Animals

Erm...... The connection you are making is kind of lacking in substance. Your point that female reproductive systems are exploited / abused based on patriarchy? It is clear to me that the exploitation of nonhuman female reproductive systems is pure speciesism. Do you think that people care of the sex of a pig whose babies they're going to eat? Or the sex of the cow their glass of milk comes from? No. To most people, female cow = milk cow. The fact that the male calves become veal just shows that male animals are treated with equal disrespect.

It is possible that patriarchy is involved here; in fact, I would argue that it is. But you haven't made that connection in this post.

Also, the fact that both male and female animals are used for breeding... there might be the fact that it's easier to exploit the female, as she is the receiver, yet it is so completely possible to exploit nonhumans of both sexes that any sexism inherent is kind of irrelevant.

Luella - My point is that a non-human animal's sex and age, in addition to species membership (and even the industry into which s/he is born), determines the particular form the exploitation will take. Sex, age and species intersect to create a unique scenario of abuse. In order to fully comprehend and dismantle this system of domination - the patriarchy, which is the hierarchy we live under - we need to tackle sexism, ageism, etc., as well as speciesism. (Certainly, I agree that speciesism is the driving factor in our exploitation of non-human animals - but other "isms" come into play as well.)

For example, let's say it's 2025 and, miraculously, we've achieved liberation for non-human animals. Non-human animals are no longer considered property and have some legal rights. Let's also say that feminism/womanism/womynism (i.e., the women's movement) has remained at a standstill in the preceding 16 years. Roe v. Wade is still under attack, we've yet to pass the ERA, women relying on government assistance are coerced into taking birth control, pregnant women are subject to prosecution for what they did or didn't do to/for the fetus living inside them, etc. In short, it's still acceptable for those at the top of the hierarchy (and by "top," I don't necessarily mean apex, but rather those above the group of women in question) to co-opt women's reproductive systems (i.e., bodies), ostensibly for the "public good."

Given that half the non-human animals we just liberated are also female, what's to stop those in positions of power from similarly exploiting non-human female animals as "needed"?

It not right to treat people and animals unfairly.  This is not humanitarian and not very pleasing even in the eyes of our creator..Everyone should treat other people just and fairly because each person has his own right and privileges. Animals, humans and every little thing God has created has their own right purpose and not just treat them like trash.  If people will be changed into Godly people, there will be not cries, no pain and no suffering. 

Marty, I'm an atheist, and I'd like to think I try my best to treat everyone fairly and with compassion.

Religion isn't a prerequisite for morality.

Comparing factory farming to slavery and the Holocaust is very effective, given the reader values non and human lives equally.  Unfortunately we, humans, think of our existence as the reason for the planet.  Therefore, granting us the right to act without consideration of . . . anything.  It's too bad that non human animals don't need us as much as we exploit them.

While I agree that the oppression of human females and non human females are similar, there is no comparison. For example no where in the world are human females eaten for their flesh although they may feel "like a piece of meat, further objectifying those beings that are actually murdered in horrific ways to become meat. Human females, although oppressed themselves, contribute to the institutionalized oppression and carnism of society by consuming non human females, taking their children away from them, wearing their skins,eating their eggs and drinking  the milk that was meant for their neonates. When human females indulge in this behavior they are also adding to the speciesist sexism of killing the unwanted male calves and chicks.

It's about who has power and control, and who represents the dominant culture.  For me, that's where sexism, racism & speciesism intersect.

I think that misogyny plays a massive role in the way that animals are exploited. All of the worst abuses of animals are also a blatant disrespect of motherhood, if women were respected in human culture and motherhood treated as sacred (especially as pregnancy comes with such a high risk of health problems and death) then it would be unthinkable to disrespect motherhood in other animals. And how it cannot be seen as an affront to womankind i dont know. I find it deeply offensive to my gender that female animals are treated like dirt and their natural behavior associated with motherhood is disregarded entirely. It sends the message that motherhood (and therefore all females) are insignificant. The atrocities against animals portray a sentiment that motherhood is just an uniportant role that women just have to do regardless of risks and choice, and it shows a human male sentiment that women are so worthless that its not even worth understanding their natural processes, let alone acknowledging the importance of these processes.
I think that misogyny and animal exploitation are very closely linked. 

I beg to disagree slightly with the implication at the beginning of this article that "reproductive rights" are somehow automatically synonymous with animal rights.

"Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles," writes pro-life activist Karen Swallow Prior, "there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement.

"Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to 'Get a Life!'

"Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience, and in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and nonviolence."

During 1986 - 1988, when I had access to USENET, a nationwide computer network linking corporations, military bases, think tanks, universities, etc., I paid close attention to the abortion debate. The subject of animal rights always came up, albeit indirectly.

The mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but rather some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights.

When a pro-lifer discussed the potential humanity of the unborn, a pro-choicer replied, "MY CAT has more potential than that!"

One pro-choicer said sarcastically, "Maybe the kid (the fetus) should be raised as a vegetarian. After all, don't cows have the right to life?"

Another pro-choicer, Oleg Kiselev, upon hearing the pro-life argument that brain waves can be detected in the unborn as early as six weeks, pointed out that animals also have brain waves. He then added, "Excuse me, while I eat my veal stew."

In the spring of 1988, Stephen Carrier, a grad student in Mathematics at UC Berkeley, pointed out that chimpanzees share 99 percent of their DNA with humans, and so, to argue that species membership alone makes life worth protecting "is to fetishize DNA."

A pro-lifer responded: "If it'll please you, I will agree to protect anything that is 99 percent human."

To this, Stephen responded: "Okay. How about 50 percent? That would probably bring quite a few species into the net."

Stephen Carrier admitted, "I don't know what makes it acceptable to kill animals for meat. Some people think it's wrong, and I have no logical answer for them. But it's not murder, and I believe abortions are analogous. Yes, it's killing--but it's not murder."

Stephen admitted his argument was "not a mathematical proof, but there is no mathematical proof that will resolve the abortion debate."

In the fall of 1986, pro-life student John Morrow of Rutgers University compared abortion to slavery: Roe v. Wade denied rights to an entire class of humans merely on account of their age and developmental status, just as the Dred Scott decision of 1857 denied rights to an entire class of humans based on the color of their skin.

Dave Butler of Tektronix in Oregon responded: "Abortion and slavery? Not even close. A fetus isn't human. If you believe it's wrong to eat meat, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else?"

"Not even close" has become a popular slogan with pro-choicers. It even appeared on the headlines of most San Francisco Bay Area newspapers in November 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected.

"Not even close" is not a new slogan. Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation that when Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, "her views were widely regarded as absurd."

Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher, tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft by demonstrating that if women could be given liberation, then animals could be given liberation, too. And since this is "absurd" it must be equally "absurd" to give women liberation. Taylor called his parody, "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes."

"Not even close" is the "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes" of the late 20th and early 21st century, because it takes for granted the invincible prejudice that other animals couldn't possibly have rights.  It is this prejudice which we in the animal rights movement are struggling to overcome.

Again, the mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights. This led me to conclude that if there's any group out there which ought to be sympathetic to animal rights, it's pro-lifers.