Skip to content

Less Than What We Eat

January 13, 2010

I’ve noticed that women are much more likely to support the corporal or capital punishment of males who abuse animals than they are to support physical defense of female human beings.  Whenever someone wishes rape on a rapist, for example, some woman always insists that to resort to violence is inhumane, that it is “matriarchal,” and that feminists should be morally superior to our oppressors.  But I’ve never seen such silencing when it comes to wishing physical harm on males who abuse animals.  Not once.  I’ve rarely even seen women who propose violence on those of us who eat meat opposed, and it is not infrequently that one encounters “feminists” who deem women unfit for freedom so long as they are omnivorous.

I suppose I don’t even have to say that it is misogyny that allows for abused animals, but not female human beings, to be avenged, even if only wishfully.  Even knowing, though, that it is yet another manifestation of misogyny’s pervasiveness, and even having come to expect it, it is still disappointing.

  1. January 13, 2010 2:02 pm

    The sorrow of this is impossible to quantify.

    And I think that it has everything to do, this response of “oh my god somebody needs to kill [whichever animal abuser(s)]!” while there’s crickets on the violence-to-female-people front, with ideas of innocence. Animals are conceived of as innocent of evil-doing. Female people, on the other hand – well let’s just say that the idea of “original sin” did not start and end with the little old Irish Catholic ladies in my family, nor necessarily with religion itself. Female people are always already guilty of something. That something actually is “being,” itself – the phenomenon of existing in the first place. It is a provocation. Anyone who does not see, acknowledge, and condemn this fact is no friend to female people, whatever their relationship to animals.

  2. DarthVelma permalink
    January 13, 2010 4:12 pm

    I was actually thinking about feminism and vegetarianism in the tub this morning. Odd synchronicity. I think my problem with being told that eating meat makes me a bad feminist, is the way food (and denial of adequate food) has been used against women for pretty much all of recorded history. And I’m not just talking about how societal pressures to be thin or “lady-like” discourage women eating. There are still plenty of places on this planet where women grow the food and cook the food…but men eat it…and women and children get the leftovers, if there are any.

    It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that men intentionally deny women adequate food (particularly protein) as a means of keeping us smaller and weaker. So, thanks but no thanks on the vegetarian front. It just feels like one more way to deny women the chance to ever be full.

    And yeah, I want to beat the ever loving shit out of rapists and woman killers. And I don’t care what anyone says about that desire either. It’s part and parcel of the same damn thing as with the food. We’re denied the right to be angry or violent. They hoard those for themselves. There’s not a damn thing wrong with righteous anger aimed at men who deserve it. And the only thing most men respect is physical force. So yeah, since most women walk around each and every day worried about which man might be violent…I want the day to come when men walk on eggshells, too. I want them to think twice about raping a women because they never know which one of us will be capable of beating the shit out of them.

    *end of rant*

  3. atheistwoman permalink
    January 13, 2010 5:16 pm

    Yes Margie, it is very sad, and telling of how most people *really* feel about human females.

  4. January 13, 2010 6:12 pm

    There is always so much I want to say when this topic comes up but I just cannot get my thoughts together. I don’t like to pathologize, yet, until I know the correct words, I am left speechless. For one thing, so many people, especially animal rights activists act like if you are not as involved and/or passionate about animals you are the other, –the abuser. I can prioritize over animal rights without being an abuser or a person who enables/promotes animal abuse. Yes, it is sad to see animals mistreated. It is heart wrenching. However, I cannot and will not ever put animals on the same level as humans, —particular female humans. My dog does not live in my house, nor does he kiss me or sleep with me, and as much as an independent bastard he is, he is still not superior to me. He is well-fed and sheltered from the elements. But, since I don’t allow him behave as “one of the pack,” I am looked down upon by other females. I know I told this story before, but I will never forget the time this woman in a car stopped to let me, my then 8 year old daughter and our dog cross a busy street. She rolled down her window (in order to let me acknowledge her benevolence) and said, “I have to stop for dogs.” WTF? So if it had just been me and my little fruit pie, we would have been stuck there waiting forever to cross?

    I am suspicious, or I should say something does not seem right when feminists (mostly white) spend more time and effort with animal’s rights than with actually improving the quality of life for women. There seems to be avoidance going on. As in, who can blame a feminist when she is an animal rights activist? One cannot (or should not) scold her, because after all, “Think of the animals!zomg11.” That has the ring of “Think of the children” to it. However, intellectually thinking feminists have managed to understand how if one does not devote her time and effort to children it does not mean she wants to abuse and/or kill children. It just means she is interested in other aspects of feminism, and from my observations that energy is usually directed toward making life more bearable for other females (or even just herself, because to make life more tolerable for herself if her betterment contributes to the greater good is in feminist. That sounds so Victorian. I’m sorry.)

    That image that you relay to me about the two women on Amazing Race who disappeared the starving children in India and only saw the cows eating out of the trash just brings it all home. I just cannot rationalize it for them. Are they thinking humans can take care of themselves? Or are they thinking the people in India who are combing through the trash are only doing it for fun (like the kewl hipsters who dumpster dive? What? I don’t know. But to not see the women and children but see the cows is saying something. Avoidance? Denial? It is as if, they see the women and children, they will also see what color (mostly likely darker than white) and will either have to acknowledge that racism and or white supremacy and the effects of white supremacy exists or they can just hide it all, thus, not have to challenge their position in this whole mess and feel good about themselves for thinking about the animals. The displaced concern is revealing.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: