During a recent ongoing discussion (I use the term loosely) with several rather rabid animal rights supporters, I was accused of being less than bright, of faulty logic, of misunderstanding the term speciesism, of supporting “rape” of animals by humans while at the same time opposing it, among other things. I am basically a fairly insecure person regarding my intellect and my lack of college education weighs on me, consequently, I immediately bought it.
I really had grown weary of the endless diatribes and the emotional anthropomorphism that was all over the board, but I admit my feelings were hurt and I felt ashamed that I hadn’t defended my position more clearly and eruditely. I had planned on just stopping the discussion, but after the last posting felt I had overstayed and now appeared foolish and illogical, uneducated. I felt I’d squandered the opportunity to get just one person to see that not all people who have animals are people who, according to one AR person claimed, wear tobacco stained overalls, smell of cat pee and have difficulty stringing together simple sentences. My intellect was called into question. My understanding of the term speciesism was apparently incorrect according to the debaters.
This is the dictionary definition of Speciesism:
Main Entry: spe·cies·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈspē-shēz-ˌi-zəm, -sēz-\
Function: noun
Date: 1973
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on species; especially : discrimination against animals
2 : the assumption of human superiority on which speciesism is based
Another treatise on speciesism:
Speciesism is a term coined by Richard Ryder in 1970. The word refers to the widely held belief that the human species is inherently superior to other species and so has rights or privileges that are denied to other sentient animals. ‘Speciesism’ can also be used to describe the oppressive behaviour, cruelty, prejudice and discrimination that are associated with such a belief. In a more restricted sense, speciesism can refer to such beliefs and behaviours if they are based upon the species-difference alone, as if such a difference is, in itself, a justification.
Ryder used the term as a deliberate ‘wake-up call’ to challenge the morality of current practices where nonhuman animals are being exploited in research, in farming, domestically and in the wild, and he consciously drew the parallel with the terms racism and sexism. Ryder pointed out that all such prejudices are based upon physical differences that are morally irrelevant. He suggested that the moral implication of Darwinism is that all sentient animals, including humans, should have a similar moral status
After reading both of these and numerous other articles, I came to the conclusion I DID understand the term and it was perfectly all right for me to say I don’t believe that it’s a valid concept. I don’t believe that humans are “superior” to animals, I do believe that humans have (yes, as a species) an intellectual capability to understand rights, morals, ethics and complex problems and consequently, have rights that animals do not.
Speciesism is indeed a “made up” word to describe someone’s feelings about humans and animals. It does denigrate and diminish those who have been discriminated against by racism and sexism. Racism and sexism are humans discriminating against humans using fallacy to do so. Humans do have greater capacity for intellectual and group pursuits than animals.
I was also accused of misrepresenting Peter Singer’s philosophy and point of view on several issues. Of course the basis for that is the fact that the opposition poster felt that artificial insemination of animals (AI) is akin to rape in humans. And, not to get too personal or share more than necessary, as a person who has been raped, I find it offensive and appalling that a person could believe such a thing.
I’m sorry I caved. I do feel like I’ve let the Animal Welfare community down. I need to get my gumption up and go back. I need to point out that AI is not rape, that Peter Singer did indeed say in a review of a book on the psychology of bestiality that if the animal is not physically harmed and there is mutual gratification, it’s not always immoral! WHAT?? Perhaps I did take that out of context, but it’s still fact.
I’m going to do an entire blog about Peter Singer this week. I think it’s warranted. He is considered the “Father of Animal Rights” and it’s important to try and understand what he’s about.
So, dear followers, I am sorry – I gave in to my own insecurities and backed off. I’ll take a deep breath, have a nice glass of plum wine and hit the boards again. I just can’t let the misinformation stand unanswered.
You go girl!
Posted by: Ilona | 03/10/2010 at 10:59 PM