"It's a personal belief."

When, oh when, are people going to pull their head out of their collective ass.. This rationalisation has so many things wrong with it I almost can't tell you all of them. But I'm going to try anyways, yes I am. And here we go:

Eating someone else's flesh is not a belief. It's an action.

Tell me, would you say that a white man paying someone to kill a black man for him is alright because it's a personal belief? Well, it is a personal belief. That white man believes that black men are inferior to him and that he can do anything he wishes with them. And he has evidence, too: why would the majority of black people be so poor if they weren't inferior? Lack of opportunity? Previous years of oppression disallowing them to actually make their way? Slaveowners of generations past purposefully breeding them to make them "stupid"?

NAAAAH. Can't be!

Now for the next question: would you say that what that white man does is a personal belief? No, it's an action. He's taking action and oppressing someone else.

See, I don't have a problem with you believing it's alright to do whatever you want to any nonhuman people.. I have a problem with you acting on it. And anyways, even if it is a choice, is it a valid one? Can I believe it's okay to rape you and do it and not be held accountable? (Sidenote: the factory farmers themselves call the place where dairy cows are taken to be forcibly impregnated the "rape rack".)

No?

Didn't think so. And why is that?

BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR BODY.

See, this is why animals should have the basic right to bodily integrity: because they are biologically autonomous, because they can quite clearly give or revoke consent, because they are abused without it -- in other words, because they can use it, just as humans can. All humans, barring those braindead and with such conditions as anencephaly.

Seriously, where do people get the idea that it's alright to override someone else's rightful choice because "OH, BUT I WANT TO"?

Could it be, perhaps, THE PATRIARCHY?

You know, that Patriarchy that is based on having rungs of worthiness? That Patriarchy that is based on the top rung of worthiness being able to break the will and body of those below him? That Patriarchy that defines strength as how much you can break the person next to you? That Patriarchy that defines strength as how many people you can possess (i.e. again, break the will of)? That Patriarchy that ladles the same oppression out to all of those different from the white human adult straight Christian male -- whether it's animals, women, blacks, children, etc.?

Yoohoo, "feminists", why are you not realising that the oppression of ourselves and our furrier, featherier, and scalier brothers and sisters IS ONE AND THE SAME?

Same source. Same effect. Difference? Animals are the bottom rung, so you have no problem whatsoever with it.

You should know very well that oppressors do not want to see, do not want to stop benefiting from oppression. You are benefiting from oppression.

There is no oppression that is ordained, whether by nature or god/s. There is nothing that makes it right. There is nothing that makes it okay. Not excuses, rationalisations of lesser intelligence or limited emotions or might makes right or anything.

Look. Learn. Realise:

IT IS NOT OKAY TO SUPPORT THE PATRIARCHY IN ANY FORM.

"But I just like meat!"

One of the things that makes every vegan's blood boil to hear. Yes -- you just like meat. We know that already, since you keep stealing someone else's flesh to do so. But this little phrase is so much more -- it's almost a snapshot of our society. Let me explain:

"I just like meat."

This is the mindset of everyone that eats someone else's flesh; they just like it, so the momentary pleasure they get from it outweighs the months of torture (in humans we would call it torture, and as pain is quite equal in nonhuman and human animals, it's not out of bounds to call it torture when it's done to nonhuman animals) that the nonhuman person had to go through for them to get to this human's plate. And that's just meat; dairy cows and laying hens are kept alive in their cages, with the dairy cow's babies stolen from her every time she gives birth and the laying hens only fed 40-50% of what they need for full health and growth so they will fit seven into a cage barely big enough for one hen with full growth and plumage. At least when it's someone else's flesh, the animal is dead and no longer suffering.

It's typical of our society to rationalise this way: because something benefits me (emotionally, mentally, physically), it's alright to cause someone else pain in order to get that benefit. Their wants automatically override the needs of another person. A symptom of our hyperconsumptive culture? Perhaps.

Perhaps it's that, as companies tell us more and more that happiness will be given to us as we indulge ourselves in that TV, or that car, or that high-end coffeemaker, etc., we believe it and decide that the short-term glow of novelty and outer satisfaction is better than the sublime pleasure of inner peace; peace with yourself, peace with the world. Less violence going into your body means less violence coming out of your body. It's karmic, man. Food is fucking karmic.

But I don't fully believe the hyperconsumptive theory of nonhuman oppression. I think it all has to go back to... oh noes, watch out Men's Rights Activists... PATRIARCHY!

That's right!

Patriarchy is based on hierarchy, based on violence and being able to force someone else to submit. It's the same with the oppression of women, and it will never change unless we get rid of the ladder entirely.

Skeptical about the women's oppression-animal oppression link? Think about the parallels:

"But they have been oppressed for almost all of human history -- doesn't that mean that they're weaker/meant to be oppressed?"

"They're less intelligent."

"But I just can't help myself, it's like I need to eat meat/beat my wife."

"Humans evolved with the subjugation of women/eating meat."

"God said so."

And then there's going back to the title -- which, in essence, is the bottom-line reasoning for rape, used to keep both women and nonhumans in line. In order to keep someone from fighting, you have to never let them have the sense of being in control of their own bodies. That's how you break them.

Oh hey, there's my animal torture/exploitation/slavery-Patriarchy connection quota for the day!

Anyways. No human at all can say that animals don't have a sense of "MY BODY, NOT YOURS" when they haven't been abusing the animals they keep in such a way. For example, "my" dog, Tess, growls when you try to pick her up around the waist -- she just set a boundary. My cat yowls whenever I do something to her that she doesn't want me to. And see, the difference between that and just about any other companion animal that has had their bodily integrity shit on and shoved in their face is that when they protest, I STOP. I let them have their bodily integrity. I won't do shit to them that they don't want (and as for animal doctor visits, Kiki (the cat) tolerates them, Tess loves them), and thus I am teaching them that they have a right to their own body.

Something that all animals do.

Now, women. Same goes for women. Many women, if not most--I believe there was a study where the results were 90% were--turn out to have been sexually abused when they go into, say, prostitution or porn. And stay in it. (Go here for the "but it's her choice so we should respect her!" and other myths -- though the respect part isn't a myth; respect all women) Usually the healthy ones are magically cured after a short time in it because of the oftentimes utter abuse and horrible conditions of porn and prostitution. Those that don't experience that are lucky.

Why do I say this?

Because when you take away someone's right to their own body, through minor "ordinary" abuse to companion animals, or through sexual abuse to women, you end up with the same result.

It's not an animal's natural state to be totally passive to what happens to them. Any animal's, including women.

So why do we insist on putting them in that state?

This is a question I've faced for a long time, and I've come up with these answers:

Because not only do they benefit from it, but they benefit from it and nobody comes along and says "hey, what you're doing is wrong," and if they do then the human is perfectly able to surround themselves with those who support their choice. It's easy for a carnist to go away and be bombarded with OH! TASTY! visions and ads of slaughtered torture victims and slaves presented to them on a platter.

In other words, society supports their choice to take a choice away from someone else. Invasion of the body snatchers.

Invasion of the body snatchers.

Starting Post!

Listen up, yo. These be the laws of the land, and you beta be followin' 'em.

I'm going to scrap the "accent" because I'm really bad at it. You can breathe now.

1. No trolling.
2. nu ntspk plz.
3. No epithets, whether it's sexist, racist, classist, or speciesist -- once will get you a warning, twice will get you banned.
4. If you are going to post, do not reply with gems such as "but I just like meat!" and "if we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of food?" Once is enough to get you banned.
5. Argue logically, thank you.
6. Admit when you've been beaten. I will do the same when/if I have.
7. This post may be edited at any time, so check back occasionally.