Oppression Connections
The Cycle of Violence
Published February 01, 2009 @ 10:23AM PT
In the comment thread to Saturday's post about the mass killing of starlings in New Jersey, Change.org member Sue shared a thoughtful, thought-provoking quotation about the cycle of violence that humans perpetuate against other animals and fellow humans as well--one form of violence forms the basis for another form, and so on and so on, and if we could stop one kind, we could make real progress toward stopping so many others. I now share that quotation with the rest of you. It features a line of thought that I've considered before and read and heard elsewhere, but I'd not yet seen this quotation in its entirety. Much thanks to Sue for posting it:
Isn’t man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative - and fatal - health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out a card praying for "Peace on Earth."
– from the preface to Old MacDonald's Factory Farm, by C. David Coats
Close-up of sheep: jpockele at Flickr
Don't Take Away My Gun, Judge--I Only Hit My Wife
Published January 21, 2009 @ 06:53AM PT
Out of Wyoming yesterday came some disturbing news that highlights our society's flippant attitude toward violence once again. And though I'm somewhat hesitant to post twice in a row on an issue not directly related to animal rights, I can certainly make the connections. First is the fact that, certainly, the reason many Wyoming men desperately want to hold onto their guns is to kill animals with them. Second is the truth that all violence, all oppression, is related; whether directed toward animals, women, or those of a race, culture, or religion different from the oppressor's, it is all based in the same foundation and intertwined. So let's get on with it.
From Cheyenne, Wyoming:
A bill that would require Wyoming judges to warn defendants that they would lose their federal gun rights by pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence charges received preliminary approval in the state Senate on Monday.
The Senate unanimously approved Senate File 70, sponsored by Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander. The bill would also classify misdemeanor domestic violence as a serious offense requiring defendants to have lawyers.
Speaking in favor of the bill at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier Monday, Case said, "We still have a situation in the United States of America where you can lose a constitutional right, the Second Amendment, for a misdemeanor crime."
Congress in 1996 expanded the law that bans convicted felons from owning guns to apply to people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
The article continues in all its you've-got-to-be-kidding-me glory, but I'll let you read it for yourself. The so-called problem is that we "have a situation" in which men can lose their guns just for beating up their wives or girlfriends (and yes, I know that women can be perpetrators of domestic violence too, but let's be realistic about whom this issue mostly applies to). And what exactly is wrong with this supposedly problematic situation? Does Case really think that victims' and potential victims' right to be safe is less important than clearly violent individuals' right to carry deadly weapons?
Even "Suzan Pauling, public policy director of the Wyoming Coalition against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault in Laramie, said her group supports the bill. She said defendants should realize that they face the loss of their gun rights if they're convicted," though she "emphasized that Congress had a reason for taking gun rights away from people convicted of domestic violence."
Yes, and very good reasons at that. People who have been violent before are far more likely to be violent again, and they are the last people who need to be carrying around lethal weapons.
I suppose it's not the law itself that bothers me (I can understand why Pauling doesn't oppose it, as a matter of believing all people should at least be aware of their rights, legal consequences, etc.), but rather the reasoning and justification that has the people who support it worked up. They clearly see flaws not only in the failure of judges to directly advise defendants that their gun rights will be taken away but also in the fact that those gun rights are taken away in response to domestic violence convictions and guilty pleas. (Really, go read Case's statement again; the problem according to him isn't that people don't know their guns will be taken away as a result of a domestic violence record, but rather that their gun rights are taken away for such crimes.)
The whole effort is far more concerned with keeping perpetrators of domestic violence from being convicted than with anything else. Even the effort to "classify misdemeanor domestic violence as a serious offense" isn't being undertaken with victims in mind--there's no goal of deterrence or of increased penalties; rather, those pushing this law through want domestic violence to be considered a serious offense only because those accused of it will then be required to have a lawyer. And although I support the right of every defendant of every crime to be represented by a competent, talented lawyer, it's enormously disconcerting that in a discussion related to domestic violence, everything being discussed here is part of an effort to keep perpetrators of domestic violence from pleading guilty to or being convicted of their crimes--because we don't want them to lose the right to carry and use deadly weapons. After all, how will they get out their aggression by killing innocent animals for fun or threatening (or worse) those close to them if they don't have their guns? The logic of this campaign is baffling.
Maybe if Wyoming were simultaneously ramping up efforts to reduce the domestic violence that lands these gun lovers in court in the first place or increasing funding and resources for domestic violence shelters, I'd be less offended. Until that happens, I'm appalled.
Photo credit: Getty Images.
Doggy (and Girly) Obama Drama
Published January 17, 2009 @ 08:08AM PT
Check out this great post from easyVegan.info on the implications of the Obamas' narrowing down of what breed of dog they want as well as the myriad problems with Obama's recent use of the word "girly." (And for info on the fantastic graphic by Shepard Fairey to the right, go here.)
Highlights:
Oy. After months of equivocating on the dog issue, the Obama family has announced that they’ve narrowed their choice down to two breeds: the Labradoodle and the Portuguese Water Dog. Unfortunately, as Adopt-a-Pet.com reports, while these are not the only two “hypoallergenic” breeds available, they are harder to find on animal adoption websites. . . .
Additionally, in selecting a purebred dog, the Obamas are practically inviting greedy breeders to cash in on their (hopefully) compassionate choice by sexually exploiting and selling the “Obama dog.” (Doubly so if they adopt a breed that’s hard to find through adoption routes.) A mixed breed or mutt - particularly one of unknown heritage, which can’t easily be reproduced - would help minimize this risk.
Continue on with the post for some great analysis of Obama's unfortunate use of the word "girly" when discussing what kind of dog he didn't want in a late November interview. This language choice and its implications are particularly interesting given that, as Change.org's Women's Rights blogger Jen noted, Obama appeared on the cover of Ms. this past week:
That’s right. The “new face of feminism,” who is married to a woman and has two young daughters, doesn’t want a “girly dog.” And, ahem, sees nothing wrong with using the word “girly” as a pejorative. Nice.
The term “girly dog” is yet another example of intersecting oppressions - another instance of animal advocacy as a feminist issue.
Let’s start with the stereotype of a “girly dog.” “Girly dogs” are much like “girly girls” - small, weak, fluffy, frilly, frou-frou-ey, in need of copious amounts of grooming, with large closets (filled with sparkly pink clothes, no doubt) and even bigger (yappy) mouths. Girly dogs, like girly girls, are feminine. Submissive. Annoying. Rather useless. Lazy. Bitchy. A pain in the ass. By extension, men who “own” “girly dogs” (or are “girly” themselves) are gay. Which is almost as bad as being a woman.
Big, rambunctious dogs, on the other hand, are manly. Tough. Full of testosterone. Rebellious. Not easily controlled. Leaders, not followers. They take shit from no one - least of all, girly dogs and women. 100%, Grade A hetero. Manly dogs are no one’s bitches.
Akin to the men eat meat / women nibble on salad dichotomy, the girly / manly dog split also hurts women and animals. Here, both women and small dogs are devalued for superficial reasons; the content of their characters is based on their physical characteristics, real or imagined. That which is “girly” or feminine is dismissed, denigrated, while the “manly” or masculine is judged superior and preferable. Inherent in this equation is the “I ain’t no fag!” protestation - only homosexual men “own” small, yippy dogs. In addition to being breedist and sexist, the term “girly dog” is also homophobic.
Really, read the whole post: "Another twist in the Obama family doggy drama."
Gay Animal Rights Activist Brutally Attacked
Published January 02, 2009 @ 12:07PM PT
I don't know Nathan Runkle personally. We've never officially met. But I certainly know of him and his work with Mercy for Animals, which he founded when he was just 15 years old. He's the dedicated activist featured in the trailer to the documentary Fowl Play, to which I directed you a couple weeks ago. When I included him in an e-mail on Tuesday, about the last chance for voting on the Ideas project, I received an auto-reply indicating that he wasn't responding to e-mails because of a medical emergency. I worried and hoped everything was all right, but didn't know anything about what was going on.
Now I do. And now I'm nauseous. I just read on SuperWeed that Nathan Runkle, an activist as peaceful as they come, was viciously attacked last weekend in a gay bashing. Upon reading about this physical attack, I found myself feeling silly for having been upset last night and this morning over discovery of a forum thread in which people were calling me harsh names and raving about how much they hate me. This news puts a verbal attack like that into serious perspective. Now I'm just angry as hell on Nathan's behalf that people are so capable of not only expressing but acting on unwarranted hatred against strangers.
You can read the press release regarding the attack here. Pattrice Jones has written at SuperWeed about what we can do in response:
A lot of people in the AR movement have been calling me, wondering what we can do. Gay bashing is a lot like rape in that it’s especially important to be mindful of what the victim wants when framing a response. So, first, we can all look out for what Nathan and Mercy for Animals say about what should be done. Next, we can use informed inference to figure out what else might be appropriate.
The [Mercy for Animals] press release says that Nathan wants sexual orientation included in Ohio’s hate crimes legislation. So, one thing that those of us who know and love — or just know of and respect — Nathan can do is join the effort to make that happen.
Next, we know that Mercy for Animals, as the press release states, “has long worked to bridge the gap between the common prejudices which lead to oppression and abuses faced by both animals and minorities.” MFA has marched in gay pride parades carrying a banner reading “NO ONE IS FREE WHILE OTHERS ARE OPPRESSED” and has picketed gay rodeos.
So, if you’re somebody who cares about or works on LGBTQ issues but has not (yet) integrated the animals into your analysis of oppression, let this attack on a gay man who has dedicated himself to animal rights motivate you to educate yourself about the connections. And, if you’re a straight animal liberationist or veg*n advocate who hasn’t thought deeply about your heterosexual privilege and what obligations you might have to divest yourself of that, let this near-deadly attack on a gay animal advocate remind you (if Proposition 8 and Obama’s selection of a homophobic preacher to speak at his inauguration did not) that homophobia is still alive and dangerous.
In both instances: Educate yourself about the intersections and then figure out how you might integrate what you learn into your activism and your daily life. Those of us who are already hip to that particular intersection ought to realize that there’s always more for us to learn too. Finally, all of us can be inspired by Nathan’s relentless activism and take up the charge to do just a little bit more while he’s recovering from this terrible trauma.
---
Photo: Rescue of a discarded hen, left for dead and later named Hope, during a Mercy for Animals egg farm investigation.
Really Want to Help People? Trash the Send-an-Animal Catalogs
Published December 17, 2008 @ 06:10AM PT
(And by "trash," I mean recycle, of course.)
I imagine many of you have received catalogs in the last month offering to send live animals to impoverished people in need, on your behalf, for what seem like bargain prices: $20 for a flock of geese or $120 for a goat or one of the "season's hottest gifts," a "farmer's flock" of one cow and two sheep for the low, low price of $150.
A bargain indeed, except not for the animals and, actually, not for the human recipients either. How this is not so great for the animals should be obvious. But read on to learn about what it means for the human recipients (and their environment and natural resources) too. If your goal is to sincerely help people, these animal-giving programs are not the way to achieve that goal.
Want to Stop World Hunger? Stop Eating Animals
Published October 17, 2008 @ 07:33AM PT
Contrary to what some critics say, animal rights advocates do not despise humans or care about nonhuman animals more than humans, or seek to raise the status of animals at the expense of humans. Most animal rights advocates are also deeply concerned about human rights, environmental matters, and other issues, many of which are connected to one another and to animal rights issues.
World hunger is one of many areas where the rights and well-being of nonhuman animals and the rights and well-being of humans could be helped by the same solution. Read on.
"Give It Up, Guys," by Guardian writer Andrew Tyler
The truth can no longer be dodged. Livestock farming gobbles up agricultural land, water and energy that could far more efficiently be devoted to growing food for people to eat directly. Meat, therefore, is a rich person's food and those who consume it—whether in India, Denmark or England—cause malnourishment and death among the world's poorest people.
Featured Video: A Life Connected
Published October 12, 2008 @ 09:22AM PT
Included in the 10 Recommended Animal Rights Videos list, the following video from Nonviolence United provides a gentle and intelligent illumination of the connections between the raising, killing, and eating of animals and the problem of world hunger, the health and well-being of humans, and the health and well-being of the planet as a whole. It is a beautiful, eye-opening production.
