Veggie Regular

Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
First of all, yes. All cows are slaughtered young.
The point of that “good Shepherd/good steward" schpiel isn’t to say these are wonderful people (to my mind genuinely pious does not necessarily equate to authentically good), but that they lack the evil intent of a rapist. And of course these dairymen are motivated by profit. That goes without saying. We’re all trying to make money, but we also want to feel good about what we do. You’re mistaken if you think dairy operators can’t honestly believe they’re contributing in a positive way to the needs of this world. I can disagree profoundly with them about the value of that contribution, but I can also take a farmer’s word about what keeps him in that line of work. Dairy operators believe their product is wholesome. They eat cheese, and they feed milk to their own children. Anyway, the point of bringing up the schpiel goes right to intent. The rapist has no such positive schpiel. There are valid reasons why a rapist’s intent is nearly always seen as evil and antisocial, whereas the inseminator’s intent is nearly always seen as positive and pro-social. Please keep in mind that I brought this up because you pointed to intent as being more significant than effect in your inseminator/rape analogy. |
Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement |
|
When you say that it makes people uncomfortable to speak of sexual assault happening to a cow, what you're really saying is that we want to believe that only we are entitled to bodily autonomy, dignity, and privacy, that only a human can be violated. I don't hold that opinion.
|
Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement |
|
My view of sexual assault does require a perpetrator who is committing a sexual act for sexual gratification, whether or not the perpetrator actually ejaculates. That would exclude very, very few sexual assaults. And it would include a man sexually penetrating a cow, whether or not the cow minded or even noticed.
|
I'll point you here: http://www.responseva.org/#!sexual-a...hs-facts/c1df3
|
A sexual assault isn't just an act of physical domination. A punch to the eye, while perhaps involved in the offense, doesn't qualify by itself as a sexual assault. A sexual assault is a sexual act, motivated by an urge to dominate sexually. There is no inherent hostility or violent urge suggested by the procedure of insemination. You can impute such a desire to people who go in for that line of work, but even if that is ever true, it's quite an assumption that it's always true. All large-animal veterinarians inseminate, among other procedures that can involve being in up to one's elbows. And since anyone can impute any motivation to any act, with or without a valid basis in fact, it doesn't get us anywhere. I'm not claiming you're misinformed. Our mastery of the facts has led us to different conclusions. It happens sometimes.
|
To clarify, I mention the fact that cows are repeatedly impregnated not to highlight any inherent problem with the rate of one calf per year but to counter the notion that cows produce milk spontaneously without first giving birth, or that cows who have only given birth once are encouraged to continue lactating through extended breastfeeding or pumping, or whatever other mistaken notions a person might have about milk production. Whatever might be hypothetically possible regarding lactation, in the dairy industry cows are generally impregnated at a rate of one calf per year.
....... I understand the desire to speak only truths, but I don't feel it's at all inaccurate to say that dairy cows don't produce milk spontaneously (because they don't, even if it might be technically possible for them to do so) or to say that it's abusive for a dairy cow to be repeatedly impregnated for her milk (because it obviously is.) Out of curiosity, how would you prefer to express those sentiments? Is there a way that's less ambiguous? The meaning seemed clear to me, but obviously there's been some confusion and I'm always interested in finding better ways to phrase these things. |
I might have focussed overly much on your mentioning cows giving birth every year, because I've often seen this said or written in a way that seemed to imply that this is something unusual for cows. I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that people knew a cow would normally start giving milk only when she had a calf to nurse. Maybe it's necessary to point all this out to at least some people, and it needs to be said/written.
But for myself... I formerly was unaware that milk could be produced economically only if: 1) much of it, if not all of it, wasn't given to the calves; 2) most of the animals not producing milk were butchered; and 3) cows were bred to produce an unnaturally large amount of milk- more than her calf would need... and this increases her risk of developing certain illnesses. Looking back, I just never thought about what happened to dairy breed cattle. I didn't think about what their calves were supposed to drink if we were taking the milk... maybe I thought there was enough for both us and them. I never thought what happened to male calves (who obviously couldn't give milk) or to their mothers once they became too old to lactate. I just never thought past the "fact" that you could milk a cow without harming her. These were the things I needed to become aware of. |
Insemination isn't a punch to the eye or a helpful veterinary procedure. It's one species exerting complete control over another's reproductive capabilities, not for the benefit of the cow but for the profit of the human. It's an extreme abuse of power involving the cow's sex organs.
AgaIn: if it were to be done to a human, even a human incapable of understanding-- even a human who remains unconscious throughout, a human in a coma-- would you consider it sexual abuse? If there were a place where human women were artificially inseminated, made to carry babies to term, and then pumped so that their milk could be sold, would that be sexually exploitative even if the women were incapacitated? If so, then why is it not when the victims are non-human animals known to be sentient and intelligent beings? |
I'm embarrassed to admit that I was one of those who believed that cows simply make milk, that it's what cows DO. I never drew the obvious connection between milk and babies.
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
|
|
Posting Rules | |