In the list of unasked questions - has PETA’s prominent use of naked women in its campaigns ever actually converted anyone to animal rights? Or just drawn attention to them as an organisation?
There’s quite the focus on this in the blogosphere in the US, with a New York Times article on a “Vegans Gone Wild” message - a Vegan strip club in Portland.
Aside from dissing feminism, the shorter response from animal rights activists gone wild appears to be:
“Sexuality is what society will turn its head for more than anything else,” said Ingrid Newkirk, the president of PETA, who added that the recent advertisements were just one of the group’s strategies. “We try to reach everybody in different ways.” She noted that the group has also shown naked men in ads.
Well, that’s ok then.
That’s a photo from the NYT. Read the sign. Think about how this message is all kinds of wrongness.
lol, I’m not sure that nude hotties of either sex is going to convert people to veganism, but it’s a bit like that whole earth hour debate isn’t it? At what price awareness?
Filtering our consumption by - or because of - an ethical framework is not new and growing increasingly popular. I don’t think a vegan strip club harms the vegan cause. Whether it helps it, or what the motives behind its establishment are, well I don’t know.
I do think it’s possible for a thing to be trivial, without trivialising. In this case, I would say it’s a strip club first, and vegan second. I don’t think the patrons consumption choice will have a massive impact on animal deaths in the States, and I think this a conflation all-to-readily leapt upon by marketers and businesses at the moment.
That said, If you’re a vegan who just loooooooves strippers, obviously this is a dream come true, but methinks that won’t cover 90% of the customers.
Donald Sassoon in his The Culture Of The Europeans makes the very compelling point that the status of a cultural product is entirely dependent on the status of its audience.
There is objectively no difference between nudity in high art and nudity in advertising. The difference their comparative “worth” as cultural products is due entirely to the difference in the social standing of their respective audiences.
If you were to take the sign out of the image above, and tell someone it was an image from the Museum of Contemporary Art and that the picture was by Anne Zahalka and was a feminist statement about ennui or the alienation of women or represented her struggle to affirm her sexuality under the patriarchy, it would be “good”.
If you told the same person it was from an advertisement for a new Holden Commodore HSV, it would be “bad”.
If it was for a costly French Champagne, it would be “good” again, but “sexist” and “bourgeois”.
If it was from Lesbians on the Loose, it would be “good” again”.
Naked apes. Chattering chimps. Attend to your fleas and your grooming.
I have a lot of problems with PETA. This being the least of them. I have nothing against veganism, but PETA are real fringe activists who believe that all animal exploitation is bad. And this includes pet ownership. I’ll just tell my whippet she’d be better off taking her chances in the wild, rather than being tucked up on the couch as she is right now, after her hour long run in the park and eating her tasty, yet nutritious breakfast.
Well yeah, Elliot, but dude, why not talk about what it is not all the things it isn’t?
Of course we add cultural signifiers to objects and texts. It doesn’t make the signifiers themselves bad, or wrong. Things really are different in different contexts.
Don’t know about that one… Surely it would be _bad_ art, at best? That’s the other thing about signifiers, there’s no rule saying you have to buy into them, hence the scepticism about Nude=Hug A Cow.
I just keep wondering why PETA think it’s better to make synthetics (with all the inherent pollution they create) than to wear wool (which also has environmental problems, but is improvable, and is biodegradable). Surely that’s better for ALL the animals in the ecosystem?
PETA should know that bad behaviours (e.g. sexism and not giving a stuff about animals) are often connected. Frankly, PETA can get stuffed until they come up with something that doesn’t just appeal to teenage boys.
“If it was from Lesbians on the Loose, it would be “good” again”.”
Eliot (for some reason I want to point my finger and say “phone home”), you make a fair point. I for one am sick to death of pomo feminism and it’s “oh, it’s so hip and subversive to dress like a stripper” crap.
I wouldn’t put all of this in the same category. For example, if the strip club was being run as a collective by a group of women who were therefore getting a fair share of the takings and expressing their views on animal rights at the same time I’d think it was a great idea.
Having it imposed by a man who was hoping to make far more than the dancers ever would, and was probably treating the dancers to the bad conditions so common in the industry puts it on a different footing entirely.
Likewise, I’m bothered by PETA because so much of the direction seems to be set by men, or at least one man. (I also share the criticisms of PETA’s hard line where synthetics are better than wool and pets are a sin). But I don’t have a problem with the websites run by the models who take the opportunity to promote a vegan message while selling porn.
Can’t wear silk? Are they worried about the ethical treatment of caterpillars - mulberry leaves of inferior taste or some such?
One could say they’re at least being consistent, but are they? Such a low-level (for lack of a better word right now) animal being equated with leather-, feather- and fur-producing animals is a big step. Where’s the cut-off? Crustaceans? Insects?
Portland’s the home of the Suicide Girls. Speaking of which that lass has brilliant ink on her hips.
So according to the links this is s’posedly some kind of Suicide Girls/PETA collaboration? (I really need coffee). I kinda like the idea of a reconstructed strip club that’s like, y’know, interesting not the usual Ralph magazine scenario catering for those without taste or manners. But I went to the Suicide Girls tour thingy and it was pretty disappointing.
Fine #4. Your comment = hammer + nail, whack!
patrickg says;
Well, that’s Sassoon’s point - its just audience position in a cultural hierachy is part of the signifier’s context.
This is why some cultural products will undergo status changes over time. Something that is “tacky” or “kitsch” according to a particular social group will become more culturally elevated over time, especially if its original lower status audience loses interest in it and then it’s co-opted by a higher status group audience.
A good example is Pre-Rapahaelite art. Derided as “kitsch” in the 1970s when popular in suburban living rooms in framed prints - it became cool again once it was dropped by suburban mums and dads. Likewise, the rehabilitation of Deco in the ’80s.
Similarly, going the other way though, is 19th Century Italian Opera. Rossini, Verdi, etc.
Originally high art, in the second half of the 20th century it became popular with middle class audiences probably because it was till then associated with the upper, upper classes. Once the middle classes got on to it, it was derided as “middle brow”.
In its more recent “cross over” and “three tenors” compilation formats, it’s been more or less rejected by the middle classes, too, as kitsch.
Sometimes “irony” is used to usher a declassé cultural form back into a higher status audience group - so “camp” stuff, typically “kitsch” re-discovered by a higher status urban taste culture, is rehabilitated. For example, Kylie Minogue.
Another example is 1950s-1960s American industrial design, especially cars. Cars with huge fins, like 1959 Chevy Impalas and Plymouth Belvederes were considered outright vulgar in their day - until they stopped making them and after a few years design students and young urbanites “discovered” them as rockabilly-cool.
All across the cultural spectrum, that sort of thing happens. How many times did Frank Sinatra records go up and down the scale, I wonder!!
What Fine said. Oxford gets treated to PETA and their loopy friends on a weekly basis outside the new laboratory in South Parks Road. This sort of cheap shot - added to all their other cheap shots - undermines any good points they may have pretty seriously.
I think this is a misguided response to research that shows that women are more concerned about animal welfare than men. They’re trying to draw male interest. I don’t know about the US, but I’ve seen some of the Australian figures (sorry, I can’t find a link, but the stats came out of Adrian Franklin’s research for ‘Animal Nation’), and there is a gendered disparity over lots of animal welfare issues, although not a very wide one.
Interestingly, along with being more concerned to see animals treated well, and being more willing to live in close proximity with animals, women were also more wary of the potential of animals to do harm or injury. This suggests that women have a realistic, respectful attitude towards animals, and that is part of what contributes to their greater levels of concern for welfare. It doesn’t seem like this PETA strategy has much to do with fostering such attitudes.
So PETA are against pet ownership????
Ridiculous. Just what we need is more feral cats and dogs without homes. Your whippet would surely be happier right where whippet is right now, Fine. There should be more pet owners and more responsible pet owners (you know the type that don’t let their animals roam about).
I don’t know that much about PETA but I’d assume that they’re not advocating releasing helpless domesticated animals into the wild, just condemning the deliberate breeding of animals for any domesticated purpose including pets.
Be kind to animals. Release your cat into the wild.
PETA PETA
pumpkin eater
Got a cat
but wooden
FETA
But without cats, what would single middle-aged women do?
My pussy is staying right where she is, thanks Adrien. My Spotty is a sensitive little soul who wouldn’t last very long in the mean streets of the inner-city of Melbourne.
Thanks for that clarification, Depsis. I guess PETA’s position makes sense in a way, I guess, sort of.
Pet ownership is undoubtably animal exploitation.
The pet food industry is also a huge consumer of meat - at one point ( admittedly many years ago )PAL was the single most frequently purchased grocery item in the world.
There are now so many different dog and cat foods around now - often marketed for completely spurious reasons - sensitive stomach diets, middle-aged and weight maintenance diets all using plastic packaging . Additionally uncountable numbers of trees are consumed on marketing and advertising these foods via handouts in clinics ,pets shops and supermarkets. All this is almost completely unnecessary for reasonable pet nutrition to be obtained.
These inputs into the pet food industry are a huge tax on natural resources for the benefit of a small minority enjoying the personal indulgence and luxury of pet ownership.
Recently Andrew Bartlett proposed a “meat and dairy product” free day.
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/article.aspx?id=83604&page=1
What is good for the master would certainly also be godd for the petslave and I’d suggest that the owner’s of pets would help by thinking beyond themselves and why they feel they can consume more than others through their pet ownership.
And don’t worry about the excess pets - humane euthanasia and not thoughtless release is the obvious solution. Before you all jump to condemn this idea please realise that any non domestic species presented to any vet clinic if injured are automatically euthanased at the request of the wildlife care agencies.
They do that don’t they. Did you know that paleoanthropologists have found evidence that the cat domesticated humans quite a bit earlier than previously supposed? I guess they took pity and decided to impart some style to us monkey vulgarities. And after 10 000 years it’s actually worked on arounf .01% of us.
>
On second thoughts: pity? Cats? Um no. New theory.
>
And have you seen the Black in Fashion II at Fed Sq.?
feral sparrowhawk at 8 - yep, I would also assess the Vegan strip club differently if it wasn’t run by a bloke for profit.
I’ve actually changed my view on Suicide Girls - not on the concept necessarily, but the evidence about its exploitation of the models mounted to the point where it could no longer be discounted. So I’d question Missy Suicide’s motives here as well.
That’s right. PETA don’t want to reaease our pets. But they do want to put an end to pet ownership/guardianship. They seem to see any relationship between humans and other species as an exploitative one, by definition.
This seems to be a wilful refusal to actually look at domesticated animals and what they enjoy doing. Herding dogs love to herd stuff, retreivers love to carry stuff in theri mouth, sighthounds love to chase stuff, lapdogs love to sit on laps. Its their jobs and it keeps them happy. As for cats, I guess their job is to put people in their place.
And of course, none of these breeds would exist without the selective manipulation of their gene-pools by humans.
Natural-schmatural.
Fame, money, the usual?
>
I thought it was different and tasteful. This was the book. I never got into the website or whatever I’m not that interested. Like tatoos tho’. Some of ‘em went too far. That’s the problem: when to stop.
>
But one thing about Suicide Girls is at least it wasn’t the usual men’s magazine type 34-23-34 blonde-bots yeah?
it is. I’ve often thought of rising against my oppressors. But they’re so cute.
“small minority enjoying the personal indulgence and luxury of pet ownership.”
Actually 68% of the Australian population enjoy this particular personal indulgence.
And I wonder what your personal indulgence is, murph? Don’t have any?
I’m also interested in how pet ownership is undoubtedly animal exploitation?
Sorry, I was wrong it’s 63%
http://www.petnet.com.au/petstatistics.asp
Well, yeah, but it turned out to be the usual treat the people who actually constitute what’s being marketed like shit, while pretending to be some great feminist collective. Anyway, it’s probably a bit of a tangent.
There are lots of good reasons for criticising the pet industry, including many breeders, but more especially the way in which animals are marketed by putting them in shop windows. There is a difference between arguing against companion animals and arguing against the practices of the industry as it currently functions, which tend to lead to animals being neglected, or to ‘excess’ animals being abandoned and eventually killed. If PETA reject pets, it will be because of this, not because they think you’re being mean to your pet by having them live with you.
Would you care to explain to my little Tina why you want her dead Murph? I gather it’s because I’m exploiting her, but I don’t think she sees it that way. I’m confused.
As for this:
“Before you all jump to condemn this idea please realise that any non domestic species presented to any vet clinic if injured are automatically euthanased at the request of the wildlife care agencies.”
That is simply not true. IF nobody can be found to provide the time and resources to rehabilitate and release the animal into the wild where it belongs, then it is put down.
It’s also utterly irrelevant to a purported argument for euthanasia of domesticated animals, which seems to be predicated entirely on the fact of their domestication.
Didn’t know. You have a link there?
>
Beware of business ventures that claim to be idealistic acts. That’s normally a way of scamming your labour for nada.
It’s true there’s a million different brands out there for pets (playing on the guilt and gullibility of pet owners). However, pet cats are called domestic cats for a reason.
It intrigues me that when one makes an appointment with the vet these days (as I did for Spotty last night), the pet is referred to by its first name (e.g. Spotty) and the surname of its owner (e.g. Spotty Taylor). And the vet sends regular reminders about Spotty needing this tablet or that treatment or whatever (all a particular brand, mind you). So I’ll concede that there’s lots of crap out there designed to make pet owners buy buy buy.
Oh yes, Adrien, loved Black in Fashion at Fed Square. That’s the Australian part of the exhibition. Absolutely enchanted by those dresses from days gone by, and wonder how the poor women wore them.
Yeah ’specially in summer. Whoo. The Sisters of Mercy soundtrack made me laugh. Hadn’t hear them in a while.
While I agree there’s a lot of crap out there, when I’m talking about the industry, I’m talking about the breeding, marketing and sale of the animals themselves. The problem with putting the pets in shop windows - for me anyway - is that it encourages us to think of them as simply a commodity, and that is quite at odds with the ethical relation implied by companionship. Many people who make those purchases on impulse find the animals involved too difficult or demanding after a little while and then they dump them or neglect them. To the extent that the current arrangements encourage that behaviour, I think they are a bad thing.
As for vets, I appreciate my animals being treated as part of the family, and having found a vet I trust, am also happy for them to remind me about what I need to do to care for them properly.
Agreed, Klaus. Definitely should discourage impulse buying when it comes to something as important as animals.
We should be dubious about the quality of care animals are receiving in pet stores as well. At least one of the big chain stores had no problem recently selling a product for fish that was a tiny little thing designed to be a speaker for iPods.
My cat was adopted from Lort Smith Animal Hospital as an adult cat whose previous owners could presumably no longer care for her.
I agree about the quality of care in shops, Darlene, it is also worthy of concern. The same can be said of puppy mills and the like, which are largely invisible to consumers. Some retailers buy their animals from them, as well, so one set of bad conditions can be linked to the other.
While I impulse bought my rabbit in a pet shop some years ago I think adoption from shelters is the best policy, and we have since adopted two guinea pigs from a shelter (and also found a budgie, presumably an escapee, though we never located an owner). I will definitely be going to the Cat Protection Society for a cat, although obviously that’s not going to happen any time soon.
And the commodification of women’s sexuality and bodies in a strip club is precisely what makes it such a ludicrous fit with the vegan ideals of not exploiting / commodifying / hurting animals.
There is no need to ever buy a cat from a pet shop.
Veganism and PETA are not for me because I do believe that the best of all possible relationships between humans and animals is co-operative, domestic and individualised. The PETA morality advocates non-contact between humans and animals which I think is a massive impoverishment and a loss of one of the best and most ethically defensible pleasures of life, being friends with animals. If vegans believe it’s ethically necessary for your soul not to cause the nasty & brutish life and death of a mass-farmed chicken just so you can gourmandise on its eggs or its corpse, I agree with that to some extent, but I think to stop there is fairly morally vacuous. PETA would not endorse the happy mutually beneficial relations we have with our backyard chickens (we provide a house, lettuce, and sunflower seeds, and they supply eggs, gardening services and comedy) and I think that is not only wrongheaded, but also possibly a bit contemptuous of animals and disregarding of their undoubted capacity for agency. Veganism sometimes (not always) is accompanied by a kind of visceral disgust for ‘dirty’ animals and animal products (eg, a revulsion for the thought of consuming milk! comes out of a cow!) which goes well beyond ethical objections to the way farmed animals are treated.
I had a cat that just walked in one day, inspected the place and sat down. Didn’t own him. More of a friendship thing. Bit of a moocher tho’. Never paid for beers at the pub or anything.
>
Sadly gone now.
>
PETA are nutbags! C’mon. The cause isn’t the thing. There’s just heaps of people out there who’re dying to go around pronouncing moral judgement on others. Probably got kicked out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or something.
Laura, I think what you’ve written is pretty accurate. PETA sems to be full of people who only care about animals theoretically, but have little actual knowledge of them. Because once you have knowledge about a subject then everything becomes a lot more complicated.
Klaus K, one of the things that PETA gets wrong is that they put all animal breeders in the same category. I couldn’t agree with you more about selling animals in pet shops and the problems that creates. But there’s a world of difference between that and the responsible breeder who adheres to the KCA’s Code of Ethics. It’s PETA’s policy to have all domesticated animals desxed. Voila! The result of this - no more domesticated animals in the next generation.
A great option for someone who wants a dog is the Greyhound Adoption Program. Shameless plug! They’re gentle, loving animals who have a bit of undeserved bad press, but they fit in very well with most households.
http://gap.grv.org.au/index.html
I think you’re on to something there, Laura. Human/animal relationships of mutual benefit are as old as humans are if we include the semi-domestication of scavengers and the like. I think we turn our backs on that inheritance if we refuse all relationships, and it’s a very human-centred way of thinking, when you look at it, to assert our total autonomy. There are reasons why simply watching a dog running around in open space has demonstrable health benefits, and I think that’s because it’s a fundamental part of who we are to be around non-human animals.
I have heard it said quite often that we neglect our fellow humans in giving time and resources to our animals, but when I think of the friendships I’ve cultivated, and the joy that my companions bring me that I then take into my life, I find it hard to agree with the idea that it’s an either/or type of situation.
Dogs and cats are most definitely human symbiots. The evidence is overwhelming. There’s even a theory that they acquired us. Cats anyway are thought to’ve started hanging around when we settled down and started attracting mice. They evolved from some N African cat. They have one at the Melbourne Zoo (if you really want to talk about cruelty to animals). He looks like a tabby cat only bigger. He also looks really pissed off.
Agreed Fine. Part of the problem with the way this is dealt with by organisations like PETA is that certified breeders and shelter advocates get wedged apart. Ideally, I see them as mutually complementary.
“There’s even a theory that they acquired us. Cats anyway are thought to’ve started hanging around when we settled down and started attracting mice”
Yes, I’ve heard of this. And dogs ‘moved in’ to the areas around human groups very early, and began making use of the relative protection afforded and the ready supply of waste and food scraps left in our wake.
And then one of us threw a stick and a dog brought it back.
>
This isn’t the way it happened with cats. You ever seen a cat fetch a stick?
>
“You fetch the stick, I’m busy. If you wanted the stick so badly why’d you throw it away in the first place.”:)
>
The reason cats made friends is we have fingers and fingers are really good at rubbing that bit between the shoulder blades that they can’t reach. Prrrrrrrr.
>
This discussion’s filling me with the urge to impulse-buy a cat. I won’t. But I feel like it.
Ever seen a cat fetch a stick? Yes, front lawn , Sunday morning. He doesn’t bring it back, though, just pounces on it and gnaws it fiercely.
“That is simply not true. IF nobody can be found to provide the time and resources to rehabilitate and release the animal into the wild where it belongs, then it is put down.
It’s also utterly irrelevant to a purported argument for euthanasia of domesticated animals, which seems to be predicated entirely on the fact of their domestication.”
The difference I’m trying to get accepted is that vets put down an injured bird for example - a non native mynah as soon as it is presented to a clinic. The wildlife rescue workers are only interested in native animal care. Why ? Well that is their choice but lots of injured and ill animals are bumped off because they are non natives.No qualms about all the killing .
The issue isn’t the domestication of the animal - the domestic description I used was referring to the native / non native divide.
Apart from that the the hypothetical others posed was ” so Peta would just release all the pets would they ?” and that’s not the only thing that could be done.
Pet ownership is exploitation because the pet rarely if ever chooses the owner . The odd cat may wander into someone’s home but stop feeding them and off they will go.The pet is retained for the purpose of making the owner feel better - their need for unconditional love is the usual basis of the exploitation.
Owners routinely mutilate their pets - desexing them is hardly a natural choice of the pet , where is the informed consent for one thing?
The pet is also juvenilised for life so it doesn’t become independent. Their behaviour is modified to remove those natural behaviour patterns which would lead to conflict with the owner. This is all done from the foundation that the pet is there for the benefit of the owner.
What do others think of the Senator’s idea by the way ? He has hit on a example of
how we all need to recognise asking others to change isn’t the way ahead and there shouldn’t be exceptionalism because some animals are cute or their owners need their pets to feel wanted.
A farmer will tend to his animals with no less care than a pet owner but where one exploits the animal for financial gain the other does so for a non material gain.You just can’t call one exploitation and not the other.
Nah. Just helped himself really. Needed me to make coffee however. Loved coffee.
Murph, I beg to differ. I assume you yourself don’t know much about what it’s like to have close daily relations with animals - if you walk your talk, that is. (By the way, only last week the local vet took on a non-native mynah that smashed its head against the kitchen window. I imagine you don’t have much to do with vets, either.)
Animals that belong to a household assert themselves and their wishes in all kinds of ways. It’s not exactly for personal gratification that I get up three or four times a night to do things the cats want me to do. Give and take is the only way we can manage to get on together.
Then there is the fact that the animals have relations of their own with each other that don’t concern the people. Just seeing this each day is enough to hammer home the knowledge that it’s not all about us people.
As for the idea that the relations between people and animals are inherently exploitative becasue the pet didn’t choose its owner, would you say the same about kids and their parents?
Also, think about how many people strike up friendships with other people in the neighbourhood through mutual admiration of canine companions? Or through discussing the vagaries of the local mooching feline’s ever-escalating demands?
“It’s not exactly for personal gratification that I get up three or four times a night to do things the cats want me to do.’
Perhaps it is - I think it’s called munchausen syndrome or munchausen syndrome by proxy. The owner is validated by the perception they entertain that the pet needs them. This imagined need becomes a justification for the relationship. Some pet owners actually hurt their pets so they have the added “responsibility” of caring for the injured animal.
Let’s not even start on the obsessive pet collectors - unfortunately usually cats are the target pet and they suffer a sad fate at the hands of these ill persons .
If your local vet treats injured non natives that may be their personal choice and good for them for being humane but most wildlife agencies will request that the attending vet kill any non native presented to them.It’s the doctrine you see.
The fact pets living together in a multipet household will form a set of relationships based on their pattern of accepted dominance is just a natural thing for them to do. It isn’t done for the benefit of the owners as you have observed but the owners don’t allow a pet to leave when they are constantly fighting due to this rleationship being unsettled do they? No ,they seek the assistance of a behaviour modification expert so they can force a suitable( for the owner ) resolution upon the pets.
I understand these ideas appear aggressive to some but I feel Senator Bartlett is addressing our personal responsibilty directly and openly. Without exception.
To respond to the question you ask about parents and their offspring- the individual’s sense of importance derived from being a parent is a form of exploitation and I’d bet some parents have kids purely to satisfy some needs of their own - I don’t think this a novel or unrecognised concept.
And Laura , you may think it strange but I have a pet - a lovely 7 month old black Labbie , desexed and attending classes. If I knew how ( and I think this is one facility LP doesn’t allow)I’d post a photo as he is undoubtably the most handsome dog about these parts.
I have sort of an embarrassing problem, and a question to ask about it. You see, I’m a werewolf. Three years ago I was bitten by an accursed wolf while on holiday in northern Michigan, and now, whenever the moon is full, yadda yadda yadda, you guessed it, with the hair and the teeth and everything. I am both man (were/vir) and wolf (wolf).
So what does PETA suggest I do to dissociate my wolf-self from my human-self? What is the ethical way for me to conduct relations with my wolfish nature? And, is there a calendar I can pose for?
yours etc.,
Concerned in Kalgoorlie
On the SG fracas:
Wired article covering the basics - http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/09/69006
>
The SG site is blaming Bush. And there’s ex-SG models who’re blaming SG.
Murph the Surf, sure this isn’t an April Fool’s Day joke?
I wonder seeing as you see pet ownership as exploitation, including the mutilation of desexing, why do you have a dog? Wouldn’t be better to have him euthanised, as you suggested in your previous post?
Why is the relationship that of exploitation because you chose it and not your dog? Do you think the dog feels exploited? If the dog doesn’t feel exploited, then isn’t worrying about it just a form of moral vanity?
It’s true domestic dogs are permanently infantilised wolfs. But again, do you think your dog cares, or feels unhappy because of that?
You talk about this realtionship as though it’s one-sided. Haven’t you noticed the pleasure your dog gets from being with you, working with you to achieve something? Do you think if asked, the dog would say ‘please euthanize me, because these things make me so miserable?’ I wonder how you justify indulging in your unnecessary luxury of dog ownership?
Fine , I was pointing out you could do something other than release pets , not recommending the same.
Pets are juvenilised forms of their own species. We do that to them to make them more controllable. I know I’m exploiting an animal by having a pet and would prefer others to be able to see what it is that constitutes part of the pet owner relationship.
Anthropomorphisising pets - asking them questions , wondering what they think etc ventures off into areas I don’t tread upon.
But, what could the possible point be of pointing that out?
“Pets are juvenilised forms of their own species.”
No, they’re not. Dogs have been in this form for thousands of years. We don’t do it to them. It’s already done. They’re not wolves. They’re a completely different species.
If you don’t ask yourself what your dog thinks, how can you possibly know anything about him? How can you make a judgement about what constitutes exploitation?
You seem to have very little insight into domestic animals.
Vacuum less often.
OK Murph, if you want me to see you as exploiting your dog I will oblige.
Yeah Murph I think you’re conflating a whole lot of different ideas under the rubric of “pets”, and I don’t think that’s fair.
We call it domestication - and as Fine points out, it’s tens of thousands of years old, and has shaped evolution - but it’s also known as symbiosis.
Is the remora on a whale shark somehow deprived, etc?
I think you’re imputing animals with a choice they don’t have dude. You think, in the wild, an animal has a choice?
To paraphrase an old marxist, yes they are free. They are free to starve, free to get eaten, and die slowly from small injuries.
Excuse my French, but whoop de fuck for that kind of freedom.
Now, I’m not saying all pet ownership is bonza - that would be stupid. And I’m not saying that we are somehow doing all animals a hiuge favour by keeping them as pets. Some animals are not suitable for pets - namely, non-domesticated one (though, there are even exceptions to this).
But it’s a mutually beneficial relationship. And there’s nothing wrong with that. You are devaluing, not just the material benefits, but the psychological and emotional benefits that animals get from us, as we do from them.
Oh man, Fine, I wish I had never looked at that link! So many gorgeous dogs. Sob, growing up on a farm makes city life very hard sometimes.
You mean you would prefer others to agree with you.
Your argument assumes that individual animals have some kind of independent pre-existence. I bailed out my two cats from the RSPCA when they were (clearly traumatised) kittens, born because at least two other people had cats they weren’t taking responsible care of (ie either getting desexed or keeping inside). For my kittens there were two alternatives: a career as pets, or the needle and the big litter tray in the sky.
And so on back through hundreds of urban cat generations. They have grown up living with me, and that is what they like. It’s a mutually beneficial situation. They get fed, I get purred at, everyone’s happy.
Treating cats or any other pets as beings with some kind of identity is simple common sense to anyone who’s ever lived with one. It’s not necessarily anthropomorphisation, more just an awareness that western culture’s traditional attitude to animals and their selfhood is part Descartes and part the church — both with vested interests in seeing animals that way — and need not necessarily be accepted.
On the last para, Dr Cat, can we haz post on that?
I remember an awful guest lecturer when I was doing undergrad philosophy who tried (deliberately) to make us as cranky as possible by defending Descartes’ thesis that animals have no pain for two hours.
But I’d be really interested to read an expanded version of that para.
My PhD supervisor is writing a book on social attitudes to animals in the Ancient World, which I’m really looking forward to reading!
That’s OK Laura , I see all pet owners as exploiting their pets.
Sorry Fine , Im being unclear in what I’m getting at.
The dog raised as a pet regardless of the species history as a domesticated animal is individually juvenilised so the owner can avoid unpleasant behaviours developing in their pet. This process of juvenilisation warps the animals natural behaviours especially with regard to the extent to which aggression and sexual behaviour - marking, roaming, and fighting is allowed.
Left to it’s own devises with a pack ( such as roam around the country near my home ) a dog has no need for humans .When we take the dog from this sort of environment it is a tough job to turn them into pets.
Cat owners will be familiar with the problem of the rehomed street kitten which had no human contact at a young age - specifically between the ages of 6-10 weeks. These little guys are often very aggressive to the kind hearted soul who takes them in and regardless of the free food and affection ( as the owner interprets their actions ) the cat will usually not change. Years later the owner is still being attacked when they walk past a doorway or around a corner in their home.
“Oh he/she had a terrible start to life - he/she must have been abused ” is the frequently repeated ,incorrect explanation the owners have to fall back on.Not having humans in their life isn’t necessarily a disaster for animals be they domesticated or not.
I’m not disputing that some animals have been domesticated and it isn’t really material to my point. There are more and more ” exotic” pets about these days - snakes , tortoises, spiders even. I view these owners as collectors and their relationship to the “pet” is definitely one sided in that it benefits the owner only.
PatrickG’s idea that the mutually beneficial aspects of the relationship is one I can’t agree with - the pet would be fine without the owner and the human’s desire to be seen as an important part of the animal’s life is a self serving delusion.
Mark, I’d be happy to have a go in a couple of weeks when the deadline backlog has cleared a little, she said hopefully. But in the meantime I’ve sorta kinda written about it a bit here. Well, more quoted other people writing about it.
“To paraphrase an old marxist, yes they are free. They are free to starve, free to get eaten, and die slowly from small injuries.”
I’m afraid PatrickG is right Murph. If you let your darling Lab into the wild, he’ll have a very unhappy life. I think you have romantic ideas about Nature with a capital N.
PatrickG, those greys are gorgeous. Happily, they’ll end up in good homes. GAP doesn’t have them put down, unless absolutely necessary.
I’d like to see an expanded thread from Dr. Cat re her last paragraph as well.
Controlling shagging and brawling is ‘juvenilisation’? I would have thought the exact opposite. Quick, somebody tell Wayne Carey.
patrickg: yes, “domestication”.
We human exploiting bastards have also domesticated wheat, tomatoes, potatoes [Int’l Year of the Potato], grapes, hops, beans, zucchini, water, garlic, olives; I mean what did those innocent indigenous species do to deserve that? Getting planted, cross-bred, planted again, and OUCH!! harvested - have you seen what they do to wheat??, for crying out loud, with those huge, noisy machines? Worse in so many ways than mulesing sheep.
And beans, tomatoes, spuds: BOILED ALIVE. Bastard people. Don’t deserve to eat, exploiting plants that way…..
SO, I’m going to do an installation in a chic locale, with some gorgeous naked woman taking fresh, ripe, living tomatoes, and she’s going to [deleted on grounds of taste]
ALF - Koo Wee Rup cell/fraction
Asparagus Liberation Front
Or, in the case of “marking”, Brendan Fevola.
Cheers, Dr Cat, I’d love to see the Cartesian angle expanded, but there’s no hurry! He’ll keep.
Exactly, I wonder if Murph has seen Mum Cat or Dog giving the off-spring a good cuff around the ears when they’re playing up. You get a lot of trouble with dogs who have been removed from their Mums too young, because she hasn’t had the chance to teach them properly. For instance, house training. Mum teaches them you don’t pee in your home and them the human has to teach them to extend the concept ‘home’ into a whole house. Really tough for a pup who’s been removed too young.
Yes, Ambigulous and we also exploit the crap out of bees who pollinate food plants and without whom we will all starve.
Descartes will keep, and so will young Brendan Fevola: urio ergo sum
Well, not being at all in favour of corporeality, I doubt Rene is any danger of returning as a reanimated corpse.
/been watching too many zombie movies lately
“Controlling shagging and brawling is ‘juvenilisation’? I would have thought the exact opposite. Quick, somebody tell Wayne Carey.”
I can’t comment on either Mr’s Carey or Fevola but you have it correct in the reverse PC - the animal is not allowed to develop as a mature animal would so the owner doesn’t have the pet performing unacceptable ( to the owner ) acts.
The pet is a life long juvenile - they are stopped from developing and thus more suitable to live with people. A naturally mature animal will exert more independence and aggression.
A big part of a vet behaviour specialist’s work tends to be investigating how owners have incorrectly proceeded along this path and developing starategies for the correction of the ” aberrant ” behaviours.
… yes Mark but old Rene lives on in our minda and hearts which is a “pretty neat trick” as they say. And in the Cartesian plane of mathematics. etc.
I condemn myself for “urio”, a desperate attempt to write “I p*ss” in Latin. Am not equippeed with the requisite dictionary.
Oh indeed, Ambigulous.
He, after all, came up with this phrase:
Larvatus prodeo.
Laura, you’re right about the poor little bees.
But frankly, I prefer honey.
And I notice plenty of other customers in the supermarket hurrying past that section where little jars of “Bee’s crap” are displayed.
People are just so narrow-minded, aren’t we? A perfectly dreadful species. I must raise this with the chaps down at the club.
toodle-pip
Mark: that’s one of Rene’s is it? Good for him. If you’re reading this, Rene: well done Sir!
He wasn’t a bad old stick til he started that silly bizzo with founding reason on a denial of materiality and the body…
I don’t know about that, murph. I don’t think a lot of behaviourists would actually view dominance etc as aberrant, but rather as a natural phenomenon requiring the establishment of a different hierarchy that the pet is naturally going to respond to. Horses and dogs are understood to have hierarchies within their groups in the wild, and insight into how these work has helped behavioural specialists to find techniques that facilitate harmonious companionship by allowing humans to renegotiate the animals positon. I don’t see it as particularly natural to have two members of a pack trying to occupy the same hierarchical position: it is always resolved in conflict. Thanks to behavioural specialists, this conflict can be mediated to minimise harm to both parties. Okay, so the dog isn’t in charge, but accepting the power differential doesn’t mean there is no give and take: pack leaders don’t ‘exploit’ other members.
Klaus ,the aberration is is the eye of the owner only.