Reproductive Autonomy: Crossing the Species Border

[_like_weeds]

Reproductive Autonomy: Crossing the Species Border
By Helen Matthews

Comments

[102bb]

I'm sorry, but this entire article is wrong on so many levels. The concept of equating the needs of women to the needs of animals just completely repulses me.

[_like_weeds]

I'm not sure it's equating the experiences, however I think all sentient beings deserve to be free from violence and reproductive control, and I don't understand how this can be seen as bad.

[happythree]

Until all of us, human and non-human animals, are free from sexual violence and reproductive control, none of us are.

You don't think this implies an equation through its assertion of an inextricable link?

[_like_weeds]

I think there is an inextricable link but I don't think all things that are linked are equal or the same.

[happythree]

So then why is it inextricable?

[_like_weeds]

Though experiences of rape and abuse are processed very differently by female bodied humans and female animals (i'm not going so far as to say that animals choose gender identities), both have suffered sexual violence and reproductive control due to the fact that we have uteruses, and that all creatures including animals should be free from suffering and cruelty. I think believing otherwise is incredibly dehumanizing, humans have the ability to choose what they support and how they behave.

[_like_weeds]

Reproductive control is only possible because of reproductive abilities. I did not mean to imply that these abilities CAUSE it.

[happythree]

Most of this is true, yet it still doesn't show any necessary link between how we treat cows and how we treat women. The fact that there are similarities is horrifying to most, not a point of empowerment. You aren't only putting aside the experience of the victim to hold up your parallel -- something that seems, idk, problematic -- you're also failing to offer any modern social or historical link that favors women being, in some form, placed on a level with animals. As far as I can see, that usually doesn't bode well for women.

[_like_weeds]

I don't know why you'd think that anyone would find abuse of any beings or parallels between that abuse empowering. The point is that abuse is wrong regardless of who is being abused.

[happythree]

My point is that if you're going to piggy-back on women's rights for the purpose of advancing your cause, it better be empowering and justifiable.

[_like_weeds]

Being vegan is empowering, abuse is not. Is wanting to decrease and ultimately eliminate the abuse of any beings justifiable? Of course it is.

[happythree]

I'm not criticizing your cause in general, I'm criticizing your attempted central -- intensely problematic, appropriating, and yes, disempowering -- framing.

[102bb]

The fact that it's equating the worths is bad enough for me. Female animal =/= woman.

[meganphntmgrl]

+1

[misters]

exactly.