Morons of the Internet: Everyday Feminism (30/01/17)

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we have yet another article from Everyday Feminism, who've gone past the point of satire, with their writers seemingly in a competition with each other as to who can write the biggest pile of shit. Here we have an article desperately trying to shoehorn the standard feminist rhetoric into animal rights issues. I'm sure you've already guessed the quality of argument on display is going to be absolutely appalling, but you ain't seen nothing yet.
______________________________________________________________
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/animal-rights-feminist-issue/
______________________________________________________________

Apparently patriarchy is now responsible for animal cruelty as well. You know when you hear something so many times it loses all meaning. Yeah, well I wouldn't be surprised if these morons started blaming the big bang on this ideological system that seems to incorporate anything that can be perceived as negative. In this example the patriarchy apparently exists just because humanity often dismisses the interests of others, say like Western feminists do to women from Saudi Arabia, who I don't suppose give a single fuck about animal rights. We've learnt many a time that Everyday Feminism exists on its own fucking planet where apparently hypocrisy doesn't exist, but this article manages to ramp up the ignorance to a level that I didn't think was possible.

In what must come as a complete shock the article begins with just generalised nonsense and  completely incorrect information. Apparently animals in general can't fight back, which must come as a surprise to the 79 people in the USA attacked by sharks in 2010. In fact may I invite this author to put their head in a tiger's jaws, which should be harmless considering animals can't fight back. I'm also amazed how you can integrate your ideas of consent into animal populations. Of course animals can't give consent because they HAVE NO FUCKING CONCEPT OF WHAT RAPE IS. Animals do not have a comprehension of human language, and have no concept of law, but how does this lead to oppression? And more importantly if this were true then why would women be an oppressed class in human society when they can achieve all these things?

Wow, I wonder why animals can be reduced to fleshy things that can be consumed. Probably because they can be consumed, and are actually a staple part of a balanced diet. I will agree that there is an anthropocentric view of animal personalities, but how does that model stem from the patriarchy? Anthropomorphising separate organisms is common in human nature, but that's an entirely different process as to how a different human sex is treated, or are you really telling me that to the patriarchy women are a different species. That's not the only terrible generalisation in this point though. I don't know what planet this woman lives on, but animals are certainly a fundamental part of many cultural heritages, leading to some organisms being valued over others. You just cannot simply make the claim that all animals are viewed as worthless pieces of meat when there is such a diverse plethora in human attitudes towards animals. Are you really going to tell me that dogs and mosquitoes are treated equally in the Western World?

The simple fact is animal behaviour and feelings are almost a complete unknown, which explains why humans can't relate to them is societal terms. Scientists struggle to identify the origins of fixed action patterns in animals, so it would simply be false to suggest that animals experience humane emotions by sourcing an unscientific news articles about depression in dogs, which may I add doesn't even provide any solid evidence anyway. There is simply no evidence that failing to recognise perceived animal emotions is born out of cultural inconvenience, whatever the hell that even means. It's incredibly hard to empathise with an organism that's developed in isolation from humans for millions of years, and therefore it would be simply be fallacious to blame sociological reasons on their failure to be incorporated into modern society. What we're suggesting in this article is to now start incorporating things that aren't part of human society into it, and then judging those who don't comply to this idiocy by branding them as 'oppressors'. You may well believe that this constitutes as a system of violence, but animal rights issues should never be conflated around this narrative of universal victimhood that solely exists to demonise men. I can only apologise to the author that in finding animals fascinating I as a white man objectify them in a way that's obviously determined by my gender. I'd love to ask whether animals in general give a shit if they're being objectified, considering they have no comprehension of this human derived term. I'm sure they would be horrified in finding out how their potential extinction is now equally as bad as being a woman. Evidently in a sane world animal rights just aren't comparable with women's suffrage.

And can this author fuck off with her rejection over the scientific values of animal experimentation. I hate to break it to her but scientists aren't just psychotic assholes, they're using these animals for vital scientific research. I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that this author reaps the benefits of animal testing considering almost all experiments in the whole discipline of medicine contain animal testing. A bit of gratitude wouldn't go unnoticed you ungrateful bitch. Animals like mice and monkeys are not primarily used to be objectified, it's because they're model organisms for research. It's vital we use these species as we've mapped their genomes, and so can draw accurate and comparable conclusions; not because we've been conditioned to abuse them. I actually study in a scientific facility that uses live animals and I can reliably inform this author that ethical considerations are a key part of any scientific procedure. I could write this woman a whole fucking essay on the value of ex-situ conservation, which surprisingly she just rejected based on her feelings. Conservation biology goes far deeper than 'making humans laugh', and the majority of zoos haven't operated like that for decades. How about you actually comment on things after some objective research, and then maybe you wouldn't feel the need to tarnish a well respected discipline with your laughable agenda.

So now animal bodies fucking normalise rape culture. Jesus-fucking-Christ. The reasons for this are equally ridiculous. Apparently the proof that animal bodies normalise rape culture is because different sexes are treated differently in the respect of reproduction. This article makes it sound like this is an outrage, but how else does it imagine sexual reproduction fucking works? To then state that this causes their bodies to be under increased control is also scientifically inept. Firstly in evolutionary terms it would actually be males that would undergo the majority of allelic changes. And secondly why aren't male animals controlled during the process of selective breeding? They're forced to produce sperm as well, so how the fuck is this a gender issue? This nonsense can easily be disproved by the Darwinian principle of sexual selection. In some species the inverse happens where male populations are dependent on the number of offspring they rear, such as seahorses and pipefish. So how does their plight differ? We can also disprove this nonsense by examining various life histories of different organisms. Aphids are an organism with a ridiculously high breeding capacity, so under the logic of this article they should be far more objectified than cattle, who despite having relatively low breeding capacities are regularly farmed. This author just can't help but try and force her gender ideas into everything, EVEN INTO A RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE THAT ISN'T DEPENDENT ON HER SUBJECTIVE IDEAS.

I also hate this idea that animals in general are all objectified to the same degree despite having such vastly different influences on human society. Simply listing isolated cases is not describing a general trend, and even then why are you trying to force the ideas of consent into factory farmed animals? They're farmed animals, they don't have a fucking clue what the concept of consent is. Rape on the other hand is prevalent in many animal populations, so tell me how this is the fault of the patriarchy. Surely this author is aware that in the wild female animals are still forcibly impregnated right? The logic here is that if consent can't be given it has to be rape culture, so how the fuck do species multiply then you fucking idiot? Are you starting to get the message that animal rights and women's suffrage aren't comparable? There's also no credible sources provided for this 'factual information', which are integral to the argument with such sweeping generalisations. The source provided for the 'repeated rape' point is nothing more than vegan propaganda that still doesn't source any of its statistics. Funnily enough most of the misinformation is unable to be sourced because it's bullshit. Take 'rape racks' for example. That's not an industry term, rather a coined name for an apparatus used in a singular influential experiment. Still, that's not as fundamentally stupid as concluding that because animals are sexed that means rape culture exists in animal populations. Fucking unbelievable.

THERE'S ONLY A CORRELATION. A CORRELATION. STOP MAKING CAUSATIVE ARGUMENTS BY USING CORRELATIVE STUDIES. And here's another hint: If you claim something is proven how about linking a fucking source?

And here we go with this intersectonality bollocks. Where do we draw the line? Shall we start claiming that trees are being oppressed considering by the logic on display here they're both oppressed and living organisms. The fact is certain bodies are more valuable than others, that's quite literally the concept of fitness in evolutionary biology. In conservation biology the selective plight of certain groups is known as a triage, and imposes a moral hierarchy on the conservation of certain animals. The loss of keystone, flagship, or umbrella species for example is far more concerning than the loss of a parasite for example, or someone who writes an article like the one featured here. Please stop tainting solid science with your sociological horseshit. This article even goes as far to say it's pointless to rank how bad each group is oppressed. Of course that must be ignoring the male demographic, who've you've declared don't experience oppression in your hierarchy of victimhood. Again, why are we comparing transgender feminists with animals? Is it any wonder why this intersectionality is not a valid academic discipline for comparisons.

Wait, what the fuck does sexual power relations have to do with animal rights? I just genuinely don't understand how you can think liking cheese or hamburgers is part of a patriarchal script. I fucking love cheese and hamburgers because they taste nice, not because the patriarchy controls my tastebuds. The question for me is whether that love of food is worth the sacrifice of an animal, and for me it is because despite your best efforts to smear farmers based on personal prejudices it's only a minority of farms that wrongly mistreat animals. Again, fuck off with the ridiculous generalisations and comparisons.

To summarise this article is biggest pile of shit I've ever read. How the fuck can you equate the perceived objectification of women in society with human influences on animals. Animals out of curiosity are currently going through a sixth great extinction. Women sure as hell aren't. The logic here is that both women and animals are oppressed, and as such they are therefore identical. Quite simply that's an outrageous logical fallacy. How fucking dare this author start equating scientific debates with her piss poor sociological arguments. Serious science has no place in this fantasy world where all men are the very fabric of evil, and where arguments based on feelings have validity. Maybe I would be more readily accepting of the article if there was a single piece of evidence provided, instead of relying on an appeal to emotion masquerading as a serious piece.

I'm now convinced that 'Everyday Feminism' rely on mentally ill people to write for them, which I'm sure very much massages their goals of ableism in the workplace, but only serves to make these authors a laughing stock to anyone with a functioning brain. You can tell this is a website at the forefront of journalism and academic integrity, and not at all hosting courses to cure toxic whiteness for a significant fee. Surely a serious academic information source would never try an underhanded tactic like that, because that would make them money grabbing swindlers using the deplorable tactic of guilt tripping people into hearing their propaganda. Stay classy 'Everyday Feminism'.