The Oppressing of Women and the Castrating of Animals
Information for Women and Feminists
By: Mark Schmid
Version: 2010.01.03
|
The consequence of this is clear:
Whoever decides over another living being, not only what it may do and what not, but also which needs and interests it may have and which ones not, lifts him or herself above this being as a master over a slave, and thereby forever destroys the possibility of a relationship with this being which, despite the biggest possible differences, even in regards to power, species, gender, age, race, etc., is based on equal rights and equal value.
What does it mean if a relationship, even one between most different partners, is not based on equal rights and equal value? Especially women who most often wish to keep animals as "partners" and who have them castrated for this usage purpose, especially women should know what it means to live in a relationship in which both do not have equal rights and equal value. Especially women.
Of course a certain amount of friendship and even affection is still possible. Just as this is also possible in societies in which there are no equal rights and no equal value between men and women. There too there are many women who like or even love their husbands all the same. But it's definitely just not the same. Otherwise feminists would never have fought for equal rights for women.
Who castrates his or her animal, lifts him or herself over the animal like a master over a slave, he or she thereby destroys forever the possibility for a relationship which is based on equal rights and equal value, he or she forever makes the animal a slave. Even if many women and men love their slaves and perhaps are even "loved" by them, all the same nobody has the right to enslave others, totally irrelevant which gender, which age, which race or which species is in question.
Even if friendship between slave an master can exist, even exists often out of necessity, a friendship which is based on the castration of the one by the other and thereby on the denial and disregard of his or her right to own needs and to own interests, can never be or become a friendship that is based on mutual recognition of equal rights and equal inherent value, therefore can never be or become a friendship that is based on real respect of the other and his or her unadulterated ways and on his or her unadulterated own needs and interests, and in the end, on the recognition of his or her dignity. And therefore can never be true friendship and therefore never true love either, but at most, egoism of the castrating one.
The ban of castration of animals therefore is, even if this sounds paradox at first, a most feminist goal. Just like equal rights and equal value of man and woman, it protects the dignity, the rights, the needs and the interests of a weaker one. In this case of an animal instead of a woman. And just like equal rights and equal value of man and woman are important for our entire western society, even for individuals who are not themselves women, or who might not even like women, likewise a ban of castration of animals is important for individuals who are not themselves animals or who might not even like animals.
A ban of castration of animals advances society just as the demand for equal rights and equal value of man and woman demanded by feminists did the last time. Even more so, because such a ban more than anything protects the interests and needs of male weaker beings, of animals (since mostly male animals are castrated), such a ban also enhances the legitimization of the protection of women as the weaker ones, because it fundamentally decouples unright and oppression from gender. The ban of castration of (mostly male) animals is necessary and important, to legitimize equal rights and equal value of men and women also, so these are not perceived as an egoistic fight for women and their interests and against men, but as a just fight for the weak as such. It is important for not framing the male gender fundamentally as the evil and bad thing as such and to fight it as a false scapegoat, but instead the real evil and bad thing, the creation of victims through the denial of equal rights and equal value for the weaker.
Thereby a ban of castration of animals enhances setting straight the recognition of equal rights and equal value of men and women, of adjusting them in such a manner, that thereby no new victims, this time male ones are created and that the goals of equal rights and equal value of men and women thereby do not degenerate to goals of pure egoism of women at the expense of others, to pure sexism towards the male gender and thereby lose their acceptance with men.
Feminists who laughingly castrate a proud male animal, such as a stallion, in order to later use this animal for their purpose, for instance to ride upon, believe they did it, believe they won and have achieved everything which they wanted. How fundamentally wrong they are and how much they misunderstood the victory of their supposed rights towards others.
The fight against the castration of animals, even and especially male animals, is not a macho-cause of supposedly "mentally ill" men as many naïve dumb-whit women, or should I say chauvinist macho-women believe, but quite the contrary, a most feminist cause. At least if feminism is understood as a fight for justice and not as an egoistic fight for woman's interests at the expense of both men and justice. It just takes intelligence and wisdom to understand this.
So what is the message for women and feminists? Quite simple: The fight against the castration of animals and the fight against the oppression of women have a lot in common. It is important to understand this and to act accordingly at all times.
Organization for Animal Dignity
www.animaldignity.org
|
