Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Annie C.
Santa Barbara, CA
Recent Activity
-
Annie commented on the article |I agree with the sentiment of Jen's letter and as a pretty hard-core animal rights advocate AND feminist, I have always been uncomfortable with PETA's use of women as sex objects to further the liberation of animals. It would be interesting to know where the animal rights movement would be without media sensationalism and in particular the use of sexuality and objectification to 'sell' their ideas. I'm sure there are other members who'd have more information on that than I do. Regardless, as movements grow and evolve, I think it's really important to hold ourselves to the same standards we'd hold other movements. If feminists were abusing animals to get their point across, I'm sure animal rights activists would have an issue with that. And if PETA were using pornographic images of children to promote vegetarianism, I think EVERYONE would have issues with that. Whether a child, a grown woman, a black person, a baboon, or a cow, I believe we all have intrinsic value and the right to be respected and free of exploitation and suffering. One could argue that the women in these ads have a voice and a choice, unlike the millions of animals who may be spared a lifetime of extreme suffering if PETA 'stoops' to the level of using 'sex' (or rather, using 'women') to sell vegetarianism and it works. I can see some validity in that argument. I can also see validity in the argument that the means by which we strive to achieve goals of liberation, non-violence, compassion and justice should themselves be based on principles of compassion and justice. How can the exploitation of a few women be justified as a means to liberating millions of animals without the very same type of utilitarian argument that is used to justify (usually falsely, but nonetheless) animal experimentation?
The over sexualization of women in our culture is a deeply rooted issue that effects men and women alike. I don't really have any stats to back this up, and I'm not saying this applies to the models in this proposed Superbowl add, but I believe it's true that there is a very HIGH incidence of a history of sexual abuse/trauma amongst women in the business of selling their bodies. And I truly believe that growing up in a culture which does objectify women and teaches girls that their bodies are commodities (you're a prude if you DON'T give it up and a whore if you DO), is a subtle and covert form of massive sexual violation of women. And this is NOT to say that men aren't sucked into this dysfunctional system in another, equally abusive way, but women just happen to be the topic of this post. So in a way the claim that these women 'had a choice to do this add,' although in this particular case that may be true and all of these women may have had an extremely healthy, nurturing childhood and an opportunity to develop their own ideas about their bodies and their sexuality based on love and respect for themselves (unlikely, but possible) . . . the claim is, in my view, a reflection of the widespread attitude that women who treat themselves or present themselves as commodities are doing so by choice. Some are, and I'm not trying to criticize sexual freedom . . . I'm just trying to bring up the link between sexual abuse and a proclivity towards 'promiscuity,' 'self-objectification,' and selling one's body. We are a 'sexually liberated,' society, but there is an immense undercurrent of extremely abusive and unhealthy sexuality in our culture as well, and perhaps the 'accepted' pornographic tide on the surface, which surrounds us in the media, is connected to that. And not to mention, what do ads like this one do for the body image and self esteem of the millions of young girls who will see them while they sit next to their Dads and brothers and watch them drool over the women in this add and then the burgers in the next add.
I think we need to think about future generations when we're having these discussions. Bottom line, this is A LOT more complicated than a lot of people make it out to be. It's not black and white, it's not us versus them. We have to get out of that simplistic paradigm. The exploitation of children, animals, women, people of color, and ALL minorities is intimately and dangerously connected. I hope that animal rights activists and feminists will start to work together more and more and see how interdependent their movements are, rather than working against each other. On that note I have to mention that my one opposition to Jen's letter is the rhetoric of "you have to stop using sex to sell your vegetables." Just as PETA's add debases and minimizes women's rights, I feel that this language (and as all of us should know by now, language is a HUGE deal) debases and minimizes the goal of the animal rights movement (or movements). NO, PETA does not represent MANY animal rights activists (including myself), but MANY anti or non animal rights activists do associate the movement with PETA. The message of this add is to 'go veg.' As I've already made clear I do not agree that objectifying and exploiting one group to protect and defend another group is ethical, and that is exactly what this add does, but I do believe very strongly in the message 'go veg,' and I think that to ask PETA to stop using sex (aren't we really asking them to stop using women?) to "sell vegetables," is offensive to serious animal rights activists who do promote the 'go veg' message, but perhaps not in the same way that PETA does. Promoting vegetarianism or veganism is not about selling vegetables, it's about promoting a non-violent, compassionate way of life which includes animals in our ethical consideration as beings who have an intrinsic right to be free of brutality, torture and oppression. It's about a lot more than selling veggies. That's like saying 'stop using sex to sell women's business suits,' as if the fight for equal pay for women in the workplace is about selling a product. And granted, PETA's add ITSELF minimizes vegetarianism in this add by saying 'vegetarians have better sex' and featuring women in lingerie draping themselves with asparagus and broccoli. But I think that as serious activists we should be about rising above that which takes away from our cause or any other cause, not feeding right into it.
This issue of 'do the means justify the ends' is really an age-old ethical argument that I'm touching on I guess. I support non-violent civil disobedience and direct action completely. I support protest. I also think that it's important for me personally to not lose sight of my own values when I take action for animals. Do I think that animals are happy to be spared torture and suffering, yes. Do I think they'd hope we'd do it be hurting each other, no. Do I think that objectifying women hurts them, yes I do. Really, the point is that this stuff isn't simple! I really hope that we can all start seeing how complex all of these issues are, and keep working together towards justice rather than fighting amongst ourselves while people and animals alike suffer and die. And just a quick side note, vegetarianism/veganism is a human rights issue even if you don't believe that animal liberation and human liberation go hand in hand, as I do . . . it's about the right of human beings to a future in which our environment can sustain life (animal agriculture - global warming, resource depletion connection). And for PETA activists and animal rights activists who perhaps realistically believe that we can't achieve anything in the fight for animals WITHOUT using women and sex in the media, perhaps it has worked, but it's time to imagine a future where we can reach people without sacrificing our values and ourselves (because to exploit one woman is to exploit all women). Thanks for listening. :) -
Annie signed the petition | -
Annie signed the petition | -
Annie commented on the article |And I hadn't seen Lisa or Stephanie's responses when I was writing mine. Funny that we all jumped on that one and all said very similar things.
-
Annie commented on the article |
. . . and if you don't support the philosophies and strategies of the Black Panthers, the ACLU, and MLK Jr., all at the same time, since they're all the same thing, then don't identify yourself as a civil rights advocate.
. . . and if you don't support the World Wildlife Fund, don't identify yourself as a wildlife defender.
. . . and if you don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, as the Bible states, then don't identify as a Christian.
Huh?
Maybe I'm taking Cynthia's post the wrong way, but my impression is that she's saying that PETA and HSUS (which have completely different philosophies and strategies actually) represent THE philosophies and strategies of "THE AR movement," whatever that is. I actually do not identify with either HSUS or PETA, which are the largest, most prominent organizations representing the 'animal welfare movement,' and the 'animal rights movement' respectively. However, I reserve the right to identify as someone who advocates for the rights of animals. Call me crazy. Oh, wait, that's been done.
This is absurd. If I'm wrong, perhaps a response that contains more than ill-founded rhetoric is in order? -
Annie commented on the article |
I just wanted to thank Stephanie for this article, and although many of the comments have gone off track (and I apologize if that includes mine) I think it's a testament to how important animal rights has become to so many people. The article was about the attacks on animal rights activists that indeed have become tiresome, and we had many examples of them in these comments. The vehement attacks on animal rights activists and veganism, many times unfounded, uninformed and with little actual evidence to back them, are a sign that those who defend the rights of all animals on this beautiful planet are gaining serious momentum.
There is a plethora of information in these comments about why animal rights activists do what they do, about the horrors that million of animals face every single day. For FOOD alone, over 50 billion animals are mutilated, tortured and killed every year. If that is not a sign that "We have all been born into a culture that forces us into a mentality of violence, reductionism, disconnectedness, and exclusion, and into daily meal rituals that inject this mentality into our behavior and into every dimension of our thinking," (Dr. Will Tuttle, see comment above) then I don't know what is. And although some of the arguments in favor of humane farming (killing is not humane and no animal, no matter how broken, does not fight for his or her life when threatened with death) are made somewhat respectfully, there is not enough 'pasture,' on this planet, not by a long shot, to humanely raise and kill 50 billion animals a year. The wealthy defend their rights to buy expensive 'humanely' raised meat and dairy while millions of people starve to death every year.
Thank you for all of the information and sources. I have a huge list of books I need to read now. The more educated I become, the stronger my arguments. The stronger my arguments, the more violent the attacks and the threats will become (but I'm the terrorist? See comments above by anti animal rights people). The unfounded, desparate attacks and the crack downs, the imprisonment and the laws which take away our rights to free speech, these are typical of any justice movement which is gaining strenght.
Lastly, I wanted to second Stephanie's concluding statements
"This struggle on behalf of nonhuman animals is about love and compassion and living in a way that is peaceful and just and without contradictions. It's about opening our eyes and hearts to the possibility of a new and better world, new and better not just for the nonhuman animals on this planet, but for us too."
and Dr. Will Tuttle's comments:
"Veganism is not about personal health or purity, it is about ethical living and blessing others. As we bless others, we will be blessed."
Veganism and animal rights in general is about non-violence, love and compassion, about choosing to protest the violent culture which we are all born into. It is about respecting the rights of all to life, liberty and happiness, and thus validating our own rights to these things. A way of life which embraces the rights of all creatures, all earthlings, based in compassion and empathy and doing what's right, will undoubtedly have many far-reaching positive consequences, as we already know that it does. And we will reach more people every day. -
Annie commented on the article |
I read the post by RK in defense of livestock farmers. Although I can't concede that the animals in factory farms are "cared" for in any way, shape or form, not all livestock farmers run factory farms, and again, fearing the wrath of the AR activists I admire, not all livestock farmers are monsters. The use of animals is a long-standing and deeply embedded facet of the modern world, with its roots extending as far back as we can imagine. In no way am I defending animal agriculture here, and I do have a problem with the conception of animals as "stock." That in and of itself is troubling. In my worldview, animals cannot be considered property any more than people can. If you read my other my other posts, you'll see that there is nothing in this world more important to me than animal rights and ending the suffering of as many animals I possibly can in this lifetime, along with challenging the system that exploits animals. I also have compassion for people though. I would like to take the easy road and classify all those who are part of this system as one group of evil-doers, but I feel that I have to grant some consideration to these people as human beings, and try to understand where they are coming from. I know children, for example, who are terrified of dogs because their parents are. From day one they were taught that dogs are dangerous. They no doubt will not develop the same sort of connection to animals that I have. I understand the value of direct action and have taken part in it myself (and I don't mean the underground stuff, which I won't disclose how I feel about because 'you never know who's reading this stuff'). But I also understand the value of seeing the 'other side,' and understanding that everyone has a history. There is something to be said for making change through compassion. If I don't attempt to have some semblance of understanding for people on all 3000 sides of this issue (no I don't believe it's black and white, us vs. them), I don't think I'll get very far. That's personal, because if I see all those who don't agree with me as my enemies, my rage will consume me and I will burn out quickly. Perhaps I'm not as strong as some.
For example, I could very easily see Harry Harlow, the primate researcher who implemented the rape rack, pit of despair, well of despair, and many other torture tools, as the personification of all evil, and at times I do. I tend to think people like him should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives if not receive the death penalty. But during my short life, I've managed to have an understanding and even compassion for those who perpetrate violence against other people, so perhaps I should attempt this for those who perpetrate violence against animals. Here's an example. Imagine a child who is beaten by his mother and repeatedly sexually abuse by his father. Because he is growing up in a system that does not support his healing, he will be left to figure it out for himself. He may grow up and do the same to his children. They, in turn, will do the same to their children, and on and on. It's the cycle of abuse. How do we break that cycle? By imprisoning everybody? I believe that if we have compassion for the victims, in some ways, we need to have compassion for the perpetrators, as most of them were once victims themselves. This does not mean we condone their actions, but how else can we hope to break the cycle if we do not understand it? Certainly locking up all perpetrators is not a viable solution, because we'll run out of space. Imagine how much abuse of the innocent would be prevented if as soon as someone started showing signs, such as torturing and abusing animals as children, we intervened and helped them heal their own wounds? Imagine if we directed public funding towards this instead of towards research on monkeys dedicated towards a 'cure' for depression which involves implanting electrodes in peoples' brains (yes, there are such studies). Imagine if we tried to have compassion for each other. All perpetrators were once children. Harry Harlow was once a child, and he no doubt had a disturbing childhood, given what he grew up to do.
If I treat every meat-eater, vivisectionist and circus trainer as that and nothing else, how I can expect to be treated any differently. I may be vegan, but because I can't afford to buy non-leather shoes from the fair-trade producers, I may buy them from cheaper shoe stores. I know some of them are made in China, likely in a sweatshop. I know that now and again I’ve probably eaten a banana raised on a plantation in South America that at some point caused the displacement of small-scale produce farmers and inevitably led to their death through poverty. There was a time in my life when I had no idea what went on in slaughterhouses and laboratories. There was even a time when I knew, but I turned away from it and kept on living my life as I had. My point is that almost every action we take can be traced back to some injustice. It's the nature of the global economic system. It's the nature of a system which places profit above the wellbeing of people, animals, and the planet, and for all of us to believe that we have no part in this is delusional.
On the same token, not all ‘animal rights activist,’ are delusional lunatics. They do not all believe in closing shelters and killing pets, or taking people’s companion animals away from them. They do not all blindly follow organizations like PETA and HSUS without question. If there’s money to be made, there are people in the world who will take advantage of this, whether they work at the NIH, USDA, Hormel, HSUS or PETA, among others. There are also people who truly care about what they stand for, not as a radical ideology which they want to impose on the rest of the world like a dictator, but who know too much about the suffering of people and animals alike to turn a blind eye anymore. To call people like this lunatics is terribly sad, a sign of how sick our society has become. On the other hand, for people like this to take on a holier-than-though attitude (which I myself have, do and I’m sure will continue to do) as if they do not also leave their mark and contribute to some injustice in some far away land through their actions is also sad. I know this, I know that just by using electricity to power my computer, that I am using energy which is probably coming from fossil fuels and polluting the earth, and creating socio-economic situations half way across the world which are causing wars, and yet I still do it. It’s just important to think critically about things and to see the whole picture, and to stop painting each other as lunatics and monsters, because in my eyes, when I’m feeling sane and not letting my rage overtake me, it’s not about good and evil. -
Annie commented on the article |
Jeremy: I do understand that people need facts and figures. We all come from different environments, families, cultures, histories, etc., and I agree that many people won't respond to an emotional appeal made on behalf of animals. However, I think in our culture 'emotional' has a negative connotation to many. I suppose I felt the need to defend MY OWN reasons for being devoted to this cause, and they stem from my heart first and foremost. But I see your point that this won't reach everyone, and I absolutely agree. And I didn't mean to imply that as an animal rights activist I will be on the street showing videos of lambs being reunited with their mothers while I cry and play the guitar, hoping to change the world. I just really needed to make the point that perhaps we should question our social perception of emotionality as a sign of weakness and something we should shut down or ignore. I assumed from your description of the video as 'emotional sniveling' that you shared this perception, but maybe I was wrong. I know I should never assume anything and I think a lot of us are talking past each other and perhaps misinterpreting some of the comments. That's one of the dangers of having serious conversations through email or texting. But the point is, I was discussing what I think is a much needed shift in the paradigm that governs Western society. We search for answers through scientific inquiry and rarely trust our hearts or our intiution. I was not discounting the importance of facts, figures, rational arguments, what have you. SO MUCH of this movement, at least the outreach part of it, is just about REVEALING the truth of what happens to animals on a massive scale not just every day, but every second. We can't even keep up with it, and every single one of us could spend a lifetime giving people the facts about animal oppression and torture, and we still wouldn't be able to cover it all.
Speaking of evidence and cold, hard facts, I need to clarify something. The Boyd quotation in one of Vasu's posts, which contained the description of animals being "mechanically raped," was actually about vivisection, not animal agriculture. Animals on factory farms literally are violently raped by workers with prods, and just because a cow is not kicking and screaming when she's inseminated, does not mean this is not a violation. And what's one of the most common practice for obtaining semen from male animals, whether on the farm or in the lab? Electro-ejaculation. That to me, is rape. Laboratory animals are raped and sexually violated all the time, have been for years. I could spend months compiling all of the studies that have been done which are examples of this, but here are just a couple, mild ones, which are the tip of the iceberg.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121462080/abstract
Background: We sought to establish a nonhuman primate model of vaginal Lactobacillus colonization suitable for evaluating live microbial microbicide candidates. Methods: Vaginal and rectal microflora in Chinese rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta)
were analyzed, with cultivable bacteria identified by 16S rRNA gene
sequencing. Live lactobacilli were intravaginally administered to
evaluate bacterial colonization.
Results: Chinese rhesus macaques harbored abundant vaginal Lactobacillus, with Lactobacillus johnsonii as the predominant species. Like humans, most examined macaques harbored only one vaginal Lactobacillus species. Vaginal and rectal Lactobacillus isolates from the same animal exhibited different genetic and biochemical profiles. Vaginal Lactobacillus was cleared by a vaginal suppository of azithromycin, and endogenous L. johnsonii was subsequently restored by intravaginal inoculation. Importantly, prolonged colonization of a human vaginal Lactobacillus jensenii was established in these animals. Conclusions: The Chinese rhesus macaque harbors vaginal Lactobacillus and is a potentially useful model to support the pre-clinical evaluation of Lactobacillus-based topical microbicides.
http://www.jurology.com/medline/record/MDLN.15036498
Two experiments were conducted with 24 bulls in which semen collectionwas attempted by transrectal massage (RM) and electroejaculation (EE).In experiment 1, bulls received the following treatments on successivesemen collection days: saline 10 min prior to electroejaculation(control); saline 10 min prior to 2 min of transrectal massage followedby electroejaculation; cloprostenol (CLO) 10 min prior to 2 min oftransrectal massage followed by electroejaculation; oxytocin (OXY) 10
min prior to 2 min of transrectal massage followed by
electroejaculation. Transrectal massage consisted of general, back andforth motion over the ampullae, prostate and urethra with a flattenedhand. In experiment 2, bulls received saline (control), oxytocin, orcloprostenol 10 min before attempting semen collection by transrectalmassage. Massage was applied specifically to the ampullae for a maximumof 5 min or until a semen sample was obtained. Electroejaculation was attempted in all bulls following transrectal massage. In experiment 1,
semen was obtained in <1% of bulls by transrectal massage. However,by using an improved massage technique in experiment 2, semen wasobtained in 97.2% of attempts. Semen was obtained in 96.9 and 98.9% ofattempts by electroejaculation in experiments 1 and 2, respectively.Oxytocin treatment increased the time to penile protrusion during
electroejaculation in experiment 1 and during massage in experiment 2.
In experiment 1, oxytocin decreased the time to semen emission andtended to decrease the number of electroejaculation stimuli to semenemission. Cloprostenol treatment, in experiment 1, resulted in anincreased number of electroejaculation stimuli to penile protrusion,but did not affect the number of stimuli required for semen emission.Massage of the ampullae prior to electroejaculation reduced both thetime to semen emission and the number of electroejaculation stimulirequired for semen emission. Transrectal massage of the ampullae was
very effective in this experiment for producing semen emission, butquantity of semen samples was less than for electroejaculation. Theusefulness of transrectal massage for semen collection in breedingsoundness evaluations needs to be investigated further under field conditions.
Harry Harlow's "Rape Rack." Need I say more?
How do you think they test vaginal and rectal microbicides on rhesus monkeys? Do you think they ask the monkeys to do it themselves? No.
Sorry if this is too blunt, but this is what animals have to endure. -
Annie commented on the article |
Charlie, I figured you weren't saying that. I guess I was reading between the lines a bit, and I appreciate that you expanded on it. It just reminded me of a typical attack against animal rights activists, one which I think is unfounded. I recently heard the argument that vegetarians kill more animals than meat eaters because of the rabbits and mice that get killed by the tractors that harvest the grain. It seems that people will go to desperate measures to defend a way of life which they don't want challenged.
I suppose when I read your post I felt the need to articulate my argument about the difference between eating plants and animals. I really didn't think you were implying that it's pointless to be vegan because plants are alive too, and I suppose I came off as being very anti-plant, and perhaps veering off course. I am not anti-plant by any means. I believe in compassion for all life, for the natural world. I actually even believe that "God," whatever one's conception of that may be, permeates everything on this planet, and I agree that taking ANY life should be taken seriously. We're so out of balance as a species. We thrive on destruction of life rather than guardianship of life, at least the Western world does, and that needs to change. -
Annie commented on the article |
Marc:
I understand where you're coming from. I struggle with ideas like that all the time. I think it's unrealistic to ask anyone with any kind of belief system, ideology, cause, religion or whatever to be 100% consistent and to have all the answers. I do believe in animal liberation, but I have a dog and a cat. I do believe that taking the life of another unnecessarily is wrong, but I can't see myself attacking indigenous people for eating beetles. There is ideology, and then there is reality. I think we are all struggling to convince others of our point of view, and when we're unwilling to have serious conversations not only about that which we are sure about but also that which we are unsure about, we're not really making progress. Yes every social movement, every fight to expand the rights of a particular group, has been fought by people who were convinced that their point of view was 'right' enough to be worth fighting for, to be worth giving their lives for. Did those people doubt themselves, I'm sure. Did they fail to convince many of their points of view, certainly. I'd like to believe that when it comes to 'right' and 'wrong,' everything was very clear. But there are questions that I just don't have answers to yet when it comes to animal rights.
Nevertheless, there are just a couple of things I wanted to point out in response to your post. I think there is something that makes the animal rights movement different in some ways from a religion or any other ideology, and really from any other social movement in history. We are speaking out on behalf of billions of sentient beings that do not speak our language. They certainly must have their own POV, right? But they cannot express it to us. They also really have no ability to defend themselves against our tyranny. I mean really, do they? Not that I can think of. Occasionally you'll see an oppressed circus elephant rebel against her so-called 'trainers,' who've been abusing her for years to force her to perform, and trample them to death, but inevitably she'll be shot down or recaptured. I always hear about 'respecting differing points of view,' and not 'forcing my beliefs on another,' but those who support the torture, imprisonment and death of animals, either through their words or their actions, or with their pocketbooks, are not respecting the 'point of view,' of each individual animal, which I would hesitate to guess is that they don't want to be tortured, imprisoned, experimented on, skinned alive, boiled alive, have their families ripped apart, and be beaten into submission, among a myriad of other horrors. If I'm wrong, then yes, animal rights is a mere ideology of a few delusional people. And as for 'forcing' my beliefs on others, if I saw someone beating a beagle puppy in the street, I would 'force' that person to stop. If I saw someone skinning a cat alive next door, I would 'force' that person to stop. I suppose that's the whole idea behind direct action. What right-minded person would stand by and watch someone beating a puppy? Few. But when the abuse is legally sanctioned and happening on a grand scale, somehow we must all accept it? But doesn't that almost make it worse?
Ok, to get back to your post. I'm challenging your argument for the purpose of learning more, as I try to navigate my way through the confusing territory of ethics. There are many other socially acceptable ways that 'ideology,' or 'ethics,' or 'propriety,' or compassion, or whatever you want to call it, has triumphed over biological reality. Yes, our ancestors probably ate meat occasionally (certainly not 3 times a day), but why are we bound by this? Supposedly, the instinct of the human male is to 'spread his seed,' right? So is the whole idea of monogamous relationships a triumph of ideology over biology? I suppose it is, and in fact, I've heard a lot of guys argue that (ha ha), but does that mean that any man in a monogamous relationship is an ideological betrayer of his biological reality? Human beings are not bound by our biological roots. We actually DON'T have to kill to survive. We DO, however, have to raise animals in a factory setting in order to feed the voracious appetites of billions of people the world round, so the idea of raising and slaughtering animals humanely is not a reality, not if we keep consuming them at the rate we are. And no, I’m sorry, but giving an animal enough space to turn around and spread it’s limbs is not ‘humane.’
Biological reality would also have us 'culling the herd,' wouldn't it? In 'nature,' whatever that is, no species would ever grow exponentially into infinity (without our interference anyway) as humans have. The idea of "survival of the fittest," which just as the human as hunter model is theory not fact, would have us killing off the weak and disabled rather than helping and protecting them. To keep a premature baby or a child with genetic defects alive would also then be considered a triumph of 'ideology' over biological reality, no?
Your argument that humans are omnivores and therefore there is nothing 'wrong' with eating meat is based on the ideas that (a) humans need to kill animals to survive, (b) humans are bound by the 'laws of nature,' (c) our biological heritage, such as our dentition, takes precedence over our ethical evolution and (d) we have no choice. I don’t believe any of these statements is true.
Since we do have a choice, there are many people who believe we should choose non-violence. That, I suppose, is our 'ideology.'
And for the record, I must say I'm sick of privleged Americans (not that you are one, Marc, at all, I'm totally just bringing this up because I've been talking about choice a lot) talking about how we don't have a choice not to eat meat and dairy when there really are millions of under-privileged people who actually don't, who can only afford a one-dollar burger at McDonalds on their way home from their first job of three. I mean seriously.
Okay, to finish off this novel that I'm writing (sorry!), this may nullify everything I just said, and I fear the wrath of the AR extremists who I so admire and look up to, but I really don't think that having a service dog is the same as eating meat. I've heard AR people say that we shouldn't adopt dogs and cats from shelters because it's like inviting a carnivore into your house and perpetuating the system of oppression, but I just have a hard time with that one. Yes, of course, we HAVE to stop breeding, and yes, animal liberation is the ultimate goal, but do I need to feel guilty for having my rescue dog as a companion? Well, I do feel guilty, because I've taken away his free choice and who knows if he really even wants to live with me anyways, and yes, I feel really bad when I have him on a leash, but should I feel guilty? I don't know the answer to that, I really don't, and I guess of all the battles I could be fighting as an AR activist attacking you for having a service dog to assist you with your disability is not my top priority. What I do know, however, is that when I see a service dog, and I see how much animals add to our lives, how much they help us, how they don’t judge us based on the way we look, as we do each other, how even after horrible trauma they can learn to be happy and love life, how they save our lives and rescue us when we’re in trouble, and how much they teach us every single day, I can’t help but think . . . Why are we even fighting about whether we should have compassion for them? Why do people have to fight tirelessly to convince others of their ‘ideological’ viewpoint that animals have inalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness just as we do? Well I know why. I could write another 10 page long post about why . . . that’s the reality of this profit-driven global economy etc. . . . but the question still remains. Just as we are not bound by our biological reality, we don’t have to be bound by the seemingly inescapable reality of a global system built on oppression of animals and people alike. That’s what the fight is about. So please just think about that.
Impact
2 Actions
0 Recruits
Top Causes
|
2 Actions
|
Organizations
-
Deep Roots Animal Sanctuary1 Action 0 Recruits
