The basic form of my question is: Is the term 'feminism' too biased in favour of women to be an appropriate moniker for a movement advocating gender equality?
Yes, I think so. Originally, feminism was quite an appropriate label, as virtually all of the inequality was at the expense of women, but in modern times there is also quite a bit of inequality towards men, and there are also other genders which are becoming increasingly visible, which face more inequality than either of the 'binary' genders. A more descriptive name, such as 'egalitarianism' might be better. Of course, that term is sometimes applied, and there are also other obscure terms which a few people use, but in order to make a difference use of the term would have to become widespread.
Some people also make an attempt to be inclusive by using a variety of terms in combination. Such a person might call themselves a feminist, progressive masculist, LGBT-etc. ally, and so on. This, however, becomes rather clunky and is hardly aesthetically pleasing, so a single all-inclusive term would most likely be preferable.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Q&A 7, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Could associating animal rights with another, more visible social movement help it advance?
Perhaps, but only, I think, if the chosen social movement was very widely supported - for example, the movement advocating equal rights for black Americans. Otherwise, the movements would simply drag one another down by implying that in order to support one, a person must also support the other. Social movements such as that for LGBT (and all the other sometimes-included letters) rights, for example, would suffer enormously from the suggestion that in order to support them, one must also be a vegetarian/vegan. Similarly, animal rights would suffer from the suggestion that one must support all of the members of the LGBT-etc. community.
Perhaps, but only, I think, if the chosen social movement was very widely supported - for example, the movement advocating equal rights for black Americans. Otherwise, the movements would simply drag one another down by implying that in order to support one, a person must also support the other. Social movements such as that for LGBT (and all the other sometimes-included letters) rights, for example, would suffer enormously from the suggestion that in order to support them, one must also be a vegetarian/vegan. Similarly, animal rights would suffer from the suggestion that one must support all of the members of the LGBT-etc. community.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Response: Wrong Direction
In response to Justine Cozza's post on 3/8/12:
Rather than suggesting that society should remove the stigma from women's consumption of meat (a stigma which has largely disappeared in American society, by the way - it is simply that women tend to be more accepted than men if they choose to be vegetarians/vegans), it would probably be better than men's consumption of meat gains a stigma associated with it, and men's choosing to be vegetarians/vegans loses its stigma. While the article we read didn't go too far into the moral implications of meat-eating, they are considerable and negative. I do not support the idea of associating feminism with environmental concerns and animal rights, but perhaps it would be better to at least start changing gender roles with regards to meat consumption - simply in the other direction than the above post seems to be suggesting.
Rather than suggesting that society should remove the stigma from women's consumption of meat (a stigma which has largely disappeared in American society, by the way - it is simply that women tend to be more accepted than men if they choose to be vegetarians/vegans), it would probably be better than men's consumption of meat gains a stigma associated with it, and men's choosing to be vegetarians/vegans loses its stigma. While the article we read didn't go too far into the moral implications of meat-eating, they are considerable and negative. I do not support the idea of associating feminism with environmental concerns and animal rights, but perhaps it would be better to at least start changing gender roles with regards to meat consumption - simply in the other direction than the above post seems to be suggesting.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Response: Unlikely Ideals
In response to Andrew Nelson's post "Can animals live a better life if they are destined for the slaughter?" (March 6, 2012):
I agree with most of this post, but I think it neglects two critical points. Firstly, no matter how pleasant a life and humane a death farmers might choose to give to cattle, the fact remains that they are cutting the cattle's lives short. That is in and of itself unethical. In order for the practice to be fully ethical, they would have to wait until the cattle dies natural deaths (as of old age) before preparing and consuming their meat - an unlikely objective, as it risks producing diseased meat, and because many people would not be willing to purchase or consume the tough, aged meat of cattle who died natural deaths. Secondly, regardless of whether the prior ideal could exist as an industry, it does not exist now. As such, consuming beef (and other types of meat, with the possible exception of venison due to the current horrific overpopulation of deer) is and will almost certainly remain unethical.
There is one way in which eating beef could continue as a practice without endorsing immorality - by creating cloned meat. Cloned meat does not require the death of cattle, and while it is currently prohibitively expensive (and banned in many places) in the future it could well become a viable alternative to vegetarianism, so long as people show sufficient interest in continuing to research it.
I agree with most of this post, but I think it neglects two critical points. Firstly, no matter how pleasant a life and humane a death farmers might choose to give to cattle, the fact remains that they are cutting the cattle's lives short. That is in and of itself unethical. In order for the practice to be fully ethical, they would have to wait until the cattle dies natural deaths (as of old age) before preparing and consuming their meat - an unlikely objective, as it risks producing diseased meat, and because many people would not be willing to purchase or consume the tough, aged meat of cattle who died natural deaths. Secondly, regardless of whether the prior ideal could exist as an industry, it does not exist now. As such, consuming beef (and other types of meat, with the possible exception of venison due to the current horrific overpopulation of deer) is and will almost certainly remain unethical.
There is one way in which eating beef could continue as a practice without endorsing immorality - by creating cloned meat. Cloned meat does not require the death of cattle, and while it is currently prohibitively expensive (and banned in many places) in the future it could well become a viable alternative to vegetarianism, so long as people show sufficient interest in continuing to research it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)