties, how do you deal with carnivores at all? Should lions give up their immoral wildebeast and zebra habits and take to eating tofu? I don’t think that it would be terribly healthy for them, but it would make the zebras’ lives easier…until they overpopulated and starved, of course.

  99. I consider my dog, who is purebred and obtained from a woman whose dog went into heat unexpectedly for free, to be, well, a dog. I love him dearly but I cannot afford to go into bankruptcy to fix him if he were to get sick- it’s not to say I wouldn’t try my hardest. When he was hit by a car (we let him run around our yard while we’re outside, and one day he bolted for the road before my husband could catch him) and broke his leg, we had three choices: we could put him down, we could spend 5000 dollars we didn’t have at the time to get a plate put in his leg or we could spend 1000 that we also didn’t have to have his leg amputated. After hysterical sobbing on my part and various consultations with vet specialists, we borrowed money from family and had his leg amputated, because it was the most humane and also financially feasible option. If he were to have another accident/illness, we would try our hardest to make him better but if it would bankrupt us, cause us to lose our house or be unable to take care of our children, then our children have to come first. It’s not a matter of how I view him, because I love my dog, but he is not a human and he does not get the same priority as my kids. Sorry. Also, sometimes people don’t take their dog to the shelter because their care becomes to difficult, sometimes it’s just plain impossible. We’re working with a behaviorist right now because my dog has decided my children are scary and growls and shakes when they come near him. For now, we keep them separate and work on the behavior. If it continues, he will have to leave, because my kids are little (3 and 1) and he is a German Shepherd who could kill them if he set his mind to it. Again, the children are my priority, not the dog.

  100. You know, all this outrage aside, I don’t think I’ve ever really heard a good answer to why being human makes a creature innately more worthy of consideration than non-human creatures. The responses always seem to be along the lines of, “It just does!” and “OMG I can’t believe you could even suggest otherwise you’re a horrible person OMG OMG!”

    I’m not going to comment on whether or not I approve of the “pet breeding is slavery” arguments or the “Holocaust on your plate” propaganda. But if you want to say that such things are wrong, you’ve got an obligation to explain why beyond stating flatly that it’s just insulting to make these comparisions.

    Certainly, comparisons of humans to non-human animals have been used in the past to insult humans. But that may speak more to the motives of those making a particular comparison, rather than to anything intrinsic in the nature of such comparisons. As an analogy, we might consider the use of “gay” as an insult — it doesn’t mean that comparing straight people to gay people actually is bad, it just means that a person who uses such comparisions to insult others is propagating homophobia.

    The arguments of Singer and those like him should be addressed head-on, not answered with pearl-clutching, or we’re no better than the “parts don’t fit” and “yo’ butt ain’t made for that” crowd.

  101. Will,

    Yes, you are being dense. These questions have been asked time and again on AR and vegan websites. I am not your personal tutor in all things relating to animal rights. Try Google first.

    Here are some places to start:
    http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html or
    http://animal-rights.net/ar-faq/
    And a couple other faqs to begin your education:
    http://www.farmsanctuarykids.org/haveto_know.htm
    http://urveg.org/faq/

    I swear, we need the AR equivalent of the Feminism 101 blog.

    If you’re curiosity is sincere, you will sincerely seek answers to your questions.

  102. Alix,
    If you read the FAQs, you will see many of those questions are answered there.

    Moreover, I am currently being asked direct questions on at least four different blogs. The questions run the gamut and include a wide variety of animal related issues. And I’ve already answered many of these questions when asked by different people.

    Use the search function on Feministing and read the original puppy thread. Use the search function on my blog. Use searches on the web.

    I have already put a lot of energy into this discussion. If you’re interested in learning, and not just in pestering me and making fun of me, then you’ll seek out the answers yourself. It is not my responsibility to educate you.

  103. Yes, you are being dense. These questions have been asked time and again on AR and vegan websites. I am not your personal tutor in all things relating to animal rights. Try Google first.

    You don’t get to have it both ways. I’m not asking for a personal tutor, I’m asking for you to defend the positions you’ve taken. I don’t really care what other animal rights activists have to say on a given subject (I’ve heard them and remain unconvinced.) I care what you as an individual have to say.

    See, this isn’t an animal rights blog, this is a blog about feminism. If this was an animal rights blog, perhaps you wouldn’t be expected to defend your assumptions, but it is. You’re the outsider, attacking it’s members and calling them out for various offenses. You are not surrounded by other people who agree with you. If you are going to make statements that boarder on the ridiculous you cannot inoculate yourself from criticism by point your critics to anonymous others.

    I have already put a lot of energy into this discussion. If you’re interested in learning, and not just in pestering me and making fun of me, then you’ll seek out the answers yourself. It is not my responsibility to educate you.

    You fired the first shot, you’ll find no sympathy from me over how much energy defending your position has taken.

    More importantly, it is your responsibility to educate others. At least it is if you care about your cause. See, animals cannot advocate for them selves, they cannot rise up to claim their freedom, they have no rights, no voice, and no minds capable of addressing their own situation. All they have is you. You might not want to education, but at the end of the day thats really the only tool you have.

  104. You know, all this outrage aside, I don’t think I’ve ever really heard a good answer to why being human makes a creature innately more worthy of consideration than non-human creatures. The responses always seem to be along the lines of, “It just does!” and “OMG I can’t believe you could even suggest otherwise you’re a horrible person OMG OMG!”

    You know, thats a good point. Too many people on that side of the argument rely on their numbers, their overwhelming majority, to simply laugh off a challenge. Not nearly enough people actually think through their own beliefs. I’ll try to take a stab it it for you.

    Human beings aren’t more worthy of consideration. We’re just animals. The thing is, we happen to be the most highly evolved. As a result we have different needs. A dog needs food, water, shelter, and companionship. Human beings are unique in that beyond those basic drives we have drives towards self-actualization. We aren’t content to just exist, we need to DO something. Human domination of our environment is a means to that end, morally no different from a pack of wolves harrying an animal they want to eat.

    Complicating matters is that, because of this drive for self-actualization, we have developed codes of ethics and morals. On top of that we have developed empathy. Because of that we put ourselves in he shoes of our prey, we wonder how the things we used to satisfy our needs felt about being used. This is good, it is important for humans to periodically consider their place in the world.

  105. There is probably a reason Jessica will not deny that Monty was shipped to her from Florida like cargo, like a suitcase, like a piece of property.

    Oh for crying out loud. It wouldn’t have made a damn bit of difference if Jessica had flown to Florida to get him because she’d still have to get home again and airlines are awfully finicky about animals in the cabin. Shipping animals on commercial airlines is done all the time and can be done humanely. It’s not treating the dog like a piece of property, it’s acknowledging that if you have to transport a pet, your options are limited.

  106. It seems I didn’t put this post on the most current discussion (two discussions of over 100 comments!?). Sorry to post the same thing twice.

    There doesn’t seem to be a lot of acknowledgment above that analogical reasoning is, well, analogical. When you say X is like Y you aren’t saying X is Y in all respects, you aren’t saying X is as important as Y, and you aren’t saying anyone who doesn’t see that X is like Y is a fool and a heretic. Nor does Y’s being compared to X somehow undermine Y’s claim to being unique and different in all kinds of other ways that aren’t directly related to the issue at hand — no one can talk about all the important issues there are at the same time. We’re all stuck with singling out certain issues for treatment at some times and turning to others, just as or even more important and pressing, at other times.

    Is our treatment of animals in this culture like slavery? Yes, and it is in ways that Elaine has been at pains to emphasize. It’s about property. All the nice things that people have said in this and other sites’ posts about their moderate and sensible animal ethics (“I’m very sympathetic to the animal rights cause. I was a vegetarian for eleven years. As a kid, I wrote letters to Proctor & Gamble protesting their animal-testing policies. I make an effort to buy cruelty-free make-up and other beauty products…”) simply fail to recognize this deep point of the comparison. All our nice words about how we love animals are pretty much made irrelevant in law and policy by the fact that the animals we feel so kindly towards are, in the end, our property and so their interests will always — until they’re recognized as beings in their own right, not property — be traded off against human property rights. There are important similarities here to the history of both slavery and feminism — kindly attitudes towards women and blacks aint enough when, legally, we still treat them as property. And yes, the same holds with animals: it’s a valid and important analogy that deserves more serious consideration than its been given thus far in people’s rush to distance themselves from controversial and “extreme” analogies which no one ever claimed held in all respects. For more on animals and problems with their status as property check out Gary Francione’s work and website, or Steven Wise. (e.g., http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/francione01.htm or http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/. Steven Wise’s work is easy to find on Amazon.)

    And speaking of the repeated charge that Elaine has been too “extreme,” whenever I find myself tempted to level such a charge in a debate between people of apparently good will I always, as a matter of policy, try to think of King’s letter from the Birmingham Jail. If that wasn’t the most profound statement of what’s wrong with moderates leveling the charge of moral extremism against people who are pushing us all to expand the boundaries of our moral horizons I’d like to know what tops it. So there’s another connection between our treatment of animals and the long, tragic, and ongoing history of racism in this culture. King got it right, moderates can be infuriating roadblocks to moral progress, and his point doesn’t apply only to racism. Moderates “allies” are more infuriating at times than out-and-out opponents since they claim to be “on your side” and to “get it” even as they undermine efforts to take serious issues seriously or to handle them head on. I fear being among the moderates King takes to task more than I fear charges of extremism. Moderate people of good will are as often as not more damaging to the causes they claim to support than out-and-out bigots. Are Elaine’s statements extreme? Yes. But… I’m tempted to say it would be a greater failing if they weren’t. The issues really are that serious — not as serious as racism mind you, just deadly serious for literally billions of sentient beings who are currently regarded as property under the law. That’s all.

  107. My friends tried to manumit their cat slave, but she insists on hanging around their house. What to do, animal rights activists?

  108. Evil,

    Jessica’s dog, and almost any puppy, is small enough to fly in the cabin. Many airlines allow dogs in the cabin of planes and there are plenty of online guides about how to travel with dogs. It’s not the difficult task you make it out to be, it’s just a little more expensive and time consuming. Also, Florida is not so far away that you can’t drive. Furhtermore, Monty was shipped during Summer, when it’s hot and more likely to experience breathing problems or death in the cargo area of a plane.

    How can all of you breeder-lovers defend Jessica’s choice when it’s apparent she didn’t even ever visit the breeder in person? How can you assume it was an “ethical breeder” or a “responsible breeder” if that breeder never even saw Jessica’s home? And then it appears that they shipped him like cargo. CARGO.

    Will,

    I did answer your question. The answer is in one of the links I provided.

    “Our behavior is far worse than that of “just another predator”. We kill others not just for nourishment but also for sport (recreation!), for the satisfaction of our curiosity, for fashion, for entertainment, for comfort, and for convenience. We also kill each other by the millions for territory, wealth, and power. We often torture and torment others before killing them. We conduct wholesale slaughter of vast proportions, on land and in the oceans. No other species behaves in a comparable manner, and only humans are destroying the balance of nature. At the same time, our killing of nonhuman animals is unnecessary, whereas nonhuman predators kill and consume only what is necessary for their survival. They have no choice: kill or starve. The one thing that really separates us from the other animals is our moral capacity, and that has the potential to elevate us above the status of “just another predator”. Nonhumans lack this capacity, so we shouldn’t look to them for moral inspiration and guidance. DVH”

    from http://animal-rights.net/ar-faq/q64.php

    And I am not “the outsider” just because I criticized Jessica. I am a feminist, too. I have a BA in Women’s Studies. Also, I am not alone. There are plenty of other feminist AR people here and elsewhere. How dare you call us outsiders.

  109. William:

    I’m not trying to be combative, but I guess I’m not sure if I see how what you said answers my question. It seems like it is a reasonable meditation on why we’re even asking these questions in the first place, though. 🙂 It almost looks like you’re saying that you don’t think there’s any ethical justification for the position that we don’t have to treat animals as well as we treat humans, but that there may be some pragmatic justification? But perhaps I just don’t understand what you’re saying, and I’d be happy to hear a clarification.

    I would object to your characterization of humans as more “highly” evolved — you can’t really say something is more or less “highly” evolved except with respect to its particular environment. Humans are very highly evolved for living in our particular circumstances (land-based social species), but we’re much less highly evolved for living, say, as asocial underwater creatures.

    I think people tend to use the “highly evolved” or “higher animal” terminology as a stand-in for the fact that the development of complex languages, first spoken languages, and then written languages, and now electronically broadcast languages, allows individual humans to develop a much broader perspective of the world around them than is available to members of most other animal species. Unlike other species, we have a comparatively efficient means of learning about experiences that other humans have had (even humans who are very distant from us in time or space) and of conveying experiences we have had to other humans. This means that we are not restricted to using only our instincts and our own personal past experience as we try to understand the world, which in turn gives us the opportunity to see that life could be different from what we know, so that we can desire to achieve or avoid things which are beyond our direct experience. This is what seems to be meant by the “self-actualization” and “self-awareness” language as well.

    This ability is not restricted entirely to humans — some species of birds, as well as cetaceans and primates, have been shown to be able to pass knowledge and skills from one generation to the next or amongst members of a community. It might even be reasonable to suggest that the difference between humans and other social species is more in the average complexity of the information that can be passed amongst members of the species, and thus in the complexity of the not-from-direct-experience possibilities that are available for an individual member of the species to contemplate. But a big part of the problem here is that our grasp of non-human cognition, or even human cognition, is pretty poor at the moment. It’s certainly improving, but I think the assumption of human exceptionalism has been more of a handicap than a help in understanding exactly how humans and other animals think.

    —–

    One sort of unrelated thing I’ve noticed in this thread is that a lot of people seem to be stating their personal commitments with regard to their pets (“I’d always put my children first,” or, “I love my cat but I wouldn’t bankrupt myself for her.”) as if they prove something about how animals should be valued. I’m not going to say it’s a bad thing to have an understanding of where one’s own values lie, and who one would put first. But I am going to say that your personal priorities with regard to specific individuals should not necessarily determine society’s priorities with regard to all individuals. One might ask, as a counterexample, which you would choose if you had to save either Adolf Hitler or your beloved dog. I have to think (and I sincerely hope I’m right) that most people would pick their dog over Hitler, but I wouldn’t use this to argue that therefore we should always value animals more highly than humans. All this kind of argument demonstrates is how closely you personally are attached to the individual creatures in question. It does not demonstrate anything whatsoever about which is “innately” more valuable, or which is more deserving of consideration in some consistent system of ethics.

  111. You know, all this outrage aside, I don’t think I’ve ever really heard a good answer to why being human makes a creature innately more worthy of consideration than non-human creatures.

    Here’s the simplest way I can put it: a human being is the only animal that realizes that it will someday die. Other animals may plan for the future (squirrels hiding food, etc.) but they have no sense that they need to plan for what will happen to their families after they die.

    Other animals, like elephants, may understand that death occurs, but they have no ability to plan for it. That’s the difference.

  112. “Funny how this is all becoming about how animals are valued, rather than how disabled people are valued.”

    It’s easier to talk about how animals are valued instead of talking about how society’s response to things like ‘The only difference between a mentally disabled human and a cow is that one is my species and one is not.’ is all too often “Yes, and that’s why we should be able to sterilize/euthanize/deny other rights to the mentally disabled as we see fit.”?

  113. “No other species behaves in a comparable manner, and only humans are destroying the balance of nature.”

    Chimpanzees go to war and kill each other over territory.

    The round goby is destroying habitats in the Great Lakes.

    But, please, keep telling yourself the comforting lie that these things don’t happen among animals and only humans do them. Humans are animals — our drives are not that much different than those of a chimpanzee, except for the artificial rules we’ve set up for ourselves. Either humans are another animal species that acts like other animals, or we are different and special and are required to act differently than other animals do. You can’t say that there’s nothing exceptional about humans but we have a special obligation. Without us being exceptional, there is no special obligation for us to do anything.

  114. “All our nice words about how we love animals are pretty much made irrelevant in law and policy by the fact that the animals we feel so kindly towards are, in the end, our property and so their interests will always — until they’re recognized as beings in their own right, not property — be traded off against human property rights. There are important similarities here to the history of both slavery and feminism — kindly attitudes towards women and blacks aint enough when, legally, we still treat them as property.”

    RC – Thank you so very much. I know that you didn’t write that just for me, but it feels like a hug. Thank you.

  115. It’s easier to talk about how animals are valued instead of talking about how society’s response to things like ‘The only difference between a mentally disabled human and a cow is that one is my species and one is not.’ is all too often “Yes, and that’s why we should be able to sterilize/euthanize/deny other rights to the mentally disabled as we see fit.”

    It can go even further than that — there have been governments within the past century that decided that animal experimentation was evil and cruel, but human experimentation was perfectly fine. Because it was bad to torture and kill innocent animals, but not a problem to torture and kill “undesirable” human beings.

    It’s like the forced-birthers who don’t seem to realize that letting the government decide who can and can’t get abortion can turn very easily into forced abortions like they have in China. If we decide that humans and animals are exact equals, what’s to stop us from euthanizing mentally disabled people the way we would euthanize a sick cat? After all, we’re just putting them out of their misery. They don’t understand what’s going on. It’s just kinder to them to take care of it since they can’t consent anyway.

  116. Mnemosyne: Even if we take it as read that your assertion about non-human species’ ability to comprehend and plan for death is correct (it assumes a lot of things about animal cognition that are not as well-established as you might think) why would knowing when death occurs mean that humans deserve more consideration than other animals? And even if we agree that this is a good reason for putting humans above animals in general, it’s vulnerable to the very argument that seems to so disgust Zuzu — how do we justify valuing a moderately intelligent animal less than a human who is too mentally disabled or too young to have comprehension of, much less the ability to plan for, his or her own death?

    I have to say, Zuzu’s complaint is a very good example of the problem I see here. She seems to be assuming the thing that has yet to be demonstrated — that it’s just obviously horrible to try to draw a comparison between non-human animals and humans so mentally disabled or so young that they can’t participate significantly in human society. As far as I can tell, the reason this comparison seems shocking is that there’s some unspoken (and not-necessarily-justified) agreement that non-human animals are just innately lesser than humans and therefore such a comparison serves only to denigrate a certain group of humans. But why is it horrible to use such comparisons in the reverse sense of attempting to elevate the status of non-human animals, to say, “Look, we don’t discriminate amongst humans on the basis of cognitive abilities, so why are we discriminating amongst species?”

    The bottom line is, for those who make these comparisons it is about how non-human animals are valued, and has little or nothing to do with arguments about how various groups of humans should be valued. And so to get upset about a perceived insult to humans or to try to turn this into something about rights for disabled humans is to completely miss the point.

  117. All this kind of argument demonstrates is how closely you personally are attached to the individual creatures in question.

    Which makes sense considering that the issue is about our pets.

    Funny how this is all becoming about how animals are valued, rather than how disabled people are valued.

    No kidding.

  118. As far as I can tell, the reason this comparison seems shocking is that there’s some unspoken (and not-necessarily-justified) agreement that non-human animals are just innately lesser than humans and therefore such a comparison serves only to denigrate a certain group of humans.

    What I find shocking is that it’s acceptable to minimize one group’s rights (human animals, in your parlance) to justify protecting another’s (animal animals). If non-human animals’ rights are morally intrinsic, as you argue, there’s no need to argue racist or ableist points, nor is there the need to pick out semantic arguments over whether one’s cat is owned or adopted.

  119. The bottom line is, for those who make these comparisons it is about how non-human animals are valued, and has little or nothing to do with arguments about how various groups of humans should be valued. And so to get upset about a perceived insult to humans or to try to turn this into something about rights for disabled humans is to completely miss the point.

    And I note that the people making these comparisons and assuring themselves that they’re not offensive are not the groups who are being compared to animals. Just because you don’t see the problem because you assume animals are just as good as people (and I haven’t seen a coherent argument for that stance, either), doesn’t mean that the people being compared to animals are quite as sanguine about it.

    Plus, what Lauren said.

  120. The bottom line is, for those who make these comparisons it is about how non-human animals are valued, and has little or nothing to do with arguments about how various groups of humans should be valued.

    If you are saying that humans and non-human animals should be valued exactly the same then, yes, it does have to do with arguments about how various groups of humans should be valued. When you decide that a mentally disabled person has the same moral value as a chicken, most people aren’t going to say, “Well, that chicken must be very valuable, then!” They’re going to say, “Wow, that person is really worthless if they’re at the same mental level as a chicken.”

    As mentioned above, if a mentally disabled person and a chicken are morally the same, you are deciding that a mentally disabled person can be treated like a chicken: given the barest necessities for living (after all, all a chicken needs is safety, food, and shelter) and otherwise left alone. Those of us who have mentally disabled family members find the thought of them being relegated once again to institutions because, after all, the chickens are happy that way, to be not only horrifying, but absolutely morally indefensible.

  121. But, please, keep telling yourself the comforting lie that these things don’t happen among animals and only humans do them.

    Seconded. Especially across the primate order, where all sorts of terrible things like rape, murder, war, infanticide and kidnapping take place. Chimps also routinely hunt other primates like the highly intelligent colobus monkeys and (less intelligent) galagos.

  122. You know, all this outrage aside, I don’t think I’ve ever really heard a good answer to why being human makes a creature innately more worthy of consideration than non-human creatures.

    It’s not so much humans being “innately more worthy of consideration”—just more worthy of consideration by other humans. Hypothetical residents of other planets wouldn’t necessarily have this consideration. Humans have this consideration as part and parcel of how we evolved as a species. Comparisons of “speciesism” to racism and sexism don’t wash for me because that assumes that racism and sexism have always existed—and they haven’t. Our collective “speciesism” has.

    I’m aware of animal rights arguments. And frankly, it doesn’t matter to me how “politely” or “impolitely” those arguments are delivered. I don’t share the core beliefs, so like any other religious or quasi-religious argument, it isn’t going to sway me. ltimately, the animal rights argument is one about faith. You either have the faith or you don’t. Reasonable people can agree to disagree; fundamentalists won’t.

    What I do find difficult to understand about AR, is what I perceive to be the paradox of simultaneously believing that humans are no different from other animals, yet the admission that we are different from other animals, and therefore we have a moral obligation to treat other animals with the same moral codes we use for fellow humans. I perceive an odd view that humans are somehow separate and apart from the rest of nature, rather than just another part of it. I also perceive a certain amount of anthropomorphizing of other animals.

    I also don’t understand how obtaining an animal from a breeder contributes to the suffering of other animals. It seems the natural extension of that argument would be that any woman who gives birth (or, at least any woman who has access to birth control and/or sterilization) rather than adopts would be contributing to the suffering of already-existing children, no? Further, that the woman’s contribution to the suffering of pre-existing children would be necessarily greater than the contribution to that suffering by say, the man who impregnated her (provided that she had access to abortion, yet refused to have one). Interesting feminist implications, no?

    Then again, maybe my lowly, blue-collar ass should stay out of this one, since I don’t have any “real” feminist credentials to hold up (hey! maybe I can bring up that I marched for the ERA in Chicago back in 1980! does that count? can I be a feminist now?)

  123. There’s no difference between a cow and a mentally disabled person? Is this a joke? I’ve worked with children with mild disabilities ranging from Aspergers to ADHD, and there’s simply no comparison. None whatsoever. One considerate six-year-old volunteered to show off his karate, but not before advising with the greatest concern that I take a step back, because these were some pretty sweet moves and he was concerned for my safety. Would a cow take care not to strike me with its tail while swatting flies? And if it did accidentally whack me across the face, would it display anything resembling concern? Oh, then there was another blonde-haired, blue-eyed young boy who was asked to draw a self-protrait; he giggled indulgently and drew an adult Black man with a gigantic afro. Would the cow understand why he found this funny?

    At the same time, our killing of nonhuman animals is unnecessary, whereas nonhuman predators kill and consume only what is necessary for their survival. They have no choice: kill or starve.

    This is patently false. Some dogs chase and kill cats for reasons completely unrelated to hunger. Some cats hunt and kill mice simply to play with the dead body. (Does this not qualify as “torturting and tormenting” another creature?) What of predatory animals that also scavenge? A grizzly that is perfectly capable of acquiring its own fish and small game will still threaten a just-victorious wolf pack to procure its fresh kill. It could be days or weeks before the pack completes another successful hunt, so by this theft, isn’t the bear indirectly responsible for the malnutrition or even deaths of the pack members? Is it a murderer that should be punished? Incarcerated in some sort of bear jail, perhaps? And let’s not forget Dr. Jane Goodall’s studies:

    Through the years her work continued to yield surprising insights, such as the unsettling discovery that chimpanzees engage in a primitive form of brutal “warfare.” In early 1974, a “four-year war” began at Gombe, the first record of long-term warfare in nonhuman primates. Members of the Kasakela group systematically annihilated members of the “Kahama” splinter group.

    I’m of the mind that your last post is where you betray your hand. Far from our original discussion about animal rights, the site you quote insinuates that animals are, in fact superior to humans; because you have recognized this and modified your lifestyle accordingly, you are superior to the rest of us. Is that what this is about?

    The one thing that really separates us from the other animals is our moral capacity, and that has the potential to elevate us above the status of “just another predator”. Nonhumans lack this capacity, so we shouldn’t look to them for moral inspiration and guidance.

    Right, so we should accord animals the same rights and privileges as humans because we’re all the same — except for when we’re substantially, critically different. Gotcha.

  124. Lauren, Zuzu, please don’t attribute other people’s arguments to me. I have not made any points about adoption vs. “ownership”. I have not said that anybody, human or otherwise, has intrinsic rights (much less particular intrinsic rights). I have not even said that I value non-human animals as much as or more than humans.

    What I have said is that it seems that no good arguments are being presented that non-human and human animals shouldn’t receive equal consideration. Instead, I’m seeing very nearly an argumentum ad Hitlerium here — ableists sometimes used disabled or otherwise supposedly “inferior” humans instead of non-human animals for experiments therefore it’s wrong to argue that non-human animals might possibly deserve maybe something like the baseline consideration we give to severely mentally disabled humans? Racists compared black people to non-human animals therefore it’s wrong to compare our treatment of non-human animals to the enslavement of dark-skinned humans? Just because bad people made comparisons that sound superficially similar, just because bad people happened to incidentally have priorities in some areas that were slightly similar in some small ways to certain priorities of the animal rights movement, it doesn’t mean that the arguments and priorities of the animal rights movement are obviously wrong. I want to see somebody address the substance of these points instead of just using emotional rhetoric.

    In fact, it seems like it’s frequently the supposed defenders of humanity who are presenting the ableist arguments — for example, justifying holding non-human animals in lower regard than humans on the grounds that those who cannot comprehend or plan for their own deaths are not as worthy of consideration as those who can.

    What I’m trying to point out here is that there seems to be a giant raft of human exceptionalism underlying all the outrage here, and very little in the way of consideration of exactly why this exceptionalism is justified. This is a serious philosophical and ethical issue and it can’t be dismissed as easily as many seem to think.

    I think I personally tend to come down somewhere in the middle between the prevailing sentiment here and Elaine’s position. She goes much farther with her arguments than I would. But even though I disagree with her I respect the fact that she’s at least realized there is a flaw in our society’s ethics here that needs to be addressed (either by granting animals more rights or by formulating a cogent argument as to why they shouldn’t have them). Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like very many of her opponents understand this issue or are willing to engage it.

  125. It seems the natural extension of that argument would be that any woman who gives birth (or, at least any woman who has access to birth control and/or sterilization) rather than adopts would be contributing to the suffering of already-existing children, no?

    Interestingly enough, I have seen this particular argument before from some of the the more rabid “child-free” folks.

  126. And I note that the people making these comparisons and assuring themselves that they’re not offensive are not the groups who are being compared to animals. Just because you don’t see the problem because you assume animals are just as good as people (and I haven’t seen a coherent argument for that stance, either), doesn’t mean that the people being compared to animals are quite as sanguine about it.

    And I think you’ve really hit on it, Zuzu.

    It’s like the people scrambling all over each other to protect the right to call women ‘cunts’ thing that happened a while back. So what if you don’t ‘mean it that way.’ Don’t do it because the group of people involved don’t like it. It’s a respect issue.

  127. William,

    “The thing is, we happen to be the most highly evolved.”

    There’s no such thing as “highly evolved.” The idea of evolution as a line that’s moving somewhere better, or a tree that’s being climbed, is false. Evolution is radial. I function in my environment; a tyrranosaur functioned in hers; an anomalocaris ruled the sea with her two-foot might, and did not go extinct because she was lesser.

    There are certainly ways to make the argument you’re trying to make: Humans are the creatures with the most acute sense of self, in the same way that (to take a recent example from Pharyngula) moray eels are the animals with two jaws. Evolution’s not making a judgment about either of these. It’s not that one is more highly evolved, and the other lesser. You can’t cloak your argument in terms of a mythical progressive evolution without reinforcing some of the nastier misinterpretations of biological science.

    Also, the argument you’re making that non-human animals only act on instinct is basically specious. We know that lots of non-human animals do things that don’t directly satisfy their drives. We also know that instinct is not the only thing directing animal behavior, because two of the same kind of animal may not take the same action, even though they have the same instincts. You can see that acutely with non-human apes who engage in complex social interactions.

    I’m not disagreeing that a human life is more valuable than a chicken’s life, but I think you’re taking a short-cut to get to that conclusion which relies on (enduring) myths about evolution and animal behavior.

  128. Lauren, Zuzu, please don’t attribute other people’s arguments to me.

    Apologies. I was intending a broader “you” and yet using your own quote. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth.

  129. What I do find difficult to understand about AR, is what I perceive to be the paradox of simultaneously believing that humans are no different from other animals, yet the admission that we are different from other animals, and therefore we have a moral obligation to treat other animals with the same moral codes we use for fellow humans.

    The claims are:
    1. Human animals and nonhuman animals should be given equal autonomy over their own lives.

    2. Animals have personalities in the same way that humans have personalities. They communicate. They express pain. They feel love and other emotions.

    3. Analogies between various forms of oppression can be useful for theoretical and pedagogical reasons.

    No one has said:
    Human animals and nonhuman animals are “no different.”

    You are mischaracterizing the argument.

    Our moral obligation arises out of our moral capacity. It does not arise out of others’ lack of capacity. Perhaps it wasn’t as well said in the section I quoted above, but this is the sentiment, as I’ve said before: Difference is not a justification for the treatment of other beings as property. Just because you can control nonhuman animals and you want to control them doesn’t mean you should.

  130. “Is our treatment of animals in this culture like slavery? Yes, and it is in ways that Elaine has been at pains to emphasize. It’s about property. All the nice things that people have said in this and other sites’ posts about their moderate and sensible animal ethics (”I’m very sympathetic to the animal rights cause. I was a vegetarian for eleven years. As a kid, I wrote letters to Proctor & Gamble protesting their animal-testing policies. I make an effort to buy cruelty-free make-up and other beauty products…”) simply fail to recognize this deep point of the comparison.”

    Then make the point of your comparison without stomping on already opressed groups. Make your comparison without relying on the dehumanization of blacks, women, fat people, disabled people, and Jews. Make your comparison without hurting humans.

    If you can’t do that, then you’re a lazy thinker. And also, brutally callous, despite your supposed bleeding heart.

  131. Especially across the primate order, where all sorts of terrible things like rape, murder, war, infanticide and kidnapping take place

    Not only primates. Ducks rape so regularly that changes in the female reproductive system have evolved to compensate for this tendency. I know for certain that there are examples of elephants raping and kidnapping as well. Grebes (I think) slowly kill their offspring when they beg for food too vigorously or not vigorously enough (not really sure which it is). Any mammal which has a dominance hierarchy is ready to kill to preseve its place in the hierarchy.

    Humans are neither the pinnacle of creation nor the pimple on the face of creation. We’re just another animal with a particularly successful adaptation. Romanticizing nature makes as little sense as declaring ourselves the lords of creation and all other creatures our playthings.

  132. “Here’s the simplest way I can put it: a human being is the only animal that realizes that it will someday die.”

    I really wish people wouldn’t succumb to this kind of framing. Every time we’ve tried the formation “Humans are the only animal that…” we find an exception.

    I really think the problem here is that both sides are much too reductive. Most blanket statements about the animal kingdom are going to fail to be accurate. If you put all your eggs in one basket — that human exceptionalism rests on exclusive quality X, Y, or Z — then when you inevitably discover that quality is not exclusive, your argument is blasted. You have to scramble back and switch goal posts. Anthropology, psychology, and linguistics have been doing this for some time now. Humans are the only animals with culture, but what is culture, and why doesn’t what these chimpanzees are doing qualify?

    There are real differences between the capabilities of humans and the capabilities of most other non-human animals. But I think any attempt to characterize them in a simple sentence is effectively doomed. Differences are multi-faceted, and shaded.

    People have spoken with disdain for Singer’s slippery slopes, but unless you really don’t want to acknowledge substantive differences between the self-knowledge of a chimpanzee who can recognize herself in a mirror, and a sea sponge, then your stuck with a lot of gradations.

    Personally, I think the argument for treating chimpanzees as persons is very strong. The argument for treating sea sponges as persons is fairly ludicrous. As long as the umbrella is “animals are people” it’s going to include both bad and good ideas. A jellyfish has no nervous system so it can’t even suffer let alone think, and it’s abhorrent for me to consider eating a gorrila.

  133. No one has said:
    Human animals and nonhuman animals are “no different.”

    Um, does “The only difference between a mentally disabled person and a cow is that one is my species and one is not” sound at all familiar? As a person with a mental disability, I once again say MOOO!

  134. Humans are the only animals with culture, but what is culture, and why doesn’t what these chimpanzees are doing qualify?

    Actually, I don’t think this particular assertion is widely accepted in anthropology anymore. There are a lot of references to ‘chimp culture’ in my textbooks and from my professors.

    I think the current definition is ‘humans are the only animals who use a tool to make another tool,’ which has so far held true, though I’m sure that bar will be adjusted as well.

  135. Mnemosyne: As mentioned above, if a mentally disabled person and a chicken are morally the same, you are deciding that a mentally disabled person can be treated like a chicken: given the barest necessities for living (after all, all a chicken needs is safety, food, and shelter) and otherwise left alone.

    I wonder if we need a strawAR bingo just as we have a strawfeminist bingo.

  136. “2. Animals have personalities in the same way that humans have personalities. They communicate. They express pain. They feel love and other emotions. ”

    This is easily falsifiable. Jellyfish don’t feel emotions are pain. Jellyfish are animals. Your statement is false.

    How much animals have personalities in the way humans have personalities is dependent on the evolutionary circumstances that produced those animals. Chimpanzees and bonobos lived in groups very similar to those of early humans, and so they have personality characteristics that are strikingly similar to our own — because they are useful for working in those groups. Dogs, bred from wolves, are also hunters in small groups. They have need for the kinds of emotions that humans have need for. Dogs attempt to manipulate their owners with shame, because shame is a useful emotion in a small group situation, so they share it with us. That’s why we can communicate and get along with dogs: our thinking patterns are similar.

    We share much less in common with domestic cats, which is one reason why cats come across as mysterious. They aren’t innately social. They have some emotions in common with us, but fewer than dogs do.

    We share even less with herd animals. Herds function very differently than hunting groups. The ways that those animals have evolved to think and experience life will be very different from the way that small pack hunters have learned to do so.

    Emotions and personalities are an evolved thing, adapted to circumstance. Shame is a complex emotion that fills a niche in certain kinds of social groups, therefore you only find it in places where that’s been necessary. Pain and fear fill more basic needs, which is why you find them more widespread.

    It’s quite possible that there are a lot of emotions common to animals who live in different circumstances from humans which we would be unable to name or recognize — but the idea that emotion and personality are static across the animal kingdom is ridiculous.

    Some animals feel some emotions. Jellyfish feel none. An ant may feel fear, but does it feel love? How would you prove it? What good would it do for the ant?

  137. “Actually, I don’t think this particular assertion is widely accepted in anthropology anymore. There are a lot of references to ‘chimp culture’ in my textbooks and from my professors”

    That may depend on how liberal your program is, and some other factors. It was definitely contested territory 3 years ago, and discipline-wide debates don’t usually get resolved that neatly or that quickly.

  138. Furthermore, Monty was shipped during Summer, when it’s hot and more likely to experience breathing problems or death in the cargo area of a plane.

    In 1994, I shipped my dog (acquired from an agency that rescues dogs from kill shelters) from Connecticut to Hawaii when I moved there. At 80 lbs, she was not allowed in the passenger area. It was not done lightly. In order to have her on the plane, she had to have a Certificate of Health (which is issued by a veterinarian under state authority). I called several airlines to find out about how this was done. Because our connections and our final destinations were in areas that were over a certain temperature (if I remember correctly, 75 degrees) she was not allowed to be placed on an airplane that did not have a pressurized cargo area. I traded in my tickets with Airline A for Airline B because they had these accommodations.

    These restrictions were not mine. They were the airlines. So even if some horrible breeder wanted to ship a crate in excessive heat, they would not be allowed to do so. I’m sure there are ways for them to get around it (much in the same way that human traffickers stick people in cargo crates on cargo ships without the knowledge of the authorities) but that’s a whole other issue.

    I hear that nowadays, all airlines have pressurized cargo areas so its fairly easy to book a humane flight for them.

    I suppose my other option would have been to stay with the dog in Connecticut while my husband took his military orders and went to Hawaii for four years–but we decided in the end that it was in the best interest of the dog to be in a two-parent household.

    In the end, I think my dog had a more pleasant experience on that flight than I did. I got stuck in the front row in the middle seat between one guy who was snoring and a woman who smelled like dirty.

  139. discipline-wide debates don’t usually get resolved that neatly or that quickly.

    Lol. True. If ever.

    You think blogwars are bad? Try listening to two paleoanthropologists arguing over whether Homo erectus and Homo ergaster are two separate species.

  140. Mandolin: Personally, I think the argument for treating chimpanzees as persons is very strong. The argument for treating sea sponges as persons is fairly ludicrous. As long as the umbrella is “animals are people” it’s going to include both bad and good ideas. A jellyfish has no nervous system so it can’t even suffer let alone think, and it’s abhorrent for me to consider eating a gorrila.

    Well, I was not aware that the argument was that we should treat chimps, chickens or jellyfish as persons. Rather the argument is that we do not have a blank check in regards to our moral obligations towards any non-human species. Chimps most likely do not benefeit from being treated as humans, and chickens certainly have their own needs beyond food, water and shelter.

    Mandolin: Then make the point of your comparison without stomping on already opressed groups. Make your comparison without relying on the dehumanization of blacks, women, fat people, disabled people, and Jews. Make your comparison without hurting humans.

    Well, this is easier said than done. The argument is not that these oppressed groups are less than fully human. The argument is that the same rationalizations used to dismiss moral obligations towards oppressed groups is also used to dismiss moral obligations towards non-humans. When Adams points out the connections between patriarchal oppression and meat, it’s not to say that women should be treated like livestock, but to suggest that these two phenomena share a common root oppression.

    Singer’s comparison is not to say that people with mental disabilities should be treated like chickens, but when you strip away all the rhetoric, the arguments for unique moral obligation towards all humans are fundamentally arbitrary.

  141. Human animals and nonhuman animals should be given equal autonomy over their own lives.

    At the risk of being accused of creating strawmen again (and why didn’t you say “strawanimals,” hmm, CB? Speciesist!), let’s unpack that statement:

    Take spaying and neutering of companion animals. If human animals and nonhuman animals should be given equal autonomy over their own lives, there are two routes you can take.

    1) Spaying/neutering your companion animal is as morally repugnant as spaying/neutering your mentally disabled child would be, so it needs to be banned.

    2) Spaying/neutering your companion animal is a moral good, whoch means that spaying/neutering your mentally disabled child would also be a moral good, since it would prevent that child from acting on its instincts and trying to have sex.

    Which is it, Elaine? Oh, and “but there’s already an overpopulation of cats and dogs” doesn’t cut it as a moral arguement. There’s an overpopulation of people in China, but it’s still wrong for them to forcibly sterilize people.

  142. Rather the argument is that we do not have a blank check in regards to our moral obligations towards any non-human species.

    That may be your personal argument, but that’s not the argument I’ve been seeing in this thread. On this thread, the argument I’ve seen is that humans are no different than other animals and that animals should be treated the same as humans.

    Your argument actually contradicts many of the other arguments I’ve seen on this thread, because you’re arguing that humans do have a special moral obligation to other animals — in other words, that humans are different, perhaps better, than other animals because we can make moral choices about how we do and do not treat other animals.

  143. The only difference between a mentally disabled human and a cow is that one is my species and one is not.

    If my son was a cow and not a mentally disabled child, I wouldn’t have to go to IEP meetings.

    If my son was a cow and not a mentally disabled child, it wouldn’t have been an issue that he wasn’t potty trained when he started kindergarten.

    If my son was a cow and not a mentally disabled child, he wouldn’t be hurt when people made fun of him.

  144. Is our treatment of animals in this culture like slavery? Yes, and it is in ways that Elaine has been at pains to emphasize. It’s about property. All the nice things that people have said in this and other sites’ posts about their moderate and sensible animal ethics (”I’m very sympathetic to the animal rights cause. I was a vegetarian for eleven years. As a kid, I wrote letters to Proctor & Gamble protesting their animal-testing policies. I make an effort to buy cruelty-free make-up and other beauty products…”) simply fail to recognize this deep point of the comparison.

    Possibly because the comparison appears to be pointless; whether an animal is property or not is entirely irrelevant to the animal. It is the treatment of that animal that matters to it, not its status.
    Whereas I agree that making certain choices – adoption rather than purchase, to use the example that set off this whole foofarah – has an impact on animals other than the one directly involved, and I can’t imagine any person who’s been educated about the matter purchasing an animal at a pet store – one of the major differences between non-human animals and humans is that non-human animals don’t waste much time on worrying about the ethics of their situation. Very practical, cats and dogs. This is not to say that their affection is entirely swayed by practical concerns; my dear old bastard cat wouldn’t sleep next to my husband if said husband wrapped himself in liver and soaked himself in essence of tuna. But they do not generally compare this month to the last one and think, it isn’t fair, last month I could run faster and taste my food better than I can now, and get angsty about it.
    I am reminded of Dave Barry’s attempt to replicate the experiments of Elizabeth Marshall Thomas chronicled in “The Hidden Life of Dogs”, in which he found that, when his dogs were put outside to do as they would, they mainly tried to get back inside. For comparison, a grizzly bear would probably consider free access to a garbage dump ideal. That is not a situation that is healthy for either human or bear, though it is, according to bear evolution and behavior, perfectly natural.

  145. Mnemosyne: At the risk of being accused of creating strawmen again (and why didn’t you say “strawanimals,” hmm, CB? Speciesist!), let’s unpack that statement:

    1: Well, I didn’t use the term “strawmen.”
    2: I was not aware that the argument that animals have moral interests that should be defended, was also an argument for changing idiomatic expressions. Which makes this attempt at “gotcha” another strawman.

  146. I was not aware that the argument that animals have moral interests that should be defended, was also an argument for changing idiomatic expressions. Which makes this attempt at “gotcha” another strawman.

    Actually, the part directed to you was a joke. The part directed to Elaine asking her to defend her direct statement cannot be termed a strawman, because I am asking her to think logically about her statement and tell me why, if human animals and other animals should be given equal autonomy over their own lives, it’s morally right to spay/neuter animals and morally wrong to spay/neuter humans.

  147. it’s just a little more expensive and time consuming. Also, Florida is not so far away that you can’t drive.

    An extra $500 is not “a little bit more expensive” nor is driving to Florida from New York a minor inconvenience.

    And before I completely lose my temper here: what the fuck, exactly, is wrong with the dog being shipped with cargo if the climate is appropriate and the animal is comfortable? The fact that its in the damn cargo hold is not dispositive to its status.

  148. I really wish people wouldn’t succumb to this kind of framing. Every time we’ve tried the formation “Humans are the only animal that…” we find an exception.

    I know, I know. But if you actually try to create a nuanced position, the next attack is, “Ha! See, you couldn’t tell me a simple reason why humans are different than animals, which proves that I’m right that there is no difference!”

  149. Mnemosyne: That may be your personal argument, but that’s not the argument I’ve been seeing in this thread.

    Of course not, you are seeing exactly the boggeymen you want to see.

    Your argument actually contradicts many of the other arguments I’ve seen on this thread, because you’re arguing that humans do have a special moral obligation to other animals — in other words, that humans are different, perhaps better, than other animals because we can make moral choices about how we do and do not treat other animals.

    Ellane acknowledged difference when she said: “Difference is not a justification for the treatment of other beings as property.”

  150. Mnemosyne: …if human animals and other animals should be given equal autonomy over their own lives, it’s morally right to spay/neuter animals and morally wrong to spay/neuter humans.

    Well, I’m not willing to take either as simple moral absolutes.

  151. Of course not, you are seeing exactly the boggeymen you want to see.

    Um, have you actually read anything that Elaine has posted, or are you skimming over her stuff in the assumption that you agree with everything she says? She started with “The only difference between a mentally disabled person and a cow is that one is my species and one is not,” and has continued in that vein.

  152. “Just because you can control nonhuman animals and you want to control them doesn’t mean you should.”
    If I didn’t control my pure bred breeder bought Basset hound he’d be dead, hit by a car, run over, starved, injured, whatever. If I didn’t control the three rescue cat I own they too would be dead by now.
    This whole argument is ridiculous. I own my animals lock stock and barrel and as their owner I have a duty of care to them. I make sure they are spayed, micro chipped, vaccinated, well fed, walked, played with and I am responsible for their behaviour and well being. To pretend that my dog has the same rights as I do is stupid and the thinking of a fundamentalist. I love all my animals, but come bloody on and give me a break. They’re animals. They don’t think like you and me, they don’t have the same concerns, worries or emotionals outpourings. None of my animals give a rat’s ass about rights, they care about being fed on time and whether or not they can get the comfy spot on the bed.
    Slavery? Give me a break, voluntary companionship more like. My cats are free to leave whenever they choose, and guess what, despite them living in Spain and Ireland, they’ve never chosen to vacate the family home. Do you know why? because they know better than you Elaine. They know which side of the bread is buttered and which is not. They’ve figured out what you have not. Let the stupid humans argue until they’re blue in the face about ownership and slavery and rights, but let’s carry on being cats while they do and which ever human is a soft touch is a keeper.
    Arlene Hunt owner of the most useless band of animals known to her or her family, but a proud owner nonetheless.

  153. Well, this is easier said than done. The argument is not that these oppressed groups are less than fully human. The argument is that the same rationalizations used to dismiss moral obligations towards oppressed groups is also used to dismiss moral obligations towards non-humans. When Adams points out the connections between patriarchal oppression and meat, it’s not to say that women should be treated like livestock, but to suggest that these two phenomena share a common root oppression.

    Well, the difference is that Adams is trying to illuminate the similarities between women and meat under a patriarchal system, and get women to understand that part of what they’re up against is a system that commodifies them.

    Whereas, when PETA sneers that milk makes you fat, all that does is reinforce fat hatred. It’s lazy, and thoughtless.

  154. Jessica’s dog, and almost any puppy, is small enough to fly in the cabin. Many airlines allow dogs in the cabin of planes and there are plenty of online guides about how to travel with dogs. It’s not the difficult task you make it out to be, it’s just a little more expensive and time consuming. Also, Florida is not so far away that you can’t drive. Furhtermore, Monty was shipped during Summer, when it’s hot and more likely to experience breathing problems or death in the cargo area of a plane. How can all of you breeder-lovers defend Jessica’s choice when it’s apparent she didn’t even ever visit the breeder in person? How can you assume it was an “ethical breeder” or a “responsible breeder” if that breeder never even saw Jessica’s home?

    You’re using a situation you know absolutely nothing about to make a larger point. You are totally incorrect about every single assumption you make concerning how and under what circumstances Monty got here. Make your points, but leave me out of them–especially when you’re spreading misinformation.

  155. Because this was mentioned, realize that all the cargo holds of airliners are pressurized, just because it’s easier to build airplanes that way — kind of like a big propane tank. The only big jet planes that are part pressurized and part unpressurized are bombers, because the bomb bay doors must open to the atmosphere.

    I have heard, however, that it’s possible for the airline not to turn on the heat to the cargo hold. So that would be a safety concern. The main concern is that the dog might sit in its crate on the tarmac for a long time, exposed to excessive heat. Try for non-stops if you must ship by air.

    Another thing that comes up in the news once in a while: Wheel wells are not pressurized, so stowing away there is not a good idea.

  156. “I know, I know. But if you actually try to create a nuanced position, the next attack is, “Ha! See, you couldn’t tell me a simple reason why humans are different than animals, which proves that I’m right that there is no difference!””

    I hear you, Mnemnosyne.

  157. Racists compared black people to non-human animals therefore it’s wrong to compare our treatment of non-human animals to the enslavement of dark-skinned humans? Just because bad people made comparisons that sound superficially similar, just because bad people happened to incidentally have priorities in some areas that were slightly similar in some small ways to certain priorities of the animal rights movement, it doesn’t mean that the arguments and priorities of the animal rights movement are obviously wrong. I want to see somebody address the substance of these points instead of just using emotional rhetoric.

    Okay, I’ll bite.

    I have two big problems with the parallels that Elaine has drawn between the condition of animals on the one hand and the condition of people with disabilities and of enslaved people on the other.

    First, as I said in comments I left at her place, her analogies center the oppressor rather than the oppressed in each instance. She was arguing that the role of the dominant party in each circumstance had commonalities, and neglecting the very significant differences in the circumstances and experiences of the subordinate parties.

    Second, and growing out of the first, I don’t get the impression that Elaine actually knows all that much about slavery or cognitive disability. She said, for instance, that taking in a stray isn’t “ownership” but “parenting.” But if the essence of slavery is the subordination of an autonomous entity to another’s will, then taking in a stray must also be slavery. She suggests that buying and selling is what makes certain forms of pet ownership “slavery,” but that suggests that a (human) slave who has been born or abducted into slavery is somehow less of a slave.

    It’s just a crappy analogy all the way down, and its casual crappiness betrays a fundamental lack of interest in the reality of slavery. It’s glib about something that no-one should ever be glib about, and that glibness is what’s insulting.

  158. I disagree with Vanessa, who compares those of us defending animal rights and the comparison to slavery with people something that happened a while back involving people “scrambling all over each other to protect the right to call women ‘cunts’”. I don’t think this issue has received as much attention as some others but it is important. Not surprisingly, perhaps, I think the cases are quite different.

    In the “right to call people ‘cunt'” case you’ve got the privileged trying to protect their privilege with specious arguments involving gender-blindness, etc. In this case you’ve got members of oppressed groups protecting their privilege to oppress other groups (i.e., animals) by using specious arguments involving various diversionary tactics and/or appeals to the specialness of humans. As CBrachyrhynchos said, “the same rationalizations used to dismiss moral obligations towards oppressed groups is also used to dismiss moral obligations towards non-humans.”

    The psychologically odd thing about it all is that while members of oppressed groups easily see the speciousness of arguments on issues that directly impact them they fail to see the same speciousness in their own arguments when they employ them to justify their own disregard for other beings, in this case animals. Crying foul about how offensive comparisons are is a very effective tactic for de-railing a conversations about something that you are (and should be) uncomfortable about (our largely unthinking cultural treatment of animals). It allows the person making the charge to bring the subject around to issues they’re comfortable with, ones that involve themselves and where everyone involved in this debate no doubt agrees they are on the side of the angels. And then we don’t have to deal seriously with that pesky animals-as-property problem.
    But as people here are always saying to people who just don’t get white/male privilege, one of the first lessons you’ve got to learn if you want to be in this conversation is that it aint all about you and we’re not going to be derailed from talking about contemporary racism/sexism by your insistence that we soothe your ego and make sure you feel OK about everything we say. That moral reflection is sometimes uncomfortable is a fact, as people who haven’t “gotten it” about feminism/racism can attest, and as those who are crying foul about comparisons between our treatment of animals and slavery are demonstrating. But it’s gonna be uncomfortable folks, and don’t demand that those who find this an important issue can’t seem to find ways of discussing it that keep all your sensibilities intact. Maybe your sensibilities are out of whack and need to be jarred. Maybe species-ism runs as deep and is as difficult to root out as sexism and racism, and you might have to learn to see that it aint all about you if you’re going to make progress on this issue.

    I also disagree with Ledasmom (post 144) who says that comparisons between animal treatment and slavery are “pointless” because the animals can’t comprehend the distinction between being property and not being property. They can tell the difference because it has impacts in how they are treated — just look at some of the case law Francione or Wise (linked in my other post) cover to see how our legal distinctions (which are beyond their comprehension) play out in their lives in ways they can understand all too well.

    That these creatures are powerless relative to us and can’t comprehend our rationalizations for what we do to them doesn’t make it less important that we think clearly about these matters. It makes it more important. Who will speak for those who can’t speak for themselves?

    CBrachyrhynchos (in post 140) gives the response I’d give to Mandolin’s worry (in post 135). Thanks.
    Elaine: you’re welcome, I’ve been where you are, it’s lonely and it aint fun.

  159. The purpose of these “shocking” comparisons is to make people think about the fact that the way we treat chickens and other non-human animals is very similar to things that have been done to humans that are pretty universally considered horrible. It’s intended to provoke the question of whether non-human animals are really so different from us that it’s okay to do this kind of thing to them when it’s not okay to do it to humans.

    The point is not that the humans portrayed are like non-human animals, but that the non-human animals portrayed are at least somewhat like humans — that is, that we should raise our standards of treatment for non-human animals, not lower them for humans. Certainly lots of people are going to miss this kind of point, because it’s a very non-mainstream way of looking at the issue — to consider that it might be appropriate to conform our treatment of non-human animals to their needs instead of our own, just as it’s appropriate to conform our treatment of other humans for whom we are responsible (that is, the young and the severely disabled) to their needs instead of or own. But that doesn’t make the point wrong and it doesn’t make the comparison inappropriate. Instead I would suggest that it means that the mainstream view of these issues is very human-centric, and this human-centricity needs to be either justified or abandoned.

    One thing I should point out here, by the by, is that the it’s a strawman to suggest that animal rights folks are saying that a kid with mild Downs or ADD or whatever is like a cow. It’s hard for me not to say, “Get a grip, people!” I’m hesitant even to put an exact definition here on “severely mentally disabled” as it’s typically used in these arguments, but you should be thinking less of that guy with Downs syndrome who earned his Eagle Scout badge and more of someone unable to communicate or process much beyond basic emotional and physical responses. And the point of this comparison is to bring forth the question of what the minimum level of care and decent treatment is that you’d want this hypothetical severely mentally disabled person to have, and whether there is any justification for not providing at least something like that level of care and decent treatment to a cat, or a chicken.

    I don’t really think arguments like, “It’s always been this way,” cut it in this regard. Humans certainly never used to fly around in airplanes before the twentieth century, but we do it now. Things change, even things that have always been a particular way in the past. It’s also not a justification to say, “Well, a cow wouldn’t feel bad (except possibly digestively) about eating me, so why should I feel bad about eating it?” because that still doesn’t give you any reason not to abuse a human who’s severely mentally disabled as per my description above.

    My view is that the equitable way to handle this is to look at each individual and see what that individual’s needs are and to try to provide for (or at least not take direct action to interfere with the provision of) those needs. Everybody, human or otherwise, pretty much needs sustenance, sufficiently spacious shelter, and freedom from pain and fear. More social animals need companionship and love, and most also need some kind of mental stimulation.

    For wild animals, our responsibility is simply to not do environmental damage which destroys their ability to provide these things for themselves, and to not deliberately cause them fear or pain if it can be reasonably avoided (eg. brutal killings like fox hunts, and any killing at all of social animals such as primates, elephants, and cetaceans).

    For domestic animals, which depend on us to provide for their needs, our responsibilities are more complex. We need to provide them nutritious food, sufficiently spacious and comfortable shelter, health care to assuage and prevent pain, and companionship and mental stimulation, to the best of our abilities. Sometimes assuaging pain means euthanasia. Sometimes provision of sufficient space means sterilization. Compromises may have to be made depending on resource limitations, but we should always make an effort to decide in the animal’s best interests as much as possible. If domestic animals are being killed for food, we have at the very least a responsibility to make those deaths painless and to minimize the fear the animals experience before they die. If they’re being used for experiments, those experiments must be done as painlessly as possible and never frivolously, and all needs should be provided for as much as possible during the course of the experiment. I might argue that killing for food and use in experiments are entirely wrong, but I think the above is the bare minimum we should demand from ourselves, and we’re so far from even recognizing the importance of that minimum that more stringent demands seem like wishful thinking at best.

    For humans, well, I think we’ve already got a pretty good idea — food, shelter, health care, physical safety, companionship, education, political participation — we’re all pretty much agreed that we want all humans to have the opportunity to obtain this stuff to some degree or other, and that humans who can’t acquire it for themselves should have it provided for them by others. There are definitely some fraught points — what needs does an embryo or a fetus or a person in a vegetative state have that we should feel obliged to fulfill? At what point do mental disabilities disqualify a person from voting? (Is there even such a point?) Would it be appropriate to sterilize or provide an abortion for a severely mentally disabled woman to protect her from the consequences of pregnancy by rape (ie. because of her needs instead of in pursuit of some eugenic goal)? And so forth.

    But I think the bottom line here is that these seemingly-shocking comparisons make a lot more sense when you consider a needs-based model for how we should treat non-human animals. Non-human animals need a certain amount of living space just like humans do and experience severe stress when they don’t have it, so cramming hens fifteen to a cage is horrible, just like similar crowding would be for humans. Treating animals as property means they’re considered to exist for their owners’ needs instead of for their own, and just as when humans were considered property, this has given license to some truly monstrous abuses. Now probably these abuses aren’t quite the same with non-human animals as they were with humans — it seems unlikely that non-human animals are especially unhappy about being deprived of political participation or general self-determination, for example. But there are definitely some similarities in the outlook of the “owners” and the consequences of this outlook for the “owned” that shouldn’t be ignored.

    The point of this stuff is to make us think, to turn the mainstream perspective on its head. And it’s surely done that. It’s certainly the case that these comparisons can be difficult to absorb if one is coming from a mainstream perspective which says that comparisons between humans and animals must necessarily be insulting to humans. But this is a flaw in the mainstream perspective, not a flaw in the comparisons themselves.

  160. 1. Human animals and nonhuman animals should be given equal autonomy over their own lives.

    Ok, here’s where it gets confusing for me. How can anyone who actually believes the above statement, simultaneously believe that it is ok to have a pet (regardless of how that pet is obtained)? Pets, by definition, do not have autonomy over their own lives anywhere near that of a human. I can see where a person could hold the above statement to be true, yet still contribute (time or money) to various environmental causes concerning nondomesticated animals. I can’t see how pets fit into the above statement.

    2. Animals have personalities in the same way that humans have personalities. They communicate. They express pain. They feel love and other emotions.

    Ok, some animals do (Mandolin’s #136 comment covered this pretty well). One of the reasons humans tend to have a stronger bond with dogs than with many other animals is because dogs learned very early on to “read” human emotions. Dogs and humans co-evolved with one another. As Vanessa said earlier, dogs were domesticated before plants. Frankly, dogs were hunting partners. So, does human obligation toward other animals rest on to what degree they resemble us? And if so, why?

    3. Analogies between various forms of oppression can be useful for theoretical and pedagogical reasons.

    Well, I hold the same reservations about oppression analogies that Brooklynite covered so very well in his post. Hell, it is difficult for someone who regularly experiences multiple oppressions on a daily basis to form a coherent, understandable analogy between those varied oppressions to another person who experiences those same daily oppressions, let alone to someone who experiences only one, or none, of them. More often, the attempt brings more heat than light, but in almost all cases brings more misunderstanding than understanding. “Heat” is not necessarily a bad thing. Additional misunderstanding, however—I’m inclined to think that doesn’t contribute anything positive to a conversation.

    Thing is, why is an oppression analogy needed at all? Because the AR views aren’t self-evident to those who don’t already hold them? The killing of animals for food, like the keeping of dogs, cats or other animals as companions and co-workers, is an evolutionary feature—not a mere “habit”. That has more to do with why so many folks don’t see “specieism” on the same level as other “isms”. Racism, sexism, and other “isms” don’t contribute anything positive toward the survival of our species—in fact, quite the contrary. Those “isms” also have to be taught—drilled into the minds of young humans at an impressionable age. Enforced by law. Painfully—and not just emotionally. Whereas humans didn’t need to be beaten or threatened to think that meat was proper food. A growling stomach, combined with a lack of plant life was enough to set humans on an omnivorous course. Humans didn’t need to be beaten or threatened to start tossing scraps toward the friendly, camp-following wolves that started hanging around—the wolves had that in paw by using their own social skills, and mimicing human movements and expression.

  161. Anne Nonymous, I agree with you on all the ways that we should treat animals better. But where do we draw the line as to what we consider “alive,” and what kind of animals must be treated as self-governing beings? Should a jellyfish have the same rights as a dog? It it as wrong to eat an oyster as it is to eat a hamburger?

  162. I also disagree with Ledasmom (post 144) who says that comparisons between animal treatment and slavery are “pointless” because the animals can’t comprehend the distinction between being property and not being property. They can tell the difference because it has impacts in how they are treated — just look at some of the case law Francione or Wise (linked in my other post) cover to see how our legal distinctions (which are beyond their comprehension) play out in their lives in ways they can understand all too well

    My cat does not care that he was adopted rather than bought at a pet store; he only cares that he gets the proper food, on time, twice a day, that he gets my affection when he wants it; that he is allowed to sleep next to me, and that he is not in pain or distress. Back in the bad ol’ days before my family was fully aware of the issues involved with pet-store kitties, we did have a few that were bought; we also had ones that wandered in and one my brother personally rescued from the dogs that wanted to kill it. There was absolutely no difference in how the animals were treated according to their provenence; the boughten cats were not insulted to have been bought, nor did the adopted cats have better self-image on account of having been adopted (is better self-image even possible, with a cat?). Now, whether an owner thinks of an animal as disposable property, that makes a difference – but the means of acquisition has no effect on that particular animal in and of itself, as I said. No cat I know ever refused to go home with its purchaser due to the indignity of having been bought.

  163. Sorry, I couldn’t resist. The above should not be construed as a belief that anyone, human or otherwise, should be milked for food, especially given that most human adults are lactose intolerance, and cow milk is not as good a nutritional source of protein and calcium as the dairy industry would have you believe, especially when laced with hormones.

    NEVER apologize for making me laugh so hard I peed a little.

  164. I’m not “worried.” I think you’re uninformed.

    Elaine’s claims are easily falsifiable. Does she want to revise them?

  165. Brooklynite says,

    First, as I said in comments I left at her place, her analogies center the oppressor rather than the oppressed in each instance. She was arguing that the role of the dominant party in each circumstance had commonalities, and neglecting the very significant differences in the circumstances and experiences of the subordinate parties.

    Note that this argument parallels those who used to object that the problem with arguments against racism is that they just don’t seem go understand that blacks are different than whites. If you’d just concentrate not on the similarities between the way “oppressors” are behaving but instead on the dis-similarities between the beings who are “oppressed” (blacks/whites, animals/slaves/the handicaped) you’d see that there’s really no problem. Um. NO. Are there significant differences between the groups whose oppressions we’re talking about? Of course. Do those differences undermine the point that treating blacks and animals and sentient beings generally as property is deeply problematic? No. Do the differences rule out making valid comparisons? Again, no.

    As to your not getting “the impression that Elaine actually knows all that much about slavery or cognitive disability,” you might entertain the idea that it’s you who hasn’t thought in very sophisticated ways about animals for long and who is out of their league here. Parents don’t own children, but children depend on parents — and that’s OK. As I understand it Elaine was advocating revising our ways of thinking about animals away from ownership and toward more of a “parenting” model. Companion animals are dependent upon humans given generations of selective breeding. But they don’t have to be treated as property any more than human children must — which is the point of suggesting another model for our treatment of companion animals, parenting. Would you “ship” your child the way Airlines and breeders so carefully and lovingly “ship” dogs and cats? If not you might be able to see why Elaine seems to think this would be a salutary shift in our thinking about animals.

    This is a perfectly coherent and plausible alternative that looks like it would be moral leaps and bounds ahead of current cultural practices. And it doesn’t display an ignorance about slavery or disability unless you somehow suppose children are slaves. She’s not being glib or ignorant in her comparisons, but you’re being a bit glib in thinking the position can be batted down with objections that get satisfactory replies in animal welfare 101.

  166. Ledasmom says,

    My cat does not care that he was adopted rather than bought at a pet store; he only cares….. No cat I know ever refused to go home with its purchaser due to the indignity of having been bought.

    Do you see how this fails to see systematic/institutional problems by treating the point we’ve been making as if were all a purely personal problem solve-able by people just being nicer to their animals? That some slaves were treated well didn’t make slavery OK. That some wives like(d) subordination to their man doesn’t make patriarchy OK. That your cat, whom I have no doubt that you love and treat very well, cannot tell the difference between being property or or not is neither here nor there. Many, many other cats and dogs and other animals will suffer for their being property under the law. I’m glad yours won’t,really I am. But it doesn’t change the point.

  167. I am new to this debate, and I’ve only read this thread. But I have to say, “This started over someone getting a dog from a breeder?!?!?” Leave it to feminists to take anything to a point where we all point fingers and hate each other.

    Personally, I think people who get puppies from breeders are like parents who work to get perfect little white infants at birth from their mothers. The people who do it are perfectly nice people, but at the end of the day I really do wish that someone would adopt the brown, black, and special needs children, since the chance that they can find a good home is very slim. If I want a baby, I’ll adopt the latter. And I get all of my pets from shelters.

    Now please, my feminist friends, go get angry at people who aren’t trying to help animals. Surely you can find worse people to point your venom at.

  168. Jill, I would argue that a jellyfish and a dog (at least, as far as our current understanding goes) have different sorts of needs and so our obligations to them are different. Dogs are social animals, capable of some communication and needing companionship and mental stimulation to remain healthy. It’s not clear that jellyfish have much capacity for communication or social interaction, much less a need for it. (Although it’s always possible we’ll discover at some later date that they do have such a capacity, in which case we’ll be obligated to change our behavior towards them, and it’s important to be open to this possibility.)

    I don’t know a whole bunch about the ability of jellyfish to experience pain, but I’d assume they can probably at least have some kind of physical distress if they’re in an uncongenial environment or deprived of nutrients. I’d say that it’s wrong to cause such distress if we can avoid it — we shouldn’t destroy their environment, we shouldn’t harm them frivolously, we should kill them as cleanly as possible if we’re going to eat them or if their presence in a particular location is in some way troublesome, we should examine the ethics of any experiments that are performed on them, and we should watch for signs that they have needs more complex than is currently believed.

    Dogs seem to be able to form emotional bonds with other animals and to be able to learn somewhat from observation and experience. So our treatment of them needs to take into account the fact that they may be frightened or upset by seeing another creature harmed or by losing contact with a creature they have an emotional bond with, they may remember harm that was done to them in the past and experience suffering beyond the immediate experience of that harm, they may need interesting things to do to keep them from becoming bored, and so forth.

    My personal approach to these kind of ethical issues is that I do my best to avoid spending money (or permitting money to be spent on my behalf) to purchase animal products which may have been produced in ways which violate my bare minimum ethical guidelines. This pretty much rules out most readily available meat from mammals and birds. I’m somewhat less concerned about fish, reptiles, mollusks and crustaceans, although I do avoid octopi because the state of the current research suggests they may well be fairly intelligent.

    Of course fish also have the overfishing problem to worry about (environmental harm), milk and eggs can be produced in pretty unethical ways, leather and glue most likely come from cattle that were raised and slaughtered unethically, and on and on. It’s hard to avoid everything. But this isn’t some kind of religious purity requirement — I’m just trying to do my best to eliminate my support for and participation in unethical behaviors, one step at a time. I haven’t managed to make the jump to veganism, and I don’t have a completely leather-free lifestyle. It’s sort of a process of finding what compromises of convenience and gustatory pleasure I’m willing to make to follow my ethics, and I’ve probably made fewer sacrifices than I really ought.

    But the point here is, it’s not about what’s alive or not alive, what’s “sentient” or not sentient. It’s a question of what needs the creature in question has and to what degree I can reasonably organize my life to avoid impinging on those needs. And it’s also a matter of trying to continually update and improve my behaviors in this regard. Today I buy my cheese without investigating the practices of the dairies that make it, tomorrow maybe I’ll start looking into this and trying to adjust my purchasing decisions. Maybe next I’ll start asking restaurants about the brand of cheese they use so I can find out whether it was produced ethically. And so forth. Like I said, it’s a process. 🙂

    — ——

    La Lubu, I’d argue that humans, in some sense, don’t need to be taught racism and sexism. After all, it’s not like anybody else was around to teach them to us initially — we created them all by ourselves, and we developed the intricate social structures that have reinforced them throughout the centuries. Fortunately we’ve now discovered (or perhaps rediscovered) that there are alternatives, but those alternatives are just as much in need of teaching and reinforcement (if not more in need of it, given the current state of our society) as the sexism and racism were in the first place.

    The realization that seemingly dramatic exterior differences (like gender and skin color and disability status) don’t necessarily mean dramatic interior differences is new (or possibly renewed) knowledge that our recent ancestors did not have and that newborn children do not have, and we need to pass that knowledge along so that our children do not make the same naive assumptions about the significance of external differences that our ancestors did. In the same way, we are in the process of gaining new or renewed knowledge about the fact that animals are not quite as different from us as they appear, and we need to teach that to ourselves and our children as well, and to modify our ethical systems to take it into account.

  169. “As to your not getting “the impression that Elaine actually knows all that much about slavery or cognitive disability,” you might entertain the idea that it’s you who hasn’t thought in very sophisticated ways about animals for long and who is out of their league here.”

    Just because Elaine has been thinking about animal rights, that doesn’t mean that she knows anything about cognitive disability. In point of fact, it’s clear that she either doesn’t, or that she’s not very good at arguing — otherwise she would never have been so unspecific as to say a “mentally disabled person,” which leaves her open to the responses about Einstein and Asperger’s.

    Elaine’s lack of specificity makes her arguing even poorer than it would be otherwise. Jellyfish don’t have nerovus systems. Mental disability encompasses a huge range of experience. Whether or not she’s actually ignorant, she comes across as ignorant. She comes across as if she’s parroting arguments that she’s heard but failed to understand.

  170. “I don’t know a whole bunch about the ability of jellyfish to experience pain, but I’d assume they can probably at least have some kind of physical distress if they’re in an uncongenial environment or deprived of nutrients”

    No, Anne. They have no nervous system or brain. They cannot experience anything.

  172. Parents don’t own children, but children depend on parents — and that’s OK. As I understand it Elaine was advocating revising our ways of thinking about animals away from ownership and toward more of a “parenting” model.

    Right. But where does that leave us with regard to the slavery analogy? Nobody would say that I should be able to unilaterally claim “parental” rights over another human being, particularly another adult. Yet Elaine believes that it’s appropriate, in some circumstances, to claim such rights over stray domesticated animals. Why? Because adult human beings are different from dogs. They have different needs, and different rights.

    And even the parenting analogy is a loose one. It’s not appropriate for a parent to choose to sterilize a healthy child, but many animal advocates would claim the right — even the responsibility — to sterilize their companion animals. A parent can’t morally cage a child, and yet Elaine has caged her dog.

    If Elaine had merely said that the property model of human-animal relations is a flawed one, and that a guardianship or parental model was more ethical, we wouldn’t be in the middle of a huge brouhaha.

    In the course of human history, all sorts of property rights have been asserted. There’s property in land, in inanimate objects, in ideas, in embryos. And there’s property in animals, and there’s property in humans. Slavery is property in humans. Not animals, not ideas, not land. Land cannot be enslaved. Ideas cannot be enslaved. Animals cannot be enslaved.

    To say that is not to say that animals are like land, or that it’s just to treat animals as property. It’s merely to note that slavery is a term with a specific meaning, and that to claim that dog breeding “is slavery” — not like slavery, but slavery itself — is to fundamentally misapprehend the nature of slavery.

  173. from #158
    “Who will speak for those who can’t speak for themselves?”

    To me this is a very telling and dangerous statement. It’s the exact same argument that anti-choice people use WRT fetuses, and it’s dangerous in both cases.

    Why is it dangerous? Well, we are throwing around the vague words “rights” that, when you get down to brass tacks, has lots of different and contradictory meanings. We are using that vague word, packed with assumptions, to apply to a group that is “not-us.” This has been done by well-meaning privileged people in lots of other contexts in regard to human rights, and so far in most cases, whether it be about race, class, gender, orientation, disability status, etc, eventually members of that group pop up and say “well, thank you very much, but we can speak for ourselves and tell you what we need and want. How about if you listen for a change?”

    Neither fetuses nor animals actually have displayed that ability. They are, if you will, the ultimate subalterns– pretty much so far we can count on the fact that they will not “speak for themselves.” So they’re a blank slate that we can represent however we will. If you look at the history of how that has gone, of what assumptions have been made *on behalf of* or *in the name of* other groups, often that representation has been ignorant at best and actively damaging in many cases.

    As a somewhat more lighthearted comment, one difference that I can see between humans and “animals” (which is itself, as lots of other people have mentioned here, another word that is vague to the point of counterproductivity) is that so far as I know humans are the only species that sits around trying to achieve some sort of moral consensus or policy about how to treat members of their own species, much less how to treat others.

  174. Nobody would say that I should be able to unilaterally claim “parental” rights over another human being, particularly another adult. Yet Elaine believes that it’s appropriate, in some circumstances, to claim such rights over stray domesticated animals. Why? Because adult human beings are different from dogs. They have different needs, and different rights.

    Well, actually we would say that in one way or another with orphans. This really doesn’t have anything to do with humans being “different from dogs,” having different needs or different rights. It’s about how to allocate responsibility for raising/caring for dependent beings (children and companion animals) who aren’t competent choose to who their caregivers will be and shouldn’t be left to fend for themselves “in the wild”. She isn’t being inconsistent in recognizing that for the foreseeable future we’ll need such a system for companion animals. And yes, however we do end up making such decisions we will probably also end up making decisions for the health and well being of our companion animals (like spaying and neutering) that won’t involve getting their consent for the procedures — again, as with decisions about childrens’ health.

    And I admit, you’re right, I made a mistake in my original post(s). Elaine did originally say “is slavery,” not just “like slavery.” But note that slavery itself is an institution with a long and ignominious history — not all slave holding systems were similar to the race-based system practiced in the US. My point at the moment is that slavery (like property, as you note) has fluid enough boundaries that once we’re debating whether owning animals is merely “like slavery” in treating the sentient as property or whether that makes our owning animals a form of slavery itself we’ve turned a corner to discussing what is basically a semantic issue. In shifting to that ground the moral point has been largely been conceded to Elaine. Whether it’s merely like or is slavery, it’s wrongheaded to the core and needs our attention.

  175. The realization that seemingly dramatic exterior differences (like gender and skin color and disability status) don’t necessarily mean dramatic interior differences is new (or possibly renewed) knowledge that our recent ancestors did not have and that newborn children do not have,

    Huh? First off, I’d say “race” is an arbitrary category. There are “different races” that have little-to-no visible difference. I am also unaware of newborn children being aware of “racial” differences. Watch some toddlers on a playground sometime; “race” is no barrier to them, even if the so-called “race” can be distinguished through physical appearance. If “racism” was so innate to human behavior in disparate groups, it would not have to have been codified into law, with those laws strictly defended. Why do you think segregation was and is so hotly defended by white supremecists? Because they know that they can’t rely on their children to grow up into racists in the face of so much prima facie evidence that race doesn’t exist.

    Meanwhile, it’s only the development of modern, urban industrialization, with many humans not having contact with animals other than pets, that gave rise to the whole “animals are people too” thing. A modern, urban industrialization that is unsustainable.

  176. Animals and fetuses

    are, if you will, the ultimate subalterns– pretty much so far we can count on the fact that they will not “speak for themselves.” So they’re a blank slate that we can represent however we will.

    No, it doesn’t follow from this fact that they’re a blank slate that we can represent however we please. When it comes to animals, the ones we’re talking about clearly are sentient (how to handle ‘hard’ cases like jellyfish is an interesting academic exercise but has no effect at all on the clear cases like cats and dogs). And that has implications for how they should and shouldn’t be treated, e.g., as property.

    And that appealing to the fact that animals cannot speak for themselves is “the exact same argument that anti-choice people use WRT fetuses” doesn’t make the argument problematic in both cases. Fetuses aren’t (at least in early stages) sentient. So attempts to attribute interests to them that ignore this point are different than applications of the argument to animals which clearly are sentient. The cases are different in lots and lots of other ways of course (not least involving the fact that the fetus is parasitic on another being, the human mother, in a way companion animals never are as far as I know) that drive further wedges between the soundness of the arguments in the different cases.

    All arguments are like this. They have “forms” (as logicians call them) that which you can take and fill with “content” however you please. That won’t make your appropriation of the argument’s form in another context sound. But we can’t stop people from trying. If we dis-allowed the use of any argument that could be used by our opponents in specious ways we wouldn’t be able to make any arguments, period.

  177. I guess I should, in the interest of full disclosure, reveal that I have(*) three cats, all of whom were rescued(**) by myself or someone else from their former lives as feral kittens living in rather uncongenial environments.

    All three have been sterilized. All three get dragged to the vet for vaccinations and microchips and things like that even though they really don’t want to go. I do my best to decrease the unpleasantness of the experience for them. I feel terrible that I can’t explain why it has to be done.

    We live in an apartment that’s really a bit too small for three cats, but the only alternative was to abandon my responsibility to care for them and subject them to the distress of losing familiar companions, so here we stay.

    They like to go outside, but it’s difficult for me to provide proper supervision to protect their safety, so it doesn’t happen as often as they would like.

    I make compromises. I do my best. It’s not ideal. I look for ways to make things better. But because I have the power in this relationship, and because communications are difficult, I have to arrogate the decision-making power to myself and sometimes I make decisions that maybe are not as good as they should have been. But I do my best.

    So I think this is kind of where the drive-by puppy-mommying runs into trouble. On the one hand, everything we do involving companion animals has a certain amount of compromise to it. Criticizing someone else’s decisions can be cruel, because they’re the ones who have to deal with their lives and their circumstances, not you, and they’re the ones who should ideally be the best positioned to decide what compromises are best for them and their families.

    On the other hand, if somebody is making deeply and obviously harmful decisions for their family (abusing or abandoning a pet or a child, failing to provide proper medical care, etc.) it might well be irresponsible not to say something.

    And on a more meta level, there’s also the kind of questions that are so familiar in a feminist context — it’s one thing if a particular person feels compelled by his or her circumstances to make a particular choice, but what are the implications of this kind of issue on a larger societal scale? And there’s also the sort of consciousness-raising question of whether or not this person is even aware that a compromise is being made, and that there might be superior alternatives. I guess it seems to me like this stuff ought to be approached the same way as lipstick and blowjobs, where want to have each individual making his or her own preferred set of compromises based on his or her own individual circumstances, but in the awareness and acceptance of the existence of the larger social implications. Of course, ideally, we’d prefer no compromises were necessary, but we have to live in the real world, so we make the compromises we need to make and do our best to remove the need.
    ——–
    (*) “Have” is here intended in the same sense that I “have” a partner, and any use of “my” should be read similarly — he is my partner, I am his partner; they are my cats, I am their human. The available relational terms here are clumsy, at best.

    (**) “Rescued” is another awkward term. One of them, at least, wasn’t exactly a damsel in distress when he joined our family, but from what I’ve seen feral cats have short, stressful lives. So I hope I’ve done a little better by him than that. The others, well, both were very young and very alone and howling for mothers who didn’t seem to be anywhere nearby. They weren’t happy to be caught at first, but it didn’t seem to take very long for them to change their minds. So there’s that.

  178. Whoops! You can delete my last comment—I thought the first one didn’t take, because it didn’t appear with a “your comment is awaiting moderation” tag.

  179. Everyone—

    William and I are not the same person—please stop confusing us. 🙂

    Elaine—

    Your only response to my last post, comment #71, was this:

    Miniature aussie pups wouldn’t exist without breeders. Purebred dogs are like bonsai trees, they don’t exist in nature on their own. Their existence is a reflection of human intervention, of human dominance and control.

    Did you even read my comment? That’s my point—you assign breeders responsibility for the creation of a life, giving them moral culpability for the death (of a shelter pup) that comes as a result of that life. I’m asking why you don’t apply the same logic to people. Please read my comment again and respond to the arguments in it: I think they answer fairly comprehensively your condemning Jessica.

  180. Mandolin, not having a CNS does not mean that jellyfish can’t experience some form of physical distress. I’m using this in a sort of clinical sense — I don’t mean they have emotions as humans or dogs might. It’s extremely unlikely that their responses are that complex. And I haven’t read anything that suggests that jellyfish are capable of learning from distressing experiences as humans or dogs are. I simply mean that their various physiochemical processes will go into a some kind of distress mode and eventually shut down if the stressor continues long enough or is severe enough. I mean that the jellyfish will be stimulated to engage in behaviors targeted at escaping or ending the stress. I mean that even if the jellyfish survives the stressor long-term damage can be done to its ability to function.

    What I’m suggesting here is that we should have some sort of marginal respect for any complex organism such that we don’t damage or destroy it lightly. To some degree this is a matter of personal taste and “better safe than sorry”, but think about it… Would you trust somebody who pulled the wings off flies just for the hell of it? Why or why not? What about somebody over the age of twelve who thought it was fun to fry ants with a magnifying glass or to kick over anthills? There’s a certain frisson of cruelty to these actions that makes them extremely suspect even if you don’t see the ants and flies themselves as deserving of consideration. All I’m suggesting is that we extend the same to jellyfish — let’s not screw with them without good reason, and let’s not let ourselves be so certain that we understand their capabilities that we blind ourselves to any novel capabilities discovered by science.

  181. RC, Anne Nonymous, whether you like it or not, you own your pets. They are your property, no matter how you came to keep them in your care. That’s just the way things work under the current legal system. And one aspect of that system is that if you own a pet, you must give it acceptable care. Don’t you ever watch Animal Cops?

    And I admit, you’re right, I made a mistake in my original post(s). Elaine did originally say “is slavery,” not just “like slavery.” But note that slavery itself is an institution with a long and ignominious history — not all slave holding systems were similar to the race-based system practiced in the US.

    Well, back in my original post (remember that?) I made the point that PETA’s “Slavery” campaign specifically referred to the US race-based slavery system. Their “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign specifically referred to the Nazi Holocaust. And they had another campaign which put side-by-side photos of beef carcasses on meat hooks and black men swinging from trees.

    So, let’s not pretend that we’re talking about some kind of Greco-Roman system of slavery that you could buy your way out of, and had more to do with the bad luck of being captured than with being considered subhuman.

  183. Racists compared black people to non-human animals therefore it’s wrong to compare our treatment of non-human animals to the enslavement of dark-skinned humans? Just because bad people made comparisons that sound superficially similar, just because bad people happened to incidentally have priorities in some areas that were slightly similar in some small ways to certain priorities of the animal rights movement, it doesn’t mean that the arguments and priorities of the animal rights movement are obviously wrong. I want to see somebody address the substance of these points instead of just using emotional rhetoric.

    I addressed this on the other feministe thread dealing with this topic, and a number of people seemed to agree. Here’s what makes this more than an argumentum ad hitlerum:

    I think [Elaine’s] problem is refusing to take the history of comparing humans to animals into account. Sure, in an ideal world, maybe we wouldn’t ever have thought animals lowly enough that calling a human being an animal devalues their humanity. In this world, however, we have, and that rhetorical history is in place no matter what—every subsequent comparison of blacks to animals will echo with the words of a slave-owner.

    It’s the same reason it’s still not acceptable for whites to use the n-word or for straights to use “fag.” Every use of that language, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter that in an ideal world it wouldn’t be a problem, recalls millions of devastatingly hurtful uses of that language. That impact is a powerful tool, as with “queer,” but it’s an extremely dangerous and hurtful tool when used with disregard.

  184. Well, actually we would say that in one way or another with orphans.

    No, we absolutely would not — the word “unilaterally” was crucial to my statement. If I see a homeless orphan on the street, I have no right to take that child into my home and present myself to the world as its parent or guardian.

    My point at the moment is that slavery (like property, as you note) has fluid enough boundaries that once we’re debating whether owning animals is merely “like slavery” in treating the sentient as property or whether that makes our owning animals a form of slavery itself we’ve turned a corner to discussing what is basically a semantic issue.

    I really don’t think we have.

    Let me come at this from the other direction. Say a homeless person, adult or child, were to show up at Elaine’s door asking for food, and she were to respond by taking that person into her home and not allowing him to leave — providing for his physical needs but giving him no choice but to remain with her as her companion. If she were to do that, I’d call it kidnapping, and yes, enslavement.

    If we must say that a dog is enslaved when it is subjected to conditions that would constitute enslavement if it were human, in other words, then Elaine herself is a slaveowner and an apologist for slavery.

    And if we may say that a dog is not enslaved when it is subjected to certain conditions that would constitute enslavement if it were human, then what basis can we have for asserting that any other treatment of a dog amounts to enslavement?

  185. Do you see how this fails to see systematic/institutional problems by treating the point we’ve been making as if were all a purely personal problem solve-able by people just being nicer to their animals? That some slaves were treated well didn’t make slavery OK. That some wives like(d) subordination to their man doesn’t make patriarchy OK. That your cat, whom I have no doubt that you love and treat very well, cannot tell the difference between being property or or not is neither here nor there. Many, many other cats and dogs and other animals will suffer for their being property under the law.

    I’m sorry, but you keep tying yourself in rhetorical knots trying to claim that animals are both independent beings that should not be interfered with and dependent beings that we are responsible for.

    You keep talking about how parents don’t own their children but you forget one important point: children grow up and become independent adults who leave their parents. This is the reason they are no longer treated as property under the law (you do remember that children used to be the sole property of their father, right?)

    For a human being to be completely incapable of independent living (as with a severely developmentally disabled person) is a very unusual situation. Especially now, it’s considered best to help disabled people live their lives as independently as they can, whether that means having a developmentally disabled person live in a group home or getting a physically disabled person nursing assistance in their home. The base assumption for a human being is that they will, someday, provide for themselves to the best of their ability. After many years of education, my developmentally disabled cousin has a decent job and lives on her own (with her cat) in a condominium her parents bought for her. We couldn’t be prouder, because we know how hard she and her parents worked to get to this point.

    I love my cat, but he’s not going to grow up, go to college, and get a job. He’s going to live out his life pretty much the same way he is now and then die. I have a responsibility and a legal obligation to treat him kindly, to feed him and house him and make sure he gets needed medical attention. If I neglect any of those things, the state can step in and remove the cat from my care even though I’m the legal owner. He is my property, but just as I cannot build a pollution-producing factory in my backyard, I do not have an absolute right to do anything I want with him.

  186. My longer comment is in mod, so I’ll just say that we just came home from the slave market where we purchased a kitten that we will bend to our wills as its property owners for the rest of its natural life.

    (For normal people, this means that we went to the same rescue group that we got Keaton from and adopted another cat for $80 cash. We’re not going to pick her up until Friday so we can get kitten-proofed.)

  187. La Lubu, race may be an arbitrary category, but where did racism come from if we humans didn’t teach it to ourselves? Babies may not “see” race, but even very young children can get pretty tribal about ostracizing and maltreating people who are obviously “different” in some way, whether it’s because of their skin color or their religion or their national origin or their nerdiness or any other obvious difference.

    The thing that young children are taught is not that they should discriminate, but against whom the discrimination should be directed. In the case of racial discrimination, they are taught that discrimination should be directed against people whose skin color or speech patterns or cultural identification marks them as members of the race in question. The exact forms of racism are local and learned, but discrimination itself is near-universal and either instinctual or at the very least deeply ingrained in human cultures from nearly the beginning.

    I’d further note that attempts to combat gender and racial discrimination are themselves a result of modern urbanization. Living in large mixed-ethnicity cities, having a globalized economy, all those things mean that people from different cultures are in constant contact. Serious discrimination or maltreatment of outgroups can have much larger-scale negative consequences in this situation, and our modern communication infrastructure make it much easier for those who are mistreated to share awareness of their maltreatment, develop new models for how things should be, and organize to protect their rights.

    Similarly, the development of modern farming technology and urbanization of our societies have narrowed the distinctions between “women’s work” and “men’s work”, contraception, education, and changing workplace environments have reduced the pressure on women to bear and rear large numbers of children, and so forth.

    These changes have been good and right and necessary and we can all recognize that from our current perspective, but it took changing economic and social circumstances to make people aware of this, just as changing economic and social circumstances have made us aware of the need to consider more carefully our treatment of non-human animals.

  188. We’re not going to pick her up until Friday so we can get kitten-proofed

    (giggle) Kitten-proofed. I expect a full suit of plate armor might do it.

  189. Zuzu, I recognize that the current legal system generally treats pets as “owned” (although oddly cats are sometimes not considered to be property even in places where dogs are). Just because that’s the law it does not mean it’s right and it does not mean that I am somehow morally obligated to act towards my cats or refer to my cats as as if they are possessions. In fact, you may note that I conscientiously object to the way these laws are written and I think they should be changed.

    I am not sure what rhetorical point you think you can score by trying to force an admission of legal ownership on me, but it seems at best irrelevant and at worst insulting and I’d appreciate it if you’d refrain in the future. Legal ownership is an unpleasant compromise I’m forced to make by the nasty system we live under, not something I choose voluntarily, and I will not accept it as an appropriate mode of understanding this issue.

  190. Anne,

    ” I’m using this in a sort of clinical sense — I don’t mean they have emotions as humans or dogs might. ”

    That might not be your claim, but it is the claim that was made by Elaine.

    I hear much of what you’re saying about deliberately cruel behavior toward animals; I think you make some good points there.

    But I keep hammering on the jellyfish for a reason. If we’re going to accept what it experiences as suffering, then why wouldn’t we be looking at what plants experience as suffering? Why is the line where Elaine has drawn it? It’s certainly not as clearly deliniated as she suggests, but I think that once she begins to create the kinds of distinctions that would allow her to include a jellyfish for protection but not a venus fly trap, or a jellyfish but not a zooplankton, or a bait fish but not a jellyfish, the criteria she’ll have to use to distinguish will be those she claims to eschew.

  191. Following up to myself, and to Mnemosyne at 185:

    The central crime of slavery isn’t forced labor or physical abuse, but the theft of a person’s autonomy. That is the essence of slavery — the appropriation of another person’s right to autonomy.

    If you believe that domesticated animals are by their nature dependent, and have no right or expectation of autonomy, then you cannot call them enslaved. They may be abused, or mistreated, or subjected to horrible conditions as a result of cruelty or their status as property, but they cannot be enslaved.

    I can already see RC asking where this concept of slavery leaves children, since they do not have the same right to personal autonomy as adults. And I’d answer that question in two ways:

    First, children do have some rights to autonomy, and slavery does abrogate those rights. And second, the enslavement of a child abrogates that child’s parents’ right to autonomy in the raising of their children. Enslavement violates the autonomy of a family collectively, and of the members of a family individually.

  193. Just because Elaine has been thinking about animal rights, that doesn’t mean that she knows anything about cognitive disability.

    Amen to that.

    Would you “ship” your child the way Airlines and breeders so carefully and lovingly “ship” dogs and cats?

    I think some people would actually prefer that children ride in the cargo hold (ha ha).

    So, horses and lizards and cats and dogs should all ride in the passenger area with us? I don’t buy it and even it I did, I just don’t see the practicality of it.

  194. Will, the part of that issue you still haven’t addressed was in one of my earlier comments (so I hadn’t bothered to repeat it in the comment you did address).

    Consider this: the history of comparing dark-skinned humans to non-human animals is that such comparisons are used to denigrate the possibility that dark-skinned humans might be deserving of the same rights as every other human. Similarly, the history of comparing non-gay humans to gay humans has been that such comparisons are used, directly or back-handedly (eg. by calling someone who is not gay a “fag” or “gay” when they do something you think is stupid) to denigrate the possibility that gay humans might be deserving of the same rights as every other human. And similar statements could be made about the history of comparisons between men and women, and those between Jews and goyim, and so forth. (We can bring “bitch” and “cunt” and “pussy” and “kike” into this too if you’d like.)

    So does that therefore mean that it’s insulting to make such comparisons with the reverse intention of saying that gay people should have the same rights as straight people, or that women should have the same rights as men or that Jewish people should have the same rights as Christians?

    And unless you think “animal” is intrinsically insulting in the mouth of a human in the same way that “fag” and “nigger” and “kike” and “bitch” and so forth are intrinsically insulting in the mouths of the respective oppressors, then I’m not sure I see how your last bit about the appropriateness of refraining from using these terms applies . Alternately, if you do think “animal” is intrinsically insulting, then you’ve already assumed the position you’re trying to argue for.

    ——–

    Brooklynite, I’d note that most well-cared-for companion animals don’t actually want to leave their homes. Oh, they may want more “out” than they’re given an opportunity for, but they pretty much mostly like being fed and looked after and want to stick around. (My cats always come in on their own after going outside, and it’s not like I’ve even bothered to “train” them.) If they really truly want to leave permanently it usually means something’s deeply wrong. But they’re not quite as completely imprisoned as you seem to be implying, although I certainly wouldn’t argue that they’re completely free either.

    Not that this means the same behavior that we currently exercise with regard to non-human animals would necessarily be appropriate for orphan children or homeless adults. Hell, I’m not even sure it’s totally appropriate for non-human animals — for example, there’s pretty little oversight over whether a person who picks up a kitten off the street is actually giving that kitten a good home and taking proper care of it and keeping it happy and respecting its interest. So it might be better if there were more oversight of that.

    But our society tends to keep at least slightly (slightly!) better track of orphan humans and homeless adults than it does of feral kittens. In plenty of other societies, and in our own history, the adoption of orphaned children or the taking in of “beggars” and wanderers is and was a much more casual affair. It’s only in the modern era that we’ve started to consider even disadvantaged fellow humans as being possibly worthy of a bit more consideration and protection than that, and perhaps it’s time we start giving non-human creatures a little bit of protection in this regard too.

    ——–

    Mnemosyne, I absolutely agree that it’s not the usual expectation that a human will remain in a totally dependent or semi-dependent state for his or her entire life. But I think the point here is to consider what one does do when humans end up permanently dependent. We certainly don’t consider them to be property or possessions. We don’t say we “own” them. The law is structured around defending their interests and ensuring that their needs are satisfied, to the degree that they have interests and needs. The question that needs to be addressed here is why the law for permanently dependent humans should be so vastly different from the law for permanently dependent non-humans.

  196. Would you “ship” your child the way Airlines and breeders so carefully and lovingly “ship” dogs and cats?

    (Perking up) Is that an option?

  197. In the strictest sense you do not “own” your pets. You have limited ownership.

    Meaning, they are not strictly your property to do with as you will. Witness animal cruelty laws. They are legally recognized as being more than property, having an inferred right to happiness (again, animal cruelty laws), though far less rights than a person. Cruel treatment still applies to livestock. We just don’t generally apply the law as it is expedient to ignore it (filling my belly).

    As I’m not aware of any other creature besides people enslaving another creature, I think it’s fair to say that slavery is a part of the human condition, and exclusive to people. I don’t see how it’s helpful or relevant to debate whether “slavery” applies to animals… we have perfectly good laws about animal cruelty as it is. It’s a polarizing, moot point.

  198. Mandolin, fair enough on the jellyfish sentience thing. I just want to be clear that the person you need to argue that point with is Elaine, not me. As I said earlier, I don’t go quite as far as she does. Although I would note that I don’t even think it’s quite right to damage plants without good cause, for much the same reason I don’t approve of maliciously harming insects. Again, there’s matters of degree here, but even when all else fails there’s still a root of concern about the ethics of taking pleasure in the destruction of a complex organism, as well as a certain amount of scientific caution about assuming we know everything about the organization and capacities of a complicated living system. But I don’t think you and I have a major disagreement on this, so I’ll stop talking about it.

    ——–

    Lauren, of course this argument is an expression of privilege. Arguing about ethics at all is an expression of privilege — those of us who can sit and discuss these things have the luxury to spend our time considering all these grand high-falutin’ ideals instead of having to be out hoeing the fields. We have the necessary education to read and comprehend what’s being written here. We have access to the high technology that makes this kind of communication possible. Many of us probably have the luxury to pretty much take this stuff for granted, even, and not worry about where the money to pay that DSL bill is coming from next month.

    It’s an expression of privilege, but that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to express our privilege in this way. In fact, one might argue that it’s our duty to do so, to use our advantages to consider what we can do to aid those who don’t have access to those advantages.

    One might make the same statement that discussing the ethics of lipstick and blowjobs is an expression of privilege. Because, of course it is. Those of us who live in the modern western world aren’t for the most part struggling even to obtain the right to participation in public life. Those of us who are white and middle class aren’t struggling with the disadvantages of racism and poverty. Does that mean we’re not allowed to care about unattainable beauty ideals and the projection of power dynamics into the realm of sexual pleasure? Or does it instead mean we just need to remember that there are other things that are important too?

  199. But I keep hammering on the jellyfish for a reason. If we’re going to accept what it experiences as suffering, then why wouldn’t we be looking at what plants experience as suffering? Why is the line where Elaine has drawn it?

    Plants don’t have nerves. As far as we know they are not able to feel pain as we understand it. Also, they don’t scream (audibly).

  201. Babies may not “see” race, but even very young children can get pretty tribal about ostracizing and maltreating people who are obviously “different” in some way, whether it’s because of their skin color or their religion or their national origin or their nerdiness or any other obvious difference.

    Again, not without training. Any recognized difference, real or imagined, would be a mere curiousity without training. Most often this is top-down training that has political ends in mind. Divide and conquer. Social control.

    Look. Why bring racism into an argument about animal rights to begin with? While there is plenty of evidence that there are no appreciable differences between the so-called “human races”, almost everyone finds it self-evident that there are considerable differences between livestock and humanity. This isn’t “mere bigotry” or “prejudice”.

    Racism, as we know it today, was the direct result of emerging capitalism, the ensuing colonialism and imperialism. Sexism, as we know it today, also developed from those same strains, and was especially tied in with organized religion as a State power. This was about elites gaining wealth and power literally on the back of and over the graves of other people. Comparing the treatment of the pigs on Ma and Pa Kettle’s farm to the Middle Passage, the genocide of indigenous people, the Holocaust, the rape of millions of women, the selling of families away from one another, the butchering of entire villages, the theft of national resources and land, the extermination of cultures and languages—fuck.me.running. Perspective. Perspective. It ain’t the fuckin’ same. Not at all. Animals don’t experience oppression. People do.

  202. Does anyone else feel like this argument is the ultimate expression in privilege? Or is it just me?

    It is positively not just you.

  203. La Lubu, Racism and sexism are not the results of capitalism or emperialism. They are a result of the philosophical construct of having an Us and a Them. AFAIK that kind of non-inclusive community emerged somewhere around the time people went from being exclusively hunter/gatherers to being farmers, many tens of thousands of years ago.

    I vaguely remember from college learning about some native american tribes chose to reject this us/them idea, considering themselves to be part of a global brotherhood. Not coincidentally, they also held their livestock in much higher regard.

  204. La Lubu, I’m sorry, but you’re still assuming the point you want to prove. It’s not the same? Fine. Why is it not the same?

    If mistreatment of humans by other humans is all some kind of divide and conquer tactic used by the elites to gain wealth and power, why don’t we see harm done to animals and the environment in the same way? Plenty of hunter-gatherer human societies had more recognition of the likeness between humans and animals than we do now, so how can you say that recognition of animals is not a thing that’s been trained out of us by the emergent capitalism that we need to relearn?

    So maybe our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn’t recognize animals in quite the same way that modern animal rights activists are trying to? Well, do you really think that they recognized women’s rights in the way modern feminists do either? Do you think they recognized members of other tribes as rights-bearing individuals in the same way that modern anti-racists would like us to recognize members of other cultures?

    When and where is this idealized society you want us to believe in where there was no sexism and no denigration of outgroups? Find it in human history. Heck, find it in primate history, or in mammalian history. Then maybe your arguments will have some ground to stand on.

  205. I do think it was extremely hilarious on the thread at Elaine’s where someone pops in to say that people are objecting based on their middle-class privilege. Because it doesn’t take privilege to be vegan. I see. *smiles* *nods*

  206. Does anyone else feel like this argument is the ultimate expression in privilege? Or is it just me?

    Best comment yet. So true.

  207. Not coincidentally, they also held their livestock in much higher regard.

    They also ate them. If we’re drawing lines in the sand, that line is pretty clear from Elaine’s perspective.

  208. And unless you think “animal” is intrinsically insulting in the mouth of a human in the same way that “fag” and “nigger” and “kike” and “bitch” and so forth are intrinsically insulting in the mouths of the respective oppressors, then I’m not sure I see how your last bit about the appropriateness of refraining from using these terms applies . Alternately, if you do think “animal” is intrinsically insulting, then you’ve already assumed the position you’re trying to argue for.

    Wow.

    You’re white, aren’t you?

  209. JackGoff I think those are different kinds of privilege. One is assumed privilege, and the other is possible because of privilege. As industrialized people we have the privilege to adopt large scale veganism. Thinking “all lesser beings are mine to do with as I will” is assumed privilege. It’s imperialism.

  210. I notice Elaine couldn’t be bothered to answer my question herself. Elaine, you started this. I asked a question that no animal-rights activist who shares your beliefs has EVER bothered to answer – not to me directly. I am not playing “gotcha” or trying to make fun of you – I am trying to find out what YOUR answer to my question is.

    I’m sorry. I’m used to debating with people who are honest and actually answer questions, not people who make others do their research for them.

    I’m bowing out of this now. If there’s one thing that makes me angry, it’s evasion, and if I don’t stay out of this discussion, I’m going to really lose my cool.

  212. When and where is this idealized society you want us to believe in where there was no sexism and no denigration of outgroups? Find it in human history. Heck, find it in primate history, or in mammalian history. Then maybe your arguments will have some ground to stand on.

    As far as we can see sexism doesn’t occur in species that don’t mate for life (fish, etc). Exclusivity of sex assumes ownership IMO.

    I’m basing this on Terrence McKenna’s theory about orgiastic societies and the concept of ownership.

    To quote,
    “The primate tendency to form dominance heirarchies was temporarily interrupted for about 100,000 years by the psilocybin in the paleolithic diet. This behavioral style of male dominance was chemically interrupted by psilocybin in the diet, so it allowed the style of social organization called partnership to emerge, and that that occured during the period when language, altruism, planning, moral values, esthetics, music and so forth — everything associated with humanness — emerged during that period. About 12,000 years ago, the mushrooms left the human diet because they were no longer available, due to climatological change and the previous tendency to form dominance heirarchies re-emerged. So, this is what the historic dilemma is: we have all these qualities that were evolved during the suppression of male dominance that are now somewhat at loggerheads with the tendency of society in a situation of re-established male dominance. The paleolithic situation was orgiastic and this made it impossible for men to trace lines of male paternity, consequently there was no concept of ‘my children’ for men. It was ‘our children’ meaning ‘we, the group.’ This orgiastic style worked into the effects of higher doses of psilocybin to create a situation of frequent boundary dissolution. That’s what sexuality is, on one level, about and it’s what psychedelics, on another level, are about. With the termination of this orgiastic, mushroom using style of existence, a very neurotic and repressive social style emerged which is now worldwide and typical of western civilization.”

    read more

  213. Thinking “all lesser beings are mine to do with as I will” is assumed privilege.

    Hmm, well, framed as that way, maybe, but there’s a lot to unpack there, namely “do”. Just having a pet, taking care of it, and saying you own it is not the same as “I throw my cat up against the wall when I feel like it”. I’m against cruelty to animals, and am a vegetarian, but there are extremes I do not agree with, and acting like having pets is equivalent to slavery is just ludicrous. The onus is on such breeders who use inhumane techniques, but do all breeders do so? Not adopting from a shelter does not equate to saying”sure thing, kill them puppies”.

    And just to say, I’m sick and tired of having to calm people the fuck down just when I say I’m vegetarian. No, I’m not going to attack you or make you feel evil because you eat meat. I do not believe that is true.

  214. Does anyone else feel like this argument is the ultimate expression in privilege? Or is it just me?

    Yes. The privilege to ENSLAVE PUPPIES.

    Save Monty!

  215. Lipstick, blowjobs and puppies.

    Don’t forget waxing. That should clean things right up…

    Just add porn and you’ll have a real feminist field day.

  216. As industrialized people we have the privilege to adopt large scale veganism.

    Meanwhile, yelling at people who cannot yet adopt it because of economic reasons makes people feel better. I understand. I don’t agree that it justifies it, though, and just because we, as a people could adopt it large scale does not equate to ease of adoption individually. There’s so much class privilege in talking about what other people should do, you know?

  217. And heels. Waxed puppies wearing lipstick and heels.

    Whether they’re pitching or catching, I will leave up to the imagination.

  218. I decide to look back in on a thread the next day, expecting maybe a 50-70 post-read at max… and there are 215 new posts!! Oh good lord.

    Can anyone sum up thus far? Thanks.

  219. As industrialized people we have the privilege to adopt large scale veganism.

    We do? I don’t know where you live, but in a lot of places, people have a hard time just accessing fresh fruit and vegetables. Take away staples like milk and meat and you’re putting them in an awfully precarious situation.

    I would argue instead that as an industrialized nation we can put pressure on meat and dairy farmers to engage in more ethical practices with regard to their livestock — that is, as a commenter in (I think) the other thread alluded to, legally bar them from doing anything to a cow or a pig that would be illegal to do to a dog. Don’t let them keep their animals in torturous conditions. Ensure that if the animals are killed, they’re killed painlessly and responsibly. That’ll be much more helpful than putting the burden on consumers.

  221. As far as we can see sexism doesn’t occur in species that don’t mate for life (fish, etc). Exclusivity of sex assumes ownership IMO.

    Sorry I should have said, “doesn’t occur in species that share multiple anonymous partners”. Sexism apparently occurs in primates.

  223. JackGoff, Jill, I didn’t say we should all adopt veganism. I said it was possible here (USA). Eating rice and beans counts. Food is plentiful. This is not the case in other parts of the world.

  226. But then, meat is significantly more expensive to produce than rice and beans, so eating meat is an expression of class privilege in itself. Please stop being so caustic.

  227. JackGoff, Jill, I didn’t say we should all adopt veganism. I said it was possible here (USA). Eating rice and beans counts. Food is plentiful. This is not the case in other parts of the world.

    Right. I’m just pointing out that for a significant segment of the population, veganism isn’t possible. Then I’m adding my personal opinion that we pressure farmers to be more ethical.

  230. Anne, you mean like a reading list?

    Plenty of hunter-gatherer human societies had more recognition of the likeness between humans and animals than we do now, so how can you say that recognition of animals is not a thing that’s been trained out of us by the emergent capitalism that we need to relearn?

    In other words, you are copasectic with humans continuing to keep livestock for food and other products (milk, eggs, wool, etc.), as long as we do so mindfully, with respect, and with an eye toward insuring the health and well-being of animals until they die or are killed for food? If so, then we agree. If by “recognition of animals” you instead mean “recogition that it is wrong to use animals in any way without their consent, and since animals are incapable of giving consent, therefore all human use of animals is unethical”, we don’t. I’m not of the opinion that humans evolved separately from the rest of the planet—we are part of the circle of life. It is proper for us to regard animals differently from ourselves.

    Wow. You’re white, aren’t you?

    zuzu, welcome back. bacchiddus! You know you’ve been missed, right?

  231. Right. I’m just pointing out that for a significant segment of the population, veganism isn’t possible. Then I’m adding my personal opinion that we pressure farmers to be more ethical.

    You right. I agree.

  233. Don’t forget babies.

    Ooh, I love babies. Especially Bébé à l’orange.

    Baby fat makes the skin crispy.

    zuzu, welcome back. bacchiddus! You know you’ve been missed, right?

    Merci!

  236. I did answer your question. The answer is in one of the links I provided.

    Hey, if you aren’t my personal tutor I’m not your personal student.

    And I am not “the outsider” just because I criticized Jessica. I am a feminist, too. I have a BA in Women’s Studies. Also, I am not alone. There are plenty of other feminist AR people here and elsewhere. How dare you call us outsiders.

    Cut the indignant shtick. You know exactly what I meant. Also, lets drop the shaming and the perennial measuring of dicks, it contributes nothing to the discussion and only serves to decrease overall civility.

    But whatever. At this point its pretty clear that neither of us are going to be swayed and, to be completely honest, sparring over something like this much longer is just going to get boring.

  237. Ooh, I love babies. Especially Bébé à l’orange.

    Baby fat makes the skin crispy.
    Zuzu, laughing about eating babies is morally wrong! It is as morally wrong as laughing about making coats out of imaginary flying monkeys! /snark
    Babies are good with fava beans and a nice chianti.

  239. Zuzu, my racial and ethnic background is honestly none of your business unless I choose to bring it up. However, since you asked so very nicely, my known ancestors were light-skinned northwestern European Christian immigrants and I grew up in middle class American Catholic English-speaking midwestern “white” culture (although I’m now an atheist). But I’m also a woman and I have Jewish family members and gay family members and family members who’ve suffered from mental illness and mental and physical disability. I’ve got my own sources of personal information on historical oppression to draw from and make comparisons to if that’s needed to claim some right to speak on this issue. Let’s turn this around… Are you a chicken that’s been kept in a battery cage? And if not, what makes you think it’s not horribly objectionable for you to deny even the possibility that these supposedly offensive comparisons might have some validity? For that matter, is your ethnic background such that you identify as black? And if not, what makes you think you’re the authority on how this issue looks from a black perspective?

    Again, I’ll repeat, describing someone as an animal is only an insult if you think an animal is a bad or inferior thing to be, in the same way that describing someone as gay is an insult only if you think being gay is bad or inferior. If racists did not hold animals in low regard, they would not compare those humans they hold in low regard to non-human animals. As far as I can tell, the fundamental reason for shock at such comparisons when they’re made in the service of animal rights is that people disagree with the racists about their low regard for other humans but agree with them about (or at least aren’t interested in challenging them about) their low regard for non-human animals. And, that’s fine. I accept that that’s many people’s position on the subject. What have been asking for (and what some people have thankfully been attempting to provide) is justification for that position instead of just pearl-clutching diversions.

    I want to know… do the people who are angry about comparisons between the oppression of animals and racial oppression get just as angry about comparisons between oppression of LBGT persons and racial oppression? If not, why not? I mean, it’s not like LBGT people have ever had it quite as bad as enslaved black people, right? It’s not like they’re being denied the right to vote. So if you don’t think this comparison is also offensive (and I know some people probably do find it offensive), why not?

    What I’m asking for here is sound arguments and consistent justifications. I understand that you think this thing Elaine’s said is horrible and that you also think my semi-defense of it is horrible, and I’m not asking for you to change your mind about that. All I’m really looking for is actual engagement instead of just finger-in-ears singing of the national anthem.

    I guess this is very frustrating to me because I’ve usually seen pretty good and eye-opening arguments in regard to rights issues here at Feministe and it seems like on this issue a lot of people just have such a huge wall of denial they won’t even address it. It makes me feel like being hostile and dismissive right back and I don’t really want to do it but it’s very hard to keep my frustration in check. So, sorry if anything above sounds hostile or dismissive. *sigh*

  240. To those of you defending Jessica,
    All of your arguments are merely attempts to maintain the status quo and squelch criticism. You want what you want (be it eating meat, drinking milk, testing on animals, wearing fur, or owning puppies) and there’s NOTHING I can say that will change your mind. So stop acting like you’re open to discussion.

    Moreover, ganging up to make fun of me and other vegans makes you look incredibly intolerant and mean-spirited, something you keep accusing me of. You really are acting like the ‘cool kids’ in high school throwing the geeks in the dumpster.

    I’m done.

  241. I’m not trying to be combative, but I guess I’m not sure if I see how what you said answers my question. It seems like it is a reasonable meditation on why we’re even asking these questions in the first place, though. 🙂 It almost looks like you’re saying that you don’t think there’s any ethical justification for the position that we don’t have to treat animals as well as we treat humans, but that there may be some pragmatic justification? But perhaps I just don’t understand what you’re saying, and I’d be happy to hear a clarification.

    Thats exactly what I’m saying. My argument is that discussing if humans and “animals” are equal is useless. We’re all animals and trying to argue that factory farming is any more or less brutal than traditional hunting or harrying seems to reek of self-loathing and questionable perspective. I’d even go so far as to say that sport hunting falls into similar territory, as humans are not the only creatures to kill for reasons other than sustenance (as anyone whose ever owned a cat knows). There might still be good arguments for reducing animal cruelty, and I feel they are, but for me they don’t stem from equality but from subjective morality.

    I would object to your characterization of humans as more “highly” evolved — you can’t really say something is more or less “highly” evolved except with respect to its particular environment. Humans are very highly evolved for living in our particular circumstances (land-based social species), but we’re much less highly evolved for living, say, as asocial underwater creatures.

    I should have been more precise. When I called humans more highly evolved I was speaking from a strictly Darwinian perspective. We are the most successful animal on the planet, our success is so total that we manage not only to survive but to actively defeat the environment. Nothing else on earth can do that that.

    This ability is not restricted entirely to humans — some species of birds, as well as cetaceans and primates, have been shown to be able to pass knowledge and skills from one generation to the next or amongst members of a community. It might even be reasonable to suggest that the difference between humans and other social species is more in the average complexity of the information that can be passed amongst members of the species, and thus in the complexity of the not-from-direct-experience possibilities that are available for an individual member of the species to contemplate. But a big part of the problem here is that our grasp of non-human cognition, or even human cognition, is pretty poor at the moment. It’s certainly improving, but I think the assumption of human exceptionalism has been more of a handicap than a help in understanding exactly how humans and other animals think.

    Other animals might pass on knowledge, but they don’t do it in the way human beings do. Dolphins teach certain hunting strategies, primates learn rudimentary tool use, and many birds learn how to build, but the knowledge doesn’t grow or evolve in the way it does for humans. We managed to have a fairly unique suite of skills that allowed us to begin not just passing on knowledge, but building it. The combination of advanced problem solving skills, good memory, opposable thumbs, symbolic language managed to get paired with a forgiving environment. Other animals might be better at some of these things than humans, but none of them possessed all these abilities while simultaneously settling in an area like the fertile crescent.

    I think its important to note that the average complexity of information we pass on isn’t really the issue, its the additive nature of knowledge in our society. A chimp might teach 10 other chimps how to use a stick to get ants from an anthill, but even if 10,000 chimps managed to learn the trick all you have are more chimps who know how to get ants. Human beings have enough leisure time and enough knowledge to be able to add to information they pass on. At first it was within a tribe, then a country, then a region. As the number of people who learned a given piece of information rose so too did the number of people trying to use that information for something else. For example, a geneticist in China can be a geneticist, they can specialize in something that has no immediate value. They don’t have to know how to hunt, or flee from a lion, or fix a transmission. They can focus on the piece of information, learn everything about it, and when they finally find something out they can share it with thousands of others all over the world. Even the worst educated, most oppressed peoples on the face of the earth show this behavior. We learn, we think, we tinker, we build our knowledge.

    The knowledge that human beings can pass on to a new generation is of an almost infinite complexity. With human beings, it becomes an issue of scale.

  242. Yes, we want testing on animals, and our lush fur coats. *smiles* *nods*

    Now that I think about it, I suppose I should have eaten a steak for dinner. Elaine knows. Thanks for telling us, Elaine, what we want.

  243. Yes, we want testing on animals, and our lush fur coats.
    And not even medical testing either. Utterly frivilous shit. We put mascara on rabbits because we think it’s hot. Then we take it off and liberate them from the patriarchy.

  244. No one has said: Human animals and nonhuman animals are “no different”

    Effing heck, Elaine. You, yourself, SAID JUST THAT. Could you at least, please, stop LYING?!?!

    Also, CBrach,

    Mnemosyne: As mentioned above, if a mentally disabled person and a chicken are morally the same, you are deciding that a mentally disabled person can be treated like a chicken: given the barest necessities for living (after all, all a chicken needs is safety, food, and shelter) and otherwise left alone.

    I wonder if we need a strawAR bingo just as we have a strawfeminist bingo.

    Elaine said, and this is a direct quote, “The only difference between a mentally disabled human and a cow is that one is my species and one is not.” There’s no strawAR arguing going on here. We are responding to her unusually offensive comment.

    Second, and growing out of the first, I don’t get the impression that Elaine actually knows all that much about slavery or cognitive disability.

    She clearly doesn’t know a blessed thing about disability, because the term she’s been using – “mental disability” – is so vague and ambiguous as to be wholly useless. What are you on about, Elaine? People with cognitive impairments? People recovering from TBIs? Folks on the autism spectrum? Those of us with mental health disorders like depression, anxiety? Schizophrenia? Bipolar disorder? There is no one Generic Mental Disability.

    You know what’s so funny about this, to me anyway? I don’t have any pets. My lease won’t let me. I want a dog in the worst way. I want to love it and care for it and feed it and play with it and generally prostrate myself before it. And I specifically want a shelter puppy. I always have; it’s what I had growing up (two of them, Willie Mays and Cookie – sweetest babies ever) and what my parents have now (Goose, the lab who hugs!). I especially want one with three legs, or no back legs but wheels, because I know that puppy will never get adopted and I love assistive technology.

    And somehow I’m the enemy, because I take issue with the flagrant ableism that has marked this discussion.

    I swear to G-d, you can’t win for losing.

  246. Does anyone else feel like this argument is the ultimate expression in privilege? Or is it just me?

    ::raises hand::

    Of course, the original comments that sparked this conversation – owning a pet is slavery, people with mental disabilities are the same as cows – come from such positions of privilege that we were, I think, doomed from the start on that front.

  248. So stop acting like you’re open to discussion.

    If I am not open to discussion, I do not comment. I only comment when I am seeking honest communication.

    This last comment of Elaine’s is exactly what is pissing me off – she insists that anyone not agreeing with her 100% is stupid or intolerant, then refuses to explain her positions or answer questions, then gets indignant that people are upset at her, then tries to claim we hate all vegans and cheer on Michael Vick.

    Elaine, I asked you a simple question – one that no animal-rights activist sharing your beliefs has ever answered when I asked. I have to eat meat, due to dietary and financial restrictions. What do your beliefs say about me?

    That should not be a hard question to answer. That it is says a lot more about you than you intend.

  249. William, it’s not clear to me, do you agree that all morality is in some way subjective? I certainly wouldn’t argue with that. But I think for the most part commenters at Feministe agree on some basic set of assumptions upon which we’d like to see our society’s particular subjective morality based. And one of the main principles that is commonly used here is that we want to treat individuals as fairly as possible. Now I wouldn’t argue that there’s some objective yardstick by which we can measure the goodness of this objective, but we can kind of hack up a sort of ad hoc argument based on social contract theory and utilitarianism and the like as to why this might be a good heuristic for developing a stable and pleasant society and why it might meet our common goals better than a lot of the alternatives. The question I’m trying to get at here, and the question I still don’t see that you’ve answered, is what the justification is for excluding non-human animals from this doctrine of fairness. I mean, if people just want to state the exclusion of non-humans as axiomatic to their ethics, it’s certainly their right, but it’s not especially convincing for someone who doesn’t begin from a human-centric position.

    On the next subject, your measure of things being more “highly” evolved suggests that bacteria are the most highly evolved creatures of all. They make up a way larger fraction of the biomass on this planet than we do, and since they’re so much smaller than us, that means they’re several orders of magnitude more populous. (Hell, there are more bacterial cells just in you and me than there are human cells.) Bacteria are symbiotically or parasitically involved with and live in or on every non-bacterial living thing on the planet. Bacteria can live in far more hostile conditions than humans (undersea vents, antarctic ice) and survive being frozen for thousands of years. If we manage to nuke ourselves or otherwise screw the environment, bacteria will be much more likely to survive and thrive in the aftermath than humans. Bacteria (or possibly viruses) may well even be the cause of our downfall, if and when such a thing occurs. Bacteria created and now sustain the oxygen atmosphere that allows us to exist in the first place. If anything on the planet is the most successful in a Darwinian sense, it’s much more likely the bacterial form than the human form.

    In regard to your discussion of the differences between human knowledge and non-human animal knowledge, I agree with and should certainly have mentioned earlier the fact that our communication mechanisms are far better at creating cumulative knowledge than those of other species. Of course, they’re also far better than those available to our ancestors (no internet), which are better than those available to their ancestors (no writing), and so forth, until you get back down to the very earliest hominid and australopithicine lineages which probably didn’t have so much in the way of communication vocabulary and technology beyond what chimps and dolphins have. We’re really kind of standing on the shoulders of giants here, and that suggests to me that it might well behoove us to remember that without those giants we’d be pretty darn short.

  250. I especially want one with three legs, or no back legs but wheels, because I know that puppy will never get adopted and I love assistive technology

    If anyone would like to see a roller made for a guinea pig with hind-leg weakness, I’ll try to find the link. Not my pig, but cool. The basic components were a flip-flop and caster wheels.

  251. Alix, I can’t tell you about what Elaine would say about your dietary issues, but I can tell you what I would say. I would say it’s our society’s obligation to work to provide you with food you can eat that doesn’t require animals (human or otherwise) to be unethically treated. I would say it is your obligation to try to prefer such food when it’s possible for you to do so. I would say that we cannot solve this problem overnight and that we all need to work progressively, step-by-step, to change the way things work to reduce the conflict between your needs and the needs of other creatures. Almost as if we were, you know, Progressives.

    I would say that you are not required to harm your health to further the cause of animal rights any more than I’m required to go naked to further the cause of stopping child labor. I would say you’re just required to do the best you can with the resources you have, and to keep trying to do better, same as the rest of us.

    But it’s your life, and you’ve gotta choose your battles and choose your compromises. So I would also say it’s not my place to tell you what you should eat. It’s only my place to tell you about what I think are the ethics issues and to try to convince you that they’re important, and then it’s my place to step back and let you make your own decisions on the matter, same as with everything else.

  252. Again, I’ll repeat, describing someone as an animal is only an insult if you think an animal is a bad or inferior thing to be, in the same way that describing someone as gay is an insult only if you think being gay is bad or inferior.

    I don’t think being gay is a bad thing, but I definitely recognize it as an insult when it’s thrown at someone. The intent is to offend. The same is true of analogies that have been drawn between blacks, Jews, et. al when comparing them to animals. It does not matter if one thinks being labeled an animal is bad. What matters is that the intent of the comparison is to denigrate and offend. This is what the PETA people fail to understand: historically, comparisons between blacks and animals have been used to demean, denigrate, abuse, harass, and justify the enslavement. You cannot escape that with advertising. It’s just not going to work.

    Does anyone else feel like this argument is the ultimate expression in privilege? Or is it just me?

    Who me? I’m sitting over here thinking about opting out of the corporate rat race to make widdle noises over my precious DD Madison. I figure I can hand her off to the nanny while I put on my lipstick and heels so my DH can take me out to dinner and buy me diamonds.

    Why? Don’t you all do that on Saturday night?

  253. The basic components were a flip-flop and caster wheels.

    That may be the coolest thing I have ever heard of. OH LORD. Flip flops and caster wheels! Be still my heart!

  254. I especially want one with three legs, or no back legs but wheels, because I know that puppy will never get adopted and I love assistive technology.

    ME TOO!!

    Just thought I’d add that. Not that there’s much to say now.

  256. Anne—sorry to have missed your earlier response. There are a lot of comments on this thread.

    So does that therefore mean that it’s insulting to make such comparisons with the reverse intention of saying that gay people should have the same rights as straight people, or that women should have the same rights as men or that Jewish people should have the same rights as Christians?

    I don’t really understand—how would the gay=stupid comparison be made in a way that indicates gay people should have the same rights as straight people? What Elaine did was the equivalent of a white person saying (trigger alert: race) “niggers are just as good as whites:” the argument isn’t hurtful, but the rhetoric used to establish that argument is.

    And unless you think “animal” is intrinsically insulting in the mouth of a human in the same way that “fag” and “nigger” and “kike” and “bitch” and so forth are intrinsically insulting in the mouths of the respective oppressors, then I’m not sure I see how your last bit about the appropriateness of refraining from using these terms applies . Alternately, if you do think “animal” is intrinsically insulting, then you’ve already assumed the position you’re trying to argue for.

    No—it’s more specific than that. I think that comparisons of slaves and animals are intrinsically insulting in the mouths of non-African-Americans. It isn’t that hard to use alternative rhetoric.

  257. The question I’m trying to get at here, and the question I still don’t see that you’ve answered, is what the justification is for excluding non-human animals from this doctrine of fairness. I mean, if people just want to state the exclusion of non-humans as axiomatic to their ethics, it’s certainly their right, but it’s not especially convincing for someone who doesn’t begin from a human-centric position.

    Ok, I’ll try to hone in on that specific point, but I’m almost sure were getting into an area where we won’t like one another’s answers. I believe that an unfortunate reality present in virtually any social model is the existence of winners and losers. We have limited amounts of energy and resources, it is inevitable that some individuals will end up unhappy. Trying to juggle all of these needs is hard enough when the participants can explain their position and self-advocate, trying to include a huge group of individuals who cannot participate seems a logistical nightmare. At the end of the day you need to decide how you will expend your resources, and I draw a line at human beings. It might not be the best place to draw the line, but its the only place I can find.

    Does that mean that we shouldn’t try to reduce the suffering of animals? Of course not. I have shelter cats as pets, intentional cruelty disgusts me, and I’d like to see factory farming changed. I believe that there are real gains to be had from treating animals well and I feel that you can tell a lot about the value of a person from how they treat animals in their care. I simply don’t put my cat on the same level as my wife.

    Now, I’m aware of the problems with this kind of argument. I get that it is similar to arguments that have traditionally been used to oppress humans. Hell, I’ve even found myself on the other side of the line at which resources stop. I’m uncomfortable with the boundary, but I’m more uncomfortable with the alternative. That discomfort is why I tend to err on the side of caution whenever I can. That doesn’t change the fact that I think it would be impossible to effectively put human beings in charge of forcing other human beings to respect the rights (as perceived by human beings) of nonhuman animals.

    If anything on the planet is the most successful in a Darwinian sense, it’s much more likely the bacterial form than the human form.

    Aside from subjective factors, I can’t really disagree with you. Perhaps this is a good way to look at things. Human and non-human animals are very similar, and that leads to a lot of romanticizing and anthropomorphizing. We imagine a rat with a rudimentary frontal brain to have the same feelings as us, we look at a lobster and wonder about how it perceives it’s suffering despite the fact that it doesn’t really have the capacity for complex thought. What are the ethics of human/bacteria interaction? What is acceptable? We kill millions of bacteria for convenience without a thought, and they kill us with as little consideration. Perhaps it would be worth exploring why we have fewer problems with this than we do with more “advanced” creatures.

    We’re really kind of standing on the shoulders of giants here, and that suggests to me that it might well behoove us to remember that without those giants we’d be pretty darn short.

    But we are on those shoulders and future generations will stand upon ours. It is true that our communication is constantly improving, and I feel that improvement is a kind of evolution in itself. Think about this conversation. We are unrelated people, we live in different place, we do not know eachother in any meaningful sense. Our conversation is being witnessed by more people than show up to most panel discussions on a college campus. You’ll think about what I’ve said, I’ll think about what you’ve said, and all the rest of the people who happen to read our dialog will have something to chew over. Our conversation is part of a larger conversation, with dozens of people contributing and providing different points of view. This simply wouldn’t have been possible fifty years ago. Thats the wonderful thing about aggregated knowledge: it keeps getting bigger, as it gets bigger more people contribute, and as more people contribute it keeps getting bigger.

  258. apologies in advance is this is a duplicate comment.

    The question I’m trying to get at here, and the question I still don’t see that you’ve answered, is what the justification is for excluding non-human animals from this doctrine of fairness. I mean, if people just want to state the exclusion of non-humans as axiomatic to their ethics, it’s certainly their right, but it’s not especially convincing for someone who doesn’t begin from a human-centric position.

    Ok, I’ll try to hone in on that specific point, but I’m almost sure were getting into an area where we won’t like one another’s answers. I believe that an unfortunate reality present in virtually any social model is the existence of winners and losers. We have limited amounts of energy and resources, it is inevitable that some individuals will end up unhappy. Trying to juggle all of these needs is hard enough when the participants can explain their position and self-advocate, trying to include a huge group of individuals who cannot participate seems a logistical nightmare. At the end of the day you need to decide how you will expend your resources, and I draw a line at human beings. It might not be the best place to draw the line, but its the only place I can find.

    Does that mean that we shouldn’t try to reduce the suffering of animals? Of course not. I have shelter cats as pets, intentional cruelty disgusts me, and I’d like to see factory farming changed. I believe that there are real gains to be had from treating animals well and I feel that you can tell a lot about the value of a person from how they treat animals in their care. I simply don’t put my cat on the same level as my wife.

    Now, I’m aware of the problems with this kind of argument. I get that it is similar to arguments that have traditionally been used to oppress humans. Hell, I’ve even found myself on the other side of the line at which resources stop. I’m uncomfortable with the boundary, but I’m more uncomfortable with the alternative. That discomfort is why I tend to err on the side of caution whenever I can. That doesn’t change the fact that I think it would be impossible to effectively put human beings in charge of forcing other human beings to respect the rights (as perceived by human beings) of nonhuman animals.

    If anything on the planet is the most successful in a Darwinian sense, it’s much more likely the bacterial form than the human form.

    Aside from subjective factors, I can’t really disagree with you. Perhaps this is a good way to look at things. Human and non-human animals are very similar, and that leads to a lot of romanticizing and anthropomorphizing. We imagine a rat with a rudimentary frontal brain to have the same feelings as us, we look at a lobster and wonder about how it perceives it’s suffering despite the fact that it doesn’t really have the capacity for complex thought. What are the ethics of human/bacteria interaction? What is acceptable? We kill millions of bacteria for convenience without a thought, and they kill us with as little consideration. Perhaps it would be worth exploring why we have fewer problems with this than we do with more “advanced” creatures.

    We’re really kind of standing on the shoulders of giants here, and that suggests to me that it might well behoove us to remember that without those giants we’d be pretty darn short.

    But we are on those shoulders and future generations will stand upon ours. It is true that our communication is constantly improving, and I feel that improvement is a kind of evolution in itself. Think about this conversation. We are unrelated people, we live in different place, we do not know eachother in any meaningful sense. Our conversation is being witnessed by more people than show up to most panel discussions on a college campus. You’ll think about what I’ve said, I’ll think about what you’ve said, and all the rest of the people who happen to read our dialog will have something to chew over. Our conversation is part of a larger conversation, with dozens of people contributing and providing different points of view. This simply wouldn’t have been possible fifty years ago. Thats the wonderful thing about aggregated knowledge: it keeps getting bigger, as it gets bigger more people contribute, and as more people contribute it keeps getting bigger.

  259. apologies if this is a duplicate comment

    The question I’m trying to get at here, and the question I still don’t see that you’ve answered, is what the justification is for excluding non-human animals from this doctrine of fairness. I mean, if people just want to state the exclusion of non-humans as axiomatic to their ethics, it’s certainly their right, but it’s not especially convincing for someone who doesn’t begin from a human-centric position.

    Ok, I’ll try to hone in on that specific point, but I’m almost sure were getting into an area where we won’t like one another’s answers. I believe that an unfortunate reality present in virtually any social model is the existence of winners and losers. We have limited amounts of energy and resources, it is inevitable that some individuals will end up unhappy. Trying to juggle all of these needs is hard enough when the participants can explain their position and self-advocate, trying to include a huge group of individuals who cannot participate seems a logistical nightmare. At the end of the day you need to decide how you will expend your resources, and I draw a line at human beings. It might not be the best place to draw the line, but its the only place I can find.

    Does that mean that we shouldn’t try to reduce the suffering of animals? Of course not. I have shelter cats as pets, intentional cruelty disgusts me, and I’d like to see factory farming changed. I believe that there are real gains to be had from treating animals well and I feel that you can tell a lot about the value of a person from how they treat animals in their care. I simply don’t put my cat on the same level as my wife.

    Now, I’m aware of the problems with this kind of argument. I get that it is similar to arguments that have traditionally been used to oppress humans. Hell, I’ve even found myself on the other side of the line at which resources stop. I’m uncomfortable with the boundary, but I’m more uncomfortable with the alternative. That discomfort is why I tend to err on the side of caution whenever I can. That doesn’t change the fact that I think it would be impossible to effectively put human beings in charge of forcing other human beings to respect the rights (as perceived by human beings) of nonhuman animals.

    If anything on the planet is the most successful in a Darwinian sense, it’s much more likely the bacterial form than the human form.

    Aside from subjective factors, I can’t really disagree with you. Perhaps this is a good way to look at things. Human and non-human animals are very similar, and that leads to a lot of romanticizing and anthropomorphizing. We imagine a rat with a rudimentary frontal brain to have the same feelings as us, we look at a lobster and wonder about how it perceives it’s suffering despite the fact that it doesn’t really have the capacity for complex thought. What are the ethics of human/bacteria interaction? What is acceptable? We kill millions of bacteria for convenience without a thought, and they kill us with as little consideration. Perhaps it would be worth exploring why we have fewer problems with this than we do with more “advanced” creatures.

    We’re really kind of standing on the shoulders of giants here, and that suggests to me that it might well behoove us to remember that without those giants we’d be pretty darn short.

    But we are on those shoulders and future generations will stand upon ours. It is true that our communication is constantly improving, and I feel that improvement is a kind of evolution in itself. Think about this conversation. We are unrelated people, we live in different place, we do not know eachother in any meaningful sense. Our conversation is being witnessed by more people than show up to most panel discussions on a college campus. You’ll think about what I’ve said, I’ll think about what you’ve said, and all the rest of the people who happen to read our dialog will have something to chew over. Our conversation is part of a larger conversation, with dozens of people contributing and providing different points of view. This simply wouldn’t have been possible fifty years ago. Thats the wonderful thing about aggregated knowledge: it keeps getting bigger, as it gets bigger more people contribute, and as more people contribute it keeps getting bigger.

  261. All of your arguments are merely attempts to maintain the status quo and squelch criticism. You want what you want (be it eating meat, drinking milk, testing on animals, wearing fur, or owning puppies) and there’s NOTHING I can say that will change your mind. So stop acting like you’re open to discussion.

    Elaine—
    No one is squelching your criticism, we’re squelching the rhetoric you used for that criticism. Note that you aren’t received with animosity when you use metaphors that don’t recall highly offensive speech.
    I’m expecting a “fuck you” response to this post, so don’t even bother—it only makes you look less-prepared to defend your ideas. However, there are some words I think describe your situation better than you’d like:

    All of your arguments are merely attempts to…squelch criticism. You want what you want…and there’s NOTHING I can say that will change your mind. So stop acting like you’re open to discussion.

    …to your credit, you have stopped acting like you’re open to discussion.

  262. “But then, meat is significantly more expensive to produce than rice and beans, so eating meat is an expression of class privilege in itself. Please stop being so caustic.”

    Not as practiced by poor people in the US. My spouse was brought up by a single mother raising two children on a waitress’ salary. They ate extremely fatty foods, the richer in protein the better. Ground burger was cheap. The time and resources to obtain a vegan diet were not available.

    As a side note, I’m puzzled as to how you can seriously chastise other people for being too caustic.

  264. Elaine: “there’s NOTHING I can say that will change your mind.”

    If the quality of your argument so far is indicative of your total arguing ability, then you’re right.

    Meanwhile, I’d be interested in discussing this with someone who understands enough about animals to construct a coherent argument — for instance, I respect Anne Nonymous’s contributions to this discussion, although I disagree with her (particularly as regards the use of the slavery analogy).

    I feel there’s been too much bad blood in this thread for me to have a discussion of the type with Anne that I feel would be interesting and enlightening, so I’ll just say that I hope I find you again in more positive circumstances, Anne and the other people like you.

  265. “Re. Alix: There are no medical conditions that require eating meat.”

    Can you back that up Elaine? Because your track record on transmitting facts that are actually true is thus far very low, and I generally tend to believe that people understand their own medical disorders better than ignorant strangers.

    I mean, really, that kind of blanket statement — unless it can be positively proven — is a pretty assinine thing to say to someone else about their medical problem. I hear echoes of Bill Frist: pregnancy is never fatal.

  266. Evil Fizz, what you’ve said is exactly my point — comparisons of the type we’re discussing are insults because the intention of the person who makes the comparison is intrinsically offensive. If the intention of the person who makes the comparison is not intrinsically offensive, it is not an insult and it should be considered in the light in which it’s offered. If you would not be offended by me saying, “The struggle for LGBT rights has some similarities to the struggle for black civil rights.” it’s not at all clear why you should be offended by me saying, “The struggle for animal rights has some similarities to the struggle for black civil rights.”

    The term “animal” isn’t being “thrown at” anybody by the animal rights comparisons any more than the term “gay” is being “thrown at” anybody by the LGBT rights comparison I just suggested. There’s no intrinsically offensive intention — in fact the issue is being approached from the exact opposite perspective from that which generates racist insults — so it’s not obvious that it’s sensible to treat these comparisons as offensive.

    I can certainly see that some people might initially be made uncomfortable by the juxtaposition, but this kind of discomfort needs to be examined critically, not accepted uncritically, and not treated as so obviously correct that it doesn’t need defending. And I can also see that it might be somewhat impolitic (that is, tactically questionable) to use comparisons like this which people can find upsetting.

    But the problem is that mainstream perspectives on animal rights issues are so generally dismissive of the subject that it’s hard to see what analogies are available that don’t have the possibility of appearing superficially to be intended to denigrate [dear god, “denigrate”, how did that one slip by me before?) humans instead of to elevate non-human animals. (I mean, I’ve managed to offend and horrify people simply by suggesting that maybe it’s not really very nice to say that non-human animals don’t have souls if you’re of the opinion that humans do have souls.) Analogies, if you can get people to listen to them, are still one of the best tools for giving others a quick-and-dirty visualization of your perspective on a subject. So telling animal rights activists they’re obliged to drop the a goodly fraction of the applicable analogies for their position seems like you’re saying they have to disarm themselves before you’re willing to debate.

    So, you know, we can argue tactics here, but I’m just not convinced that these analogies are in and of themselves as deeply and terribly wrong as the initial horrified responses seemed to imply.

  267. Will: As I said before, it’s only offensive if you ‘other’ animals or view them as inferior. Take it to my blog or drop it.

    I’ve already answered that argument on two threads, but what the heck, let’s make it three. The post you linked to was interesting. Thank you.

  268. As I’m not aware of any other creature besides people enslaving another creature, I think it’s fair to say that slavery is a part of the human condition, and exclusive to people.

    Um, ever heard of ants and aphids? When I can refute you with something I learned in 5th grade biology class, that should probably give you a clue that you need to do a little more reading up.

    What’s fascinating to me in this thread is that I actually have a somewhat similar position to Anne’s from the completely opposite direction: I do think that humans are superior to other animals, and it is that very superiority that requires us to treat them more humanely than they treat each other.

    For me, if all humans are is animals like any other animal, then we have no moral obligation at all to treat them any better than, say, a cat treats a mouse. If there’s no moral difference between a human animal and any other animal, we’re doing what comes naturally just like any other predator. The only difference is that we can do it more efficiently than other animals because we have bigger brains.

  269. Ants don’t enslave aphids. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Ants farm aphids for their sweet sweet nectar, but the aphids get what they want out of life (food and reproduction). My garden can attest to this fact. I guess you could say Africans had the “benefit” of American wealth and culture…. but… no. Just, no.

    Also I object to your derision. It’s not necessary Mnemosyne.

  270. Ants don’t enslave aphids. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Ants farm aphids for their sweet sweet nectar, but the aphids get what they want out of life (food and reproduction).

    We have a symbiotic relationship with cows and chickens. We give them food and shelter and farm them for eggs and milk. How is what we do with cows and chickens morally different than what the ants do with aphids? (Please, like you think the ants don’t feed aphid corpses to ant larvae after the aphids die? If ants eat dead spiders and wasps, they’d have no problem eating dead aphids.)

    I guess you could say Africans had the “benefit” of American wealth and culture…. but… no. Just, no.

    You could, if you were an idiot who felt that human beings and aphids were morally equivalent. For those of us who feel that insects and humans are not morally equivalent, there’s no connection between how ants treat aphids and the way that human beings exploit one another. In fact, the very suggestion that treating human beings badly is okay because ants treat aphids badly is the exact kind of comparison that got us here in the first place.

    Sorry, but in this situation, derision is very necessary. It seems to be the only thing that might possibly make you think logically about what you’re saying.

  271. So I’ve been lurking around this issue for a while (I’ve spent a good two hours reading the comments and whatnot) and I find it really fascinating so I figured I’d jump in the fray. Never posted before on this website either.

    Before I get to my own thing, I would like to thank everyone for such an exuberant discussion- really I have been affected.

    Okay, in response to something Elaine wrote (don’t know how to do that thing of blocking) “You want what you want (be it eating meat, drinking milk, testing on animals, wearing fur, or owning puppies) and there’s NOTHING I can say that will change your mind. So stop acting like you’re open to discussion.”

    Are either sides really open to discussion? If I think I am absolutely correct that all murder is wrong, will I be really open to the possibilty to that sometimes it is okay? Is it fair or even just to state to my opponent “You need to be open to the possibility that you are wrong, yet I will not be open to the possibility that you are right because I know that I am right?”

    Also, another comment I have concerns intention; if one’s intention is to stir up shit, that can be easily done. If one’s intention is to provoke change, well that can take finesse. Sure not all shit-starters are into being persuaders or innovators, which is fine, but I think it is important to admit that one only wants what to be a shit-starter. Not all activists have to use the same tactics to change the hearts and minds of the individuals they think are misguided, but I think it is possible to use discernment.

    Finally, (wow, never written such a long comment on a blog, I feel special!) I like meat and after reading all of these comments, I still like meat and will continue to eat meat; HOWEVER, I am definitely more interested in supporting more local farmers and grocery stories (of all types) where I live. I also am more interested in learning about activist organizations that fight against the mass production of meat and dairy because I think it companies unnecessarily torture before they become my food (which at the end of the day, I still am content with) and also because it is better for me to have healthier animals as my meals.

    Ok, really, my last thought, a great way to reach the average meat-eater is NOT to emphasize the animals’ pain, but to emphasie how it is beneficial for the consumer to have better treated animals. Sure it may not stop the killing of animals for food purposes, but it may be the first slide down the slippery slope of vegetarianism. Hey, look at the anti-choice/pro-life movement…

  272. Though I haven’t pinned her down for details, an acquaintance in my social circle, who has been vegetarian for decades, reported sadly to the group that her doctor has required her to eat meat. She is an animal lover, and I’m sure she’s tried every alternative to eating meat.

  273. As a side note, I’m puzzled as to how you can seriously chastise other people for being too caustic.

    You’re right. I got caught up in the discussion and said some mean things. After seeing how nasty the discussion turned, and I played a small part in that, I regret being such a dick. I’m attempting to be civil and restrict myself to constructive comments. Sorry.

  274. I absolutely agree that it’s not the usual expectation that a human will remain in a totally dependent or semi-dependent state for his or her entire life. But I think the point here is to consider what one does do when humans end up permanently dependent. We certainly don’t consider them to be property or possessions. We don’t say we “own” them. The law is structured around defending their interests and ensuring that their needs are satisfied, to the degree that they have interests and needs. The question that needs to be addressed here is why the law for permanently dependent humans should be so vastly different from the law for permanently dependent non-humans

    We may not say we own our children but you might want to google “pillow angels” before stating the law defends the interests or needs of “permanently dependent humans.”

  275. Mnemosyne I don’t think our relationship with cows is different from ants with aphids. I don’t think it’s slavery either. I do think that animals deserve humane treatment, though they be not humans. In saying that I’m not equating humans and animals.

    Mandolin as someone who was until very recently dirt poor, I ate meat once a week. The rest of the time it was rice and beans, with some cheese on it if I was lucky. Where I live anyway, rice and beans are the cheapest protein source.

  276. ” As I’m not aware of any other creature besides people enslaving another creature, I think it’s fair to say that slavery is a part of the human condition, and exclusive to people.”

    “Um, ever heard of ants and aphids? “

    To me this sounded like you were saying ants practice slavery on aphids, which seemed strange and confusing.

  277. in just a quick search…i found out that a certain form of epilepsy actually requires you to eat fatty meats to protect your brain. i am not saying this is what alix has…her/his business not ours…just pointing out that that is the proscribed course of treatment for people suffering from absent or absence seizures.
    just thought i would throw that in.

  278. I would say it is your obligation to try to prefer such food when it’s possible for you to do so.

    I guess it’s my obligation to try to prefer heterosexuality, too. I’ll get right on that.

  279. Wow, you go out for a Sat. evening and miss 100 comments. Can’t say the topic didn’t hit a nerve.

    Which nerve though? I find it disconcerting the number of times people have responded “Amen” to the idea that “this argument” (which of the 143 arguments raised here is “this one”?) is the “ultimate expression of privilege.

    Privilege is as privilege does. At least 50% of the invocations of slavery and the lives of the handicapped here have been to employ them as a trump card to avoid discussion of other oppressions. Whose employment is the expression of privilege? I’m sorry if people are offended by some of the comparisons defenders of animals have made. But as I said earlier (although no one responded), it may be impossible to raise issues about your sensibilities regarding animals in ways that leave all your sensibilities intact. Pushing moral boundaries is always a painful process. It aint all about you, I’m sorry for the pain you endure as people try to get you to see that you’re implicated in oppressions you wouldn’t approve of if you looked at them straight instead of doing everything you can to avert your eyes and protect the status quo in which you are so heavily invested.

    One of the privileges defenders of the status quo have been invoking is the privilege to make cruel and sadistic jokes about animals. Such an attractive thing to be defending. Take, for example, Jill’s “Yes. The privilege to ENSLAVE PUPPIES” — that was a hoot, so sorry I went out for Sat. night, the real party was online! Oh, should I “get a sense of humor” as people who defend sexist jokes always say to us dour and humorless feminists? I finally learned my lesson about what’s funny at Feministe. Very mind expanding.

    Jill’s “joke” (not that she deserves singling out, plenty of others were happy to riff on the same themes) strikes me as altogether too literally true. That is the privilege 9 out of 10 posters here have been defending whether they invoke slavery or not. Quibble about whether our treatment of animals really is or is sufficiently like “slavery.” Quibble over whether jellyfish are in or out of moral consideration when cats and dogs (and pigs and chicken and cows) clearly are by your own standards. Divert discussion with how offensive the comparisons employed have been to your sensibilities and make sure we spend the rest of our time focusing on your hurt despite the fact that you’re completely satisfied to leave those same sensibilities absolutely tone deaf to the oppressions of other sentient beings. Say moderate things about your own animal ethics: you love animals, treat them nicely, wish there were stronger laws to protect them, but….. You knew the “but” was coming. Don’t you love the “buts” in discussions of feminism? Yeah, women should get equal pay but… but these property issues regarding animals just aren’t that important, there’s no need to go all “fundy” on us, don’t be such an extremist, why can’t you take a joke and just celebrate how damn cute Monty is! Oh, and let us pester you with the kinds of objections that those who try to raise consciousness about our society’s systematic mis-treatment of animals can expect in every audience of Westerners socialized to treat animal ethics as a non-issue, objections which anyone who defends animals has heard 1000 times and for which there are literally hundreds of extant responses on the web or in books or in articles, responses which you could find if you wanted to become educated about the subject. But… by the evidence that isn’t really what you want. Instead of doing that you keep treating your pet objection as the decisive objection that those shallow-thinking animal-fundys never thought to ask. Ha! gotcha! Well, lemme tell ya, you guys finally did it. You guys finally put it to us those of us who were, before meeting you, too extremist to get it. So it turns out all right (after all) to continue treating animals as we always have. How convenient — I’ll change into an ex-vegan now, I really have missed the taste of tortured pig. And, some previously dour people got a sense of humor. Victory all round.

    Except that animals are still our property and all our nicey-nice about them is rendered effectively meaningless when push comes to shove and their fundamental interests will continue to be systematically traded off against human property rights. But I’ve learned that the proper response to that is to be diverted onto other, more important topics.

    Silly animal fundys for thinking that people already educated about oppressions in other domains would recognize how shallow typical defenses and evasions of animal issues are (not those here mind you, just the typical ones) and that people at Feministe would make natural allies.

    (Sorry to go off but those jokes were really really offensive. zuzu, I can finally relate, all you guys had to do was step over the line and start being utterly, utterly unthinking and I could see your point.)

  280. RC-

    I made the joke because (1) it was funny and I always support lightening the mood, and (2) it was funny specifically because the idea of Monty being enslaved is so thoroughly ridiculous that it’s kind of astounding we’re even having a conversation about it. It wasn’t a cruel and sadistic joke about animals that are, say, tortured in animal testing labs. It was a joke about how extreme animal rights rhetoric will lead you down really silly paths — like suggesting that Monty (who by all accounts is well-loved, well-cared-for, and probably a little spoiled) is enslaved.

    Quibble about whether our treatment of animals really is or is sufficiently like “slavery.” Quibble over whether jellyfish are in or out of moral consideration when cats and dogs (and pigs and chicken and cows) clearly are by your own standards. Divert discussion with how offensive the comparisons employed have been to your sensibilities and make sure we spend the rest of our time focusing on your hurt despite the fact that you’re completely satisfied to leave those same sensibilities absolutely tone deaf to the oppressions of other sentient beings.

    Dude, I suggest you actually read the comments on the thread before characterizing it. The vast majority of the comments have been about pet objectification and animal rights theory and animals as property. You criticise us for “divert[ing] discussion with how offensive the comparisons employed have been to your sensibilities,” but that was the point of the effing post. A “diversion” is taking the topic of a post then spinning it off in a different direction. Here, the topic was how it’s offensive to compare disabled people to animals. Yet the thread has been about animal rights, animals as property, etc etc. Who’s doing the diverting again?

  281. Evil Fizz, what you’ve said is exactly my point — comparisons of the type we’re discussing are insults because the intention of the person who makes the comparison is intrinsically offensive. If the intention of the person who makes the comparison is not intrinsically offensive, it is not an insult and it should be considered in the light in which it’s offered.

    No, I’m fairly certain we still disagree. My point is that when you have an insult that has historically been hurled at a particular group and used to justify their oppression (e.g., people of color as apes), then subsequent uses of the analogy will still carry that baggage. The purity of your own intent is immaterial because the analogy has major cultural context which you’re choosing to ignore.

    I don’t believe that calling someone gay is an insult, but it is still entirely possible for (a) someone to intend it as such and (b) for someone to perceive it as such.

  282. And the privilege pointed out has been the privilege of people who make comparisons of blacks, Jews or the disabled to animals to declare that it can’t possibly be offensive, because animals are just like people! It’s the privilege of not having to think about what those comparisons mean to the groups being compared, both historically and currently.

  283. Silly animal fundys for thinking that people already educated about oppressions in other domains would recognize how shallow typical defenses and evasions of animal issues are (not those here mind you, just the typical ones) and that people at Feministe would make natural allies.

    Personally, I would agree with your underlying point if Elaine didn’t make an exception for adopting a pet from a shelter and if she didn’t own a dog herself! LOL! (She has a post on her site on how to find a pet at a shelter and over at feministing, she says that adopting a pet from a shelter is saving a life and admits to owning a dog herself.) It seems to me like she’s saying it’s okay to oppress an animal so long as that animal came from a shelter.

    Contrary to what Elaine might believe, some of us have been reading these threads with an eye to understand what her point is/was and see what it has to do with feminism. So far, I’m left with the sense that she really just has a problem with people who get their pets from breeders.

  284. You’re right Jill,

    This series of comments started with your post, and you have the power to define what the discussion is about, and you’re clearly willing to wield that power to belittle others about the patent absurdity of the points they’re making about animals. Isn’t it nice to be the one with the power to define the subject for a change? You exercise it with such grace.

    You’re right too that the fact that Monty is well cared for shows the absurdity of thinking there’s any real comparisons to be made with slavery — I forgot what a devastating objection it is show that some women like submission to men and don’t want abortions — those facts do after all decisively establish that we don’t need systematic gender change and legitimize light hearted exercises of privilege to belittle feminists. Silly me for thinking people here got the difference between individual and institutionalized systems of oppression.

    I admit it’s been a bit hard to comment on a post about whether comparisons were or weren’t valid without talking about, well, whether the comparisons were or weren’t valid. But I see now that the points I raised were a diversion which distracted from the real topic, which was wide open to you and those who shared your point of view from the very beginning. Those of us who might have seen things differently, well, our points of views about animals are understandably the butt of your light hearted ribbing when we visit your turf. No harm done, you’re the man after all, you get to tell us what it’s about, what it’s not about, and what lightens the mood.

    And finally, you’re also right that I need to lighten up. Doing so only seems likely if I don’t come back for a while.

    You’re good on feminism, love your stuff, have for some time. You’re also the kind of moderate whose an obstacle to change when it comes to animals, but I’ll still look forward to your thoughts on women. Later.

  286. This series of comments started with your post, and you have the power to define what the discussion is about, and you’re clearly willing to wield that power to belittle others about the patent absurdity of the points they’re making about animals. Isn’t it nice to be the one with the power to define the subject for a change? You exercise it with such grace.

    RC, I made one joke, in three comment threads that add up to some 400 comments. Please don’t act like I’ve shut down conversation or haven’t let people of all viewpoints express themselves.

    I admit it’s been a bit hard to comment on a post about whether comparisons were or weren’t valid without talking about, well, whether the comparisons were or weren’t valid. But I see now that the points I raised were a diversion which distracted from the real topic, which was wide open to you and those who shared your point of view from the very beginning. Those of us who might have seen things differently, well, our points of views about animals are understandably the butt of your light hearted ribbing when we visit your turf. No harm done, you’re the man after all, you get to tell us what it’s about, what it’s not about, and what lightens the mood.

    I never said that your points shouldn’t have been raised. I pointed out that your characterization of the disability rights statements as “diversions” was entirely untrue. Obviously I don’t mind the animal rights diversions, since I’ve let all 200 of them through. I never said I get to tell you what it’s about — you tried to do that first, by defining the “real” issues vs. the diversionary ones. I responded in kind and, as the author of the original post, I think I do have some sense of what the post was about. That doesn’t mean that the animal rights comments aren’t important or valuable; I wasn’t the one who attempted to tell everyone what the conversation should be about in the first place. That was you. So come off it. And if I’m “the man” then I’d say you have some serious authority issues. I’m just one little blogger in a sea of millions on a big, big internet. There are lots of other people who are actually trying to control you and boss you around; I’m probably not the best target.

    You’re also the kind of moderate whose an obstacle to change when it comes to animals, but I’ll still look forward to your thoughts on women.

    Well, thanks for that, but if you think I’m a “moderate” on animal rights issues, that’s too bad. I’m to the left of 95 percent of people on those issues. I agree with many of the goals of the animal rights movement. I just don’t like some of the rhetoric, and I don’t think that animals need to have all of the same rights as people. If I’m in the way, then I’d hate to see your response to what the rest of the world thinks about animal rights.

  288. The irony of this argument is that I–and, I strongly suspect, the majority of Feministe readers/commentators–probably agree with Elaine on about 90% of the animal rights issue. For example, I am a vegetarian, though not a vegan, eat only free range eggs, go out of my way to get shoes that don’t contain leather, think Bill “the cat” Frist’s behavior was appalling and either was or should have been criminal, want to protect the habitats of non-human animals, consider killing animals with clear self-awareness to be murder or the next best thing, and have had 3 pets in my life, all of them found or rescue animals (one abandoned puppy, two unneeded lab mice). So why is there so much hostility to her position here?

    One issue, I think, is that the animal rights advocates are tending to let the best be the enemy of the good. By implying that anyone who occasionally eats cheese or even meat might as well be making lampshades of baby skins, they alienate a lot of potential “moderate” supporters. I know there’s always a debate about how much to compromise on any given issue in order to make the “moderates” feel comfortable, but I feel that the AR movement, as expressed by its defenders here, are going too far in insisting on nothing less than total agreement. Too close to “you’re either with us or with the terrorists” for my taste.

    Another issue is that, frankly, many of the AR supporters posting here don’t seem to know very much about non-human animals. There are examples of war, rape, infanticide, murder, and any other crime you could name to be found in non-humans. Not to mention insoluble ethical dilemmas: either the predator goes hungry or the prey gets eaten and there’s no way around that for strict carnivores such as cats. If you don’t understand and respect how animals really are, how can you help them?

    Radical online arguments where everyone gets more and more polarized are all fine fun, but may I suggest that when doing advocacy work in the real world, it might be best to tone it down a little?

  289. Zuzu said:

    “And the privilege pointed out has been the privilege of people who make comparisons of blacks, Jews or the disabled to animals to declare that it can’t possibly be offensive, because animals are just like people! It’s the privilege of not having to think about what those comparisons mean to the groups being compared, both historically and currently.”

    I could not agree more. I am a fan of this site and of your writing, Zuzu. However, ever since you started writing about this controversy and other people’s privilege leading them to trivialize the concerns of historically oppressed groups, I find myself troubled as I remember what I perceived to be dismissive comments on your part on the Pandagon thread about Amanda’s book cover featuring an anthropomorphized gorilla carrying a white woman. It seemed you were quick to categorize the voices of the concerned as a *deafening din* that won’t let you (the supposed offender / person blinded by privilege) *win* no matter what choice you make. If I misunderstood the tone or tenor of your comments there (and they were few, and short, and vague, so it’s entirely possible I did), please set me straight. Otherwise, I am sad to say I am having a hard time trusting your POV when it comes to calling out white privilege. Which needs to be called out consistently. Even when it’s our friends. But this is most definitely a digression from the thread topic, rest assured I realize that.

  290. find myself troubled as I remember what I perceived to be dismissive comments on your part on the Pandagon thread about Amanda’s book cover featuring an anthropomorphized gorilla carrying a white woman. It seemed you were quick to categorize the voices of the concerned as a *deafening din* that won’t let you (the supposed offender / person blinded by privilege) *win* no matter what choice you make. If I misunderstood the tone or tenor of your comments there (and they were few, and short, and vague, so it’s entirely possible I did), please set me straight.

    Yes, they were few, short, and vague, and you are reading a lot into them.

    Shitstorms tend to be deafening because they have a high signal-to-noise ratio. There are always people in a discussion like that (or like this) who have valid points, and there are always people who just want to take swings at a high-traffic blogger. Even if you address the valid points, there’s no way to win, because the people taking swings will never be satisfied, and will simply shift the goalposts.

    Not to mention, these wars are just plain tiresome.

    For a fuller explanation of the dynamics that make these things blow up, see my comments in Nanette’s “Benefit of the Doubt” guest-post here.

  291. I know I said I’d go, but you all know how hard that is.

    Thanks Jill for your moderate and soothing tone — like I said, I “went off” given the joke, and I’m sure that doesn’t help my case and isn’t pretty. Yours was one joke in a sea of other comments (although there was plenty of riffing on that and other similar moments of levity). But that doesn’t make it right, or even defensible. A weak moment, maybe, but you haven’t given any reason to think it was other than a shot below the belt. I anyway have expressed real regret that I don’t know of ways to raise consciousness about animal issues that people (including people here) are all too eager to divert their attention from without making such comparisons. But I haven’t ever as far as I recall made the comparisons light-heartedly and asked people who disagree with me to recognize how funny the comparisons were. I think it was telling me in boldface type what the point of the whole “effing” post was that probably gave me the idea you were exercising power as “the man,” although I could have authority issues too.

    I really will look forward to your writing, I do find you really insightful on a huge range of issues. But think of King’s Letter (which I mentioned above). The moderates he was addressing were also substantially to the left of their compatriots at the time. And guess what, they were still an obstacle to change. In fact I don’t think your views are substantively all that different from most peoples’ so I doubt that I disagree more with most than I do with you. It’s the rare sociopath indeed who doesn’t like animals, want them well cared for, who isn’t made uncomfortable by overpopulation problems and factory farming, etc. Your views here aren’t, unless I’ve missed something, outside the mainstream. There are lots of moderates out there who wish things were better but who also vociferously object and nit pick and divert attention from the arguments whenever (as happens quite rarely) there’s a forum to discuss such issues in any depth. You’re right of course that what count as diversions depends on some starting assumptions. Nevertheless, feminists should be familiar with (and frustrated by) this dynamic, I would think.

    Brooklynite,

    I am tired, emotionally, from this, so it’ll have to be short. hat’s the specific worry about autonomy? I think the central issue (as I see it) is that there is no fundamental differences in treatment or status justified by the fact that companion animals aren’t autonomous (since we’ve bred them for captivity) and never will be while children (and some, not all, of the disabled) are just temporarily in that state. We can, I think, justifyably act in the interest of the dependent. The problem that’s been the focus here is not caring for them, which is fine, it’s trying to provide that care in a system of property rights. This raises systematic problems in that it sets up inevitable trade offs between their status as property on the one hand and their status as sentient beings deserving of respect and care on the other. On another issue you mentioned earlier, if there weren’t adoption systems set up I would think it would be perfectly appropriate to take care of human orphans “unilaterally” just as I’m not terribly bothered by our doing so “unilaterally” now with strays.

    Does that help? Like Elaine has said, no single one of us can take responsibility for trying to address all the 143 issues that have been raised. I can report that they really have tended to be pretty elementary, quite familiar, and well discussed among people who think about animal issues more frequently. This hasn’t been a forum for ground-breaking challenges to animal welfare arguments — which isn’t to criticize it, just to state the facts. And the arguments tend not to be “fundamentalist” — far from it. Most people share the beliefs that generate animal welfare arguments. The problem isn’t that we start with fundamentally different beliefs, it’s that our socialization convinces most of us that there’s no real issue here so we don’t have, ever, to think about it very deeply or sympathetically. It’s the kind of issue that it’s culturally safe to dismiss not because the contrary arguments are so strong but because we make it so easy to not to take it seriously. I hope you are interested enough to seek more information. This stuff really is discussed in nuanced ways in various well known sources like Peter Singer’s work, or Tom Regans, or Mylan Engel’s, or Gary Francione’s, or… Elaine’s? There’s a lot that’s good there that’s well worth approaching with an open mind.

  292. You’re right too that the fact that Monty is well cared for shows the absurdity of thinking there’s any real comparisons to be made with slavery — I forgot what a devastating objection it is show that some women like submission to men and don’t want abortions — those facts do after all decisively establish that we don’t need systematic gender change and legitimize light hearted exercises of privilege to belittle feminists. Silly me for thinking people here got the difference between individual and institutionalized systems of oppression.

    Several people posting here have pointed out that turning their animals out into the street to live free! free from human oppression! free from the whims of their jackbooted masters!, results instead in those same animals crying outside the front porch and scratching at the door, wanting to be let back inside for the comfort of daily food and water, warm blankets and laps, and scratches behind the ears.

    Meanwhile, removing discriminatory laws that prevented women and others of color from obtaining equal education, housing, job opportunities, etc. results in those same folks bum-rushing the joint to take advantage of all the rights and opportunities denied us for so long. We have no desire for our previous oppression. Period.

    Now can you understand why comparisons with animals are offensive? That humans can and do experience oppression, and animals don’t?

    Also, one of the AR arguments is that the keeping and/or controlling and/or use of animals and their products (eggs, milk, honey, etc.) has a direct bearing on how human beings treat other human beings—that racism, sexism, etc. stem from the original “othering” of animals. Yet archeological evidence at Catal Huyuk shows a society that had no evidence of sexism, racism, or human aggression, despite their “oppressive” practices of farming and hunting. There are many more examples; I mention that one because of its general familiarity to feminists. Try again on the origins of human oppression. (Hint: does the word “monotheism” ring any bells? Father God?)

    And the idea that industrialization means humans no longer have to rely on animals for food or labor. Please. Industrialization is not sustainable. I’ve been told by AR folks that my use of a wool blanket and down comforter on my bed at night contribute to the greater cruelty and destruction of the earth and its creatures. Why would I want to do that, when I could substitute a blanket made from recycled plastic soda containers to keep me warm? The idea that the continued production and use of plastic soda containers being actually more destructive to the earth isn’t taken as a serious concern (and neither is the fact that the damn blankets made from such aren’t warm enough for subzero temps—wool and down are. Which means the lower thermostat setting=lower bills=less use of limited resources=healthier planet). I’m having a really hard time visualizing how a wool blanket is “cruel”, yet the production of dioxin is “cruelty free.”

    Humans did not evolve separately from the rest of the planet. Our continued use of animals for food and labor is eminently more sustainable than the use of petroleum products for farming and transportation. The way things are going, I’m thinking our near descendants are going to be living closer to the earth than we are, and will be living without much of the techology we currently take for granted. Now, are there long-lived human societies that are vegetarian? Yes. And some of them are even vegan. Are any of those societies situated in a climate with a frost line? No. No, they aren’t. And since we can’t all fit on the scraps of arable land in climates with a year-round growing season, doesn’t it make more sense to follow a climate-specific food chain?

  293. La lubu,

    ….Now can you understand why comparisons with animals are offensive? That humans can and do experience oppression, and animals don’t?

    Well, yes and no. As I’ve acknowledged, I think the comparisons deserve sensitivity but I don’t think they’re off limits and I don’t think that peoples’ sensibilities on the subject matter finally settle the matter. So yes.

    But no, that doesn’t help me understand because you clearly aren’t familiar with the case-law and all the various ways and times in which companion animals (and other animals) find their fundamental interests subverted by their status as property (I gave some links above if you’re interested). Their not being able to comprehend their status as property (or not) doesn’t prevent them from understanding full well the impact of the abuse they suffer as a result of their status as property.

    So no, you haven’t helped me see what’s fundamentally mistaken about the comparisons. Fundamental interests are systematically undermined by both slavery and by property rights in animals despite differences and despite the real need to be sensitive about how such points are made. I’m sorry if I’m fallible in my sensitivity here, but I also genuinely think it isn’t possible to do this kind of consciousness raising while keeping peoples’ sensibilities perfectly in tact. Moral change is hard and difficult and painful and that isn’t a problem that has anything special to do with these comparisons.

  294. Their not being able to comprehend their status as property (or not) doesn’t prevent them from understanding full well the impact of the abuse they suffer as a result of their status as property.

    You’re again missing the point. If an animal is well-fed, well-housed, has medical care when needed, and is not beaten or mistreated—that animal is not being abused. Conversely, a human can be fed, housed, etc., not be beaten—yet still be abused. We experience abuse through limitations of our human potential, even if we aren’t being beaten or “mistreated”. It is a mistreatment to prohibit a person from holding a job or obtaining an education because of an arbitrary assumption about his/her “race” or gender. It is a form of abuse to prohibit humans from having free association with one another. In fact, we use this as a punishment—it’s called prison.

    Animals can experience pain. They cannot experience oppression. Explain to me how animal ownership is, in and of itself, abuse.

  295. Sorry, I hate to harp on this, as the issue has now rightly become Elaine’s appropriation of other people’s suffering, but the original issue was Jessica adopting from a breeder, the point being that by not adopting from a shelter, Jessica is responsible for the death of the hypothetical dog she did not adopt. So, just to be clear, by choosing to live where I live, in the cheapest apartment I could find, I am also responsible for the death of the hypothetical animal I did not adopt because I live in an apartment that does not allow pets. I could, theoretically, have found a more expensive apartment that allowed pets, and then adopted, but I selfishly looked at my income and decided that I didn’t want to go into debt. And the cost is the blood of a shelter dog I could have adopted on my hands.

    Also, I’m a cat person, so if I would have selfishly adopted a cat because of my gross prejudice against dogs, I also would, according to Elaine’s logic, been guilty of one dog murder.

    I’m sorry, but non sequitur doesn’t even cover it.

  296. “that isn’t a problem that has anything special to do with these comparisons.”

    And just accidentally the people who get stomped on are people of color, women, fat people, and other oppressed minorities. That’s got nothing to do with historical oppression that makes those groups vulnerable. It’s just totally accidental that the PETA campaigns don’t aim their rhetoric at white dudes.

  297. La Lubu, I really like what you have to say. Not just on this topic, I mean, but whenever I have read your comments I’ve thought “yes! great! exactly!”

    So, thank you!

  298. ” Yet archeological evidence at Catal Huyuk shows a society that had no evidence of sexism, racism, or human aggression, despite their “oppressive” practices of farming and hunting. There are many more examples; I mention that one because of its general familiarity to feminists. Try again on the origins of human oppression. (Hint: does the word “monotheism” ring any bells? Father God?)”

    Polytheistic religions can support sexism and racism, as can other types of religion that doesn’t worship a god per se. Confucianism’s all about reinforcing a hierarchy that doesn’t venerate women, and it’s got nothing to do with ol’ Jehovah.

    Also, I think Huyuk’s conclusions that her society had no racism or sexism are controversial. Even the most egalitarian of societies we know about did actually have subtle ticks in the sexist direction.

  299. Well, yes and no. As I’ve acknowledged, I think the comparisons deserve sensitivity but I don’t think they’re off limits and I don’t think that peoples’ sensibilities on the subject matter finally settle the matter. So yes.

    But sensitivity is not being exercised when human beings are being compared to animals. How is any level of sensitivity being exercised when pictures of Jewish prisoners (some still alive, who objected to the use of their portraits) are set side by side next to the non-kosher pigs, with the idea that the keeping of animals for meat is like the keeping of humans for medical experimentation and genocide? How is that possibly bringing anything to the table? Equating the capacity and potential of human beings with the capacity and potential of livestock? How is any level of sensitivity being exercised when sides of beef are displayed next to the dead bodies of African-Americans, as if to say that the deaths of those people made the same contribution to humanity as the slabs of beef did?

    Because you can dress that up any way you like, saying that “oh, that isn’t what’s being displayed!! The death of a cow is just as horrible as the death of a human!! That’s what is being displayed.” And in reality, that isn’t how it is being perceived, and the people making those comparisons know it. Know it, and don’t care.

    When you say “I don’t think that peoples’ sensibilities on the subject matter finally settle the matter” I hear “I don’t think the sensibilities of the people whose images are being used for the ends of the animals rights movement matter. The ends of the AR movement matter more than the lives, histories, and experiences of the people whose images are being used.”

  300. While you stress that these are Elaine’s viewpoints only, the thing is this sort of stuff is way too common among animal rights people. I wish all of these people would go out in the wild and pet some grizzlies and make friends with them.

  302. What point did I miss? You’re working from a quote by me where my point was to distinguish between institutionalized/systematic oppression and individual treatment (which may be perfectly good). You don’t address that as far as I can tell.

    Instead you point to a difference what animals and humans can understand about their plight and use that to argue that only one — humans — have a plight to understand. I sorry if this seems obtuse, but that just seems not to follow or even be suggested. A being’s not understanding the system of abuse that abuses members of their kind and so subjects them to risks in no way undermines the idea that they’re living (even if in blissful ignorance) under a system that fails to respect them as the kinds of things they are. They suffer — they suffer risks if nothing else. And that’s enough although plenty of animals suffer much more directly. They cannot experience oppression as oppression, but that doesn’t mean they cannot experience the oppression, i.e., the all too real consequences of their being property, or that they cannot be oppressed.

  303. RC, we disagree on one fundamental question — whether the denial of autonomy is central to, or peripheral to, the institution of slavery.

    You object to property in animals because when animals are made into property their interests are compromised. You see slavery through the same lens. For you, autonomy is just one of many interests that a person or an animal may have.

    For me, however, the denial of autonomy is essential to the concept of enslavement. It is possible to enslave a person who is incapable of autonomous action, but the institution of slavery is, at its heart, not a mechanism for the enslavement of such persons. It is, first and foremost, “about” the denial of a right to autonomy that all of us, as humans, share — a right that you do not claim for domesticated animals.

    And I do think that the difference between our analyses reflects a difference in perspective — you look at slavery primarily from the perspective of the wrong done by the slaveowner, and I look at it primarily from the perspective of the wrong done to the slave. As La Lubu said, the wrong done to an animal that is well-treated under a system of ownership is theoretical — it’s a threat of possible wrong. The wrong done to a human who is enslaved is material and immediate. It’s an ongoing, ever-present violation.

  304. “Mandolin as someone who was until very recently dirt poor, I ate meat once a week. The rest of the time it was rice and beans, with some cheese on it if I was lucky. Where I live anyway, rice and beans are the cheapest protein source.”

    Rich,

    That’s nice — I mean, whatever. But the experiences of other poor people in the country don’t match up to yours. At the moment, the expectation that everyone will be able to maintain a vegan lifestyle has fucked up implications for poor people, just as the expectation that one has an individual responsibility to improve one’s diet to avoid harmful corporate additives is an expectation that has fucked up implications for poor people.

    If your argument is that America should use its class advantage which does allow for the growth of enough protein-rich sources to support everyone, in order to help everyone* become vegan — then I may disagree with your argument, but I think it’s a fine & interesting thing to argue for. But if you’re just saying that everyone has the ability to become vegan rightnowthissecond, then I’m not.

    *except those with the medical disorders earlier under discussion

  305. RC, the “consequences” of them being property are not necessarily under the umbrella of “oppression”, though. Abuse is, but that is a clearly definable aspect of their existence. Merely coming from a breeder does not equate to abuse, neither does being comfortably transported in a cargo hold. The environment to which they are exposed does matter in detailing abuse, but the simple fact of being in a cargo hold does not equate to abuse. The circumstances must be looked at and judged for what they are. Abusive breeders must be stopped, but merely adopting from a breeder is not abuse. Feeding your dog, loving and caring for your dog doesn’t equate to abuse. Saying that you “own” that dog does not change the way you treat that dog. The way you treat them speaks for itself.

  307. the expectation that everyone will be able to maintain a vegan lifestyle has fucked up implications for poor people

    Dried beans, rice, and potatoes are inexpensive. Dried beans are one of the most economical protein sources. Pound for pound, dried beans are much less expensive than meat, poultry, or fish.

    I honestly don’t know where this assumption that veganism is expensive comes from, but it’s just plain wrong. Even MSN Money agrees that veganism is cheaper. That’s why the majority of the world’s population relies on non-animal protein for the majority of their diet.

    being in a cargo hold does not equate to abuse

    The ASPCA does not agree. They say

    “Unless your animal is small enough to fit under your seat and you can bring him or her in the cabin, the ASPCA recommends pet owners to not fly their animal,”

    The cargo hold often gets too hot or too cramped for animals. And the cargo handlers often do not handle pet carriers with care. Just think of how often your luggage goes missing or gets scratched or damaged. The same thing happens to pets in cargo holds. If you wouldn’t check your laptop or your camera, you shouldn’t check your cat or dog.

  308. And the idea that industrialization means humans no longer have to rely on animals for food or labor. Please. Industrialization is not sustainable. I’ve been told by AR folks that my use of a wool blanket and down comforter on my bed at night contribute to the greater cruelty and destruction of the earth and its creatures. Why would I want to do that, when I could substitute a blanket made from recycled plastic soda containers to keep me warm? The idea that the continued production and use of plastic soda containers being actually more destructive to the earth isn’t taken as a serious concern (and neither is the fact that the damn blankets made from such aren’t warm enough for subzero temps—wool and down are. Which means the lower thermostat setting=lower bills=less use of limited resources=healthier planet). I’m having a really hard time visualizing how a wool blanket is “cruel”, yet the production of dioxin is “cruelty free.”

    THANK you, LaLubu.

  309. “Even MSN Money agrees that veganism is cheaper.”

    MSN Money is saying vegetarianism is cheaper. Vegetarianism != veganism. Avoiding animal products entirely (no eggs, no dairy, nothing with eggs or dairy as ingredients…) is a lot more expensive and time-consuming, particularly for a whole family, than just getting protein you’d normally get from meat from non-meat sources instead.

    MSN Money is also factoring in things like vegetarian-diet-induced weight-loss translating into cheaper private health insurance, which is kind of stretching things if you’re talking about the segment of the populace too poor to afford that physical and blood profile to be sure they’re healthy, let alone to impress a life insurance agent with their unlikelihood of dying.

  310. If you wouldn’t check your laptop or your camera, you shouldn’t check your cat or dog.

    But I would, and have. Poor example. You mean, “would I check my 6-year old cousin”, which I can’t.

    I’m not saying that it is something that I would do for my hypothetical dog or cat, and before I did so, i would check that steps had been taken by the airline to make sure a comfortable environment exists in-flight for said animal in the cargo hold. You are, however, implying you have information that, in the instance in question, adequate steps have not been taken. The ASPCA may recommend that pets not be flown, but that, as far as I’m aware, is not a statement that it is equal to abuse. Do you have evidence that Monty suffered abuse while in the cargo hold of the airplane that shipped him to Jessica? Please elaborate.

  311. Ugh. I’m really starting to see why Elaine stalked off in disgust. It’s just impossible to go through and argue with everything that needs arguing with unless you’re prepared to devote your whole life to the discussion. And, for whatever this says about my commitment to animal rights, I guess I’m not. I spent my entire day yesterday on this while neglecting my other responsibilities, and I just don’t have the energy for it anymore.

    The only last thing I want to say is, I wish I’d never had to see feminists play the same cards that have been played against us so many times, you know, “Don’t we all have more pressing concerns than the mistreatment of this totally unimportant group that doesn’t include me?” and, “But I’m nice to members of the mistreated group!” and, “Other groups have it worse, so why aren’t we talking about them instead?”.

    It’s just… it makes me feel almost physically sick. I really wanted to think better of the people here than that, that y’all would be able to recognize the way you’re echoing the same people you often fight against and try to stop doing it. But I guess it was too much to hope for. As someone earlier said, I’ll still read here for the feminist discussion, but this has left a pretty nasty taste in my mouth, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to enjoy it as much as I used to.

    Back to radio silence for me.

  312. Anne, I’m sorry you feel that way. For the record, I think that you’re right — a lot of unfair arguments have been trotted out, arguments that feminists wouldn’t accept if they were leveled against us. That’s a fair critique. But I think a lot of very good arguments have been brought out too, and I haven’t seen them answered. I think it comes down to a fundamental ideological disconnect, and I’m not sure how we can bridge that. Either way, I really do appreciate you (and Elaine and others) putting yourselves out there in this conversation. I know you were doing it in a hostile space, and I know it took courage. I don’t agree with everything you had to say, but I appreciate you having the patience and the generosity to say it. I hope you will stick around for the feminist discussions, even if we don’t agree exactly on how feminism and animal rights connect.

  313. “Don’t we all have more pressing concerns than the mistreatment of this totally unimportant group that doesn’t include me?” and, “But I’m nice to members of the mistreated group!” and, “Other groups have it worse, so why aren’t we talking about them instead?”.

    Yep, that’s exactly what people have been saying. Paraphrasing is an art, isn’t it? *smile* *nod*

    I really wanted to think better of the people here than that, that y’all would be able to recognize the way you’re echoing the same people you often fight against and try to stop doing it.

    Wow, really? Because I thought appropriating this to equate it to this is just morally and logically repugnant. My bad.

  314. the expectation that everyone will be able to maintain a vegan lifestyle has fucked up implications for poor people

    Dried beans, rice, and potatoes are inexpensive. Dried beans are one of the most economical protein sources. Pound for pound, dried beans are much less expensive than meat, poultry, or fish.

    I honestly don’t know where this assumption that veganism is expensive comes from, but it’s just plain wrong.

    You’re envisioning a person who cooks all of his or her own meals, which not everyone has the option of doing. A single vegan meal, prepared at home, may well be cheaper than a non-vegan meal, but that doesn’t mean that it’s always cheaper for someone who works full-time to “maintain a vegan lifestyle” than not.

    I don’t have a strong sense of the economics or logistics of a vegan diet, but I do know that in general it’s often far easier for the middle class to economize on food costs than it is for the working poor, and a diet that requires one to be picky about ingredient lists and cook a lot of stuff from scratch strikes me as one that’s likely to incorporate some of those difficulties.

  317. The only last thing I want to say is, I wish I’d never had to see feminists play the same cards that have been played against us so many times, you know, “Don’t we all have more pressing concerns than the mistreatment of this totally unimportant group that doesn’t include me?” and, “But I’m nice to members of the mistreated group!” and, “Other groups have it worse, so why aren’t we talking about them instead?”.

    It’s just… it makes me feel almost physically sick. I really wanted to think better of the people here than that, that y’all would be able to recognize the way you’re echoing the same people you often fight against and try to stop doing it.

    Ok, I’ve been in lurker mode for awhile but I really have to take issue with this argument. Its a good one, an argument likely to gain sympathy and be taken without challenge (especially here). The problem is that, as interesting an argument as it is, it isn’t true.

    You feel passionately that animals and human are equal being and worthy of the same rights, but that is not a universally accepted point of view. It isn’t even a common one. It is a point of view which is held by a relatively small minority and is not enshrined in either law or tradition in this culture. If you want non-human animals to be on the same footing as human animals you must prove that they are worthy of the same rights. You cannot simply wave a magic wand and start the argument from the most advantageous position. You might not like that a lot of people view animals as inferior (and thus disregard your position as ridiculous) but you need to convince them otherwise.

    The difference between the women’s rights, civil rights, or gay rights movements and the animal rights movement is that you’re starting from a much more serious disadvantage while having to have the entire battle fought by proxy. The animal rights movement cannot ever have a Malcolm X or a Reverend King. It cannot have an analog to any of the dozens of books written by women on the subject of feminism. Animals simply cannot have a Stonewall riot or a pride parade.

  318. Brooklynite I think I can speak to this, as it’s something I have personally experienced. When you have $5 for the next week, McDonalds is not a cost effective option. Provided you’re able to pay the electricity bill, cooking your own shit is way cheaper than any kind of fast/processed food. It’s not as tasty, and you’ll find yourself desperately wanting to splurge on a bag of Lays every once in a while, but it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.

    Rice/beans is the cheapest kind of food because it gains volume in the cooking. Meat loses volume. So you get mo’ belly full from rice and beans. Water is AFAIK cheaper everywhere than meat. I’m not 100% sure: there might be somewhere on the planet that meat is actually cheaper than water.

    Someone above made a point about vegetarianism being cheap, while veganism, not so much. I think that’s true, because as a vegan you have to be so picky. I was a mostly-vegetarian because I was forced to, as a result of being so damn poor. It’s not that I didn’t want to buy meat. I just couldn’t afford it. This is just my personal experience. I also live in HI, where milk is $6/gallon, so maybe it’s different in other places?

  319. I’m not 100% sure: there might be somewhere on the planet that meat is actually cheaper than water.

    I want to point out that I’m not being facetious. With droughts and whatnot I can seriously imagine a time when meat might become cheaper than water.

  320. The only last thing I want to say is, I wish I’d never had to see feminists play the same cards that have been played against us so many times, you know, “Don’t we all have more pressing concerns than the mistreatment of this totally unimportant group that doesn’t include me?” and, “But I’m nice to members of the mistreated group!” and, “Other groups have it worse, so why aren’t we talking about them instead?”.

    I don’t disagree, but one thing that I see going on on the “other side” is a lot of apparent ignorance of the entities that they obstensibly want to help.

    Consider a western feminist who comes into an Islamic country which has serious sexism and, among other things, requires women to wear chardors or burkas. If she simply went about saying, “throw off your burkas and be free!” would she be helping them? What if she managed to get a law passed banning the wearing of burkas and then declared victory and went home. Never mind that women in the country still face a serious lack of basic education, health care, and sanitation, that even fewer now hold jobs or even leave the house regularly because of fear of being raped, etc. Would she have helped? Saying “no” does not mean that you think that requiring women to wear burkas is just fine.

    Similarly, if we simply say, “pets are slaves” and “liberate” all pets, then we would simply end up with a bunch of animals on the streets, unable to understand why their beloved people had abandoned them, and mostly unable to cope with life. Many would starve, others would become feral and attack people. Would this be helpful? Frankly, I’m not sure that any domesticated animal can be “liberated” in any way that is fair to the animal. I would love to see the meat industry shrink. I try my best to encourage better treatment of domesticated animals by, for example, insisting on free range eggs when I eat eggs. I wish someone would market “cruelty free cheese” that is made by cows that keep their calves with them and humans simply take the excess milk that the calves don’t need. Leather is icky in my opinion. Wool, on the other hand, is not. Sheep are sheered at the end of winter, when the weather is warm enough that they need to have lighter coats or they will get overheated anyway. In return for the wool they don’t really need at the time anyway, they receive food, shelter, and safety. I don’t see the problem. Especially since every field of sheep I’ve seen (admittedly few) looks like something the sheep could escape if they so desired. Is it slavery if the “slaves” enjoy their lot in life and want to remain in their current condition or simply symbiosis?

  321. Provided you’re able to pay the electricity bill, cooking your own shit is way cheaper than any kind of fast/processed food.

    Well, that and providing you have a kitchen, utensils for cooking, and a refrigerator. Not universally true. Also provided you have a supermarket or Tante Emma Laden near enough to reasonably be able to shop there–which many poor people don’t since McDonalds et al are more likely to take a risk on a poor neighborhood than supermarkets. And provided that you have time to do the cooking. People who have 3 jobs and work 110+ hours a week may not have the time or energy to cook. Oh, yes, and provided you have a safe source of water. Also not universally true, not even in the US. The experience of people who live in grinding, multi-generational poverty is different from that of those who are temporarily out of cash because they have lost their job but still have resources.

  322. One other thought before I stop talking to myself…If there is no moral difference between a jellyfish and a person because the difference in the ability of each to suffer is of extent rather than kind, what about simulations? If I understand correctly, (and anyone who knows more about computer simulations than I should feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), the most powerful computers now have the intelligence level (loosely defined) of a fish and reasonably good simulations of insects can be produced relatively simply. Insect simulations that can do what real insects can do, including avoiding getting squashed, presumably because they receive some sort of negative stimulus when they are in danger of being squashed–call it fear, pain, instinct, programing, or whatever. So, is it lifeist or kingdomist to not consider the rights of a fully accurate roach simulation to be equal to those of a roach? This may be relatively unimportant now, as all but the most radical AR activists draw the line at insects, but what about in the future when vertebrates and advanced invertebrates (i.e. squid, octopi) can be accurately simulated? Would it be more moral to turn off a simulated squid or mouse and junk the computer than to kill a real squid or mouse? And if so, why?

  323. Coupla points:

    1) Vegan diets require a lot of planning and the ability to cook for oneself. I’ve been trying to go vegan for a while, but I find it difficult when I don’t have time to cook a week’s meals on the weekend. It’s easy enough to find vegetarian options, but vegan protein sources are a little thin on the ground. And I work in Manhattan.

    2) All that freedom didn’t work out so well for the pets left behind after Katrina.

Comments are currently closed.