Skip to content

dairy is a feminist issue.

April 27, 2010

part 1 of the dairy series.

dairy is a feminist issue.

Feminism brought me to a place where I could begin to think about embracing veganism as a necessary part of an ethic of social justice. Feminist ideology, a reading of Carol Adams’ The Sexual Politics of Meat and visiting a small family dairy allowed me the pull I needed to abandon my “pescatarianism” for veganism. Veganism is an ethic of (non)consumption that most closely reflects my feminist ideology. It is one way in which I can make a simple choice every time I eat that is overtly political in its message. Veganism is a daily practice that reflects an ethic of care and compassion and equality that is often lacking among humans.  Veganism has also allowed me the ability to acknowledge that the oppression of non-human animals and women are mutually reinforcing.

I see a lot of my feminist nightmares played out on female-bodied individuals who are exploited by the U.S. dairy industry. The bottom line when it comes to dairy is that milk is boob juice intended for growing infants, and someone was raped to make it. Then someone was kidnapped so that people can consume it. A woman buys into the exploitation of female bodies every time she purchases and consumes dairy. Female bodies are exploited to produce dairy, advertisers manipulate women to sell dairy and women buy in and drink up at the expense of their own health.

milk. it does your body bad!

The health myth perpetuated by big business in the name of profit comes at the expense of women’s physical and psychological health.

All of the milk campaigns that I can think of are targeted at women. “Milk. It does a body good!” touts that milk = lots of calcium = strong bones. This is aimed particularly at women and parents (and most often mothers do the shopping). This campaign plays off of the notion that milk gives people strong bones—of particular concern to children whose bodies are still growing and women who need to build up bone density before menopause.

We are being lied to and manipulated.  As I will discuss in my next post, government subsidies to agriculture create a monster of government buy-ins, buy-ups and byproducts. One of these byproducts is dairy. And who better to exploit in a patriarchal society to sell off this byproduct than women?  A person can get more calcium from a cup of Total Cereal or collard greens than from a glass of milk. What women should actually be doing to improve bone density is exercising, reducing consumption of animal proteins and reducing sodium in their diets. Milk doesn’t increase the bone density in children either. Kids need exercise and healthy veggie filled meals to keep up their bone health, not the mother’s milk of another animal species.  In fact, dairy consumption is linked to numerous health problems including, constipation, obesity, asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn’s disease, joint pain, arthritis pain and sinus issues.

To solidify the sale of mothers’ milk, the fallacy that it helps women lose weight is advertised. Unintelligent commercials, encouraging women to count calories, check out their bodies in the mirror everyday and set body goals based on the clothing they dream of wearing tell women that milk helps them loose weight. This is a big load of carnivore shit! Notice how they also mention that it needs to be non-fat versions. Milk is intended to allow infants to double or triple or quadruple their weight in the matter of months. For this reason, it is calorie dense. Only once it has had the fat taken out, been pasteurized, preserved and fortified is it a product that MIGHT help someone control weight by satiating hunger (duh, eating will do that) and providing digestive enzymes (often added after the fact). Of course, there is a plethora of other ways to help people digest food. And not consuming dairy, which gives you the shits if you are lactose intolerant and constipates you if you are not, is a good start.

can you say wet nurse?

The dairy (and egg) industry are profiting off of the forced reproductive labor of female-bodied animals. Women with power have always objectified women without power for their convenience. There is a long history of affluent women hiring or indenturing or enslaving other women as “wet nurses.” Denying her own offspring nourishment to give it to the children of more affluent women is something few mothers would choose unless strained by economic necessity or force. It disgusts us to think of the past abuses of affluent American women using European indentured servants and immigrants or African American slaves to breast feed so that they might spend more time socializing. At least they had a reason, albeit a super shitty one. But what is our excuse for drinking cows’ milk? There is formula for babies that more adequately reflects actual human mothers milk. And adults certainly have no business drinking something produced solely for infants.  Except for the peculiar cases in which an animal chooses to be a surrogate mother for an infant of another species that has been abandoned or orphaned, there is no other species that drinks the breast milk of another species.

milk is rape. and kidnapping. and torture. and murder.

Dairy production directly targets female-bodied individuals in a sexually violent manner as well. Female cows are raped by machines and humans and unwillingly impregnated, they have their infants stolen from them (and they care A LOT when this happens), their bodies are violated daily in the extraction of their milk, they are pumped full of hormones to overproduce breast milk, and their bodies become so depleted that they die or are sent to be slaughtered 15-20 years before they would naturally die.

Outside of the context of dairy production, individual acts of sexual violence or forced sexual activity enacted on animals disgusts most people. It is seen as a horrifying exploitation of non-consenting bodies. The only time these acts are glorified is in pornography when human women are degraded alongside male non-human animals. Somehow there is pleasure in watching the simultaneous degradation of women and animals. These images reflect a pathological degradation of “the other” in an attempt to assert male heterosexual dominance and can only be pleasurable or permissible under an exploitative system of patriarchal domination.

In a society in which the exploitation of human women is normalized, the daily degradation, exploitation and violation of female-bodied animals and their children goes unnoticed. These issues need to enter feminist consciousness.  Women and feminists need to assert their intolerance for such abuses by refusing the breast milk of raped and imprisoned individuals.

68 Comments leave one →
  1. chinarose permalink
    April 28, 2010 2:06 am

    Excellent points. Dairy is a nightmare. Thanks for the feminist analysis… In a world where fake feminists relegate their values to support for uber-warmonger Hillary Clinton, it is refreshing to know that there are still some kick-ass feminists with integrity
    blogging about the connection between animal abuse and patriarchy.

  2. Renee permalink
    April 28, 2010 7:55 am

    to expand on your section on the health myth of milk we should talk about the relationship of dairy to poverty and the health of young girls

    first the hormones in milk have been linked to early onset of periods and breast development for young girls- the health risks of this include endometriosis, pmdd, pms, fibroids, and cancer. Not to mention the risks to girls in the developing world resulting from premature development.

    How are dairy and poverty related- largely through the governemtn program wic (women infants and children) many poor pregnant mothers and their children are on this program that essentially provides free food vouchers. However the main provision is formula and milk (as well as eggs). The main problem is that the health education given to poor mothers really pushes dairy. Now things may have changed from the time that my children were young but I had to fight to get them to pay for soy based formula rather than milk based for my kids and I remember gallons of milk just spoiling because in order to get the cereal and juice for me and my kids I had to purchase the milk even if we did not use it. essentially this uses government money to subsidize the dairy industry while enforcing a diet on poor mothers and children that is unhealthy and exploititive.

    • April 28, 2010 10:00 am

      Great points Renee! I hadn’t considered the issue with growth hormones and early onset of menstruation and puberty. I plan to touch on your last point in my next post. Because, not only do they push dairy, but most humans that are not white and of Western European decent are lactose intolerant. That is a racist social welfare program if I’ve ever seen one.

  3. April 28, 2010 9:20 am

    Interesting. Once again I see an animal-rights feminist putting animals on a par with humans. Which are you doing, Vegina? Are you denigrating humans? Elevating animals? Participating in your own form of mutual degradation?

    In one part of your post you push moral equivalency between humans and animals. Then you say that sexual contact between humans and animals, parties that you have just claimed to be morally equivalent, is degrading to women. If an animal is the moral equivalent of a woman to the point that the rape of an animal is the same as the rape of a women, then how can it be degrading for a woman to have sex with an animal? Or the other way around? Or is it because any male of any species is morally inferior? But then those animals would be degrading the females of their own species if they mate.

    In putting forth one thesis you destroyed the other. Two animals who are morally equivalent cannot degrade one another by the mere act of sex.

    I already realize that illogic can generally be covered by bullying, blustering, and passive-aggressive whining. I presume, hopefully correctly, that you are above that.

    A lot of your statement seems to be that you are morally superior because you have two X chromosomes and you are picked on for that reason. Your solution is to pick on men for having only one X chromosome and what you see as a bad attitude. Should I expect this kind of behavior from people who have paired X chromosomes? Should I condone and encourage it? Am I supposed to bring food to a bearer of paired X chromosomes while she sits on the couch and runs me down? As far as I’m concerned if you want your tofu you can go out and shoot it yourself, if you’re going to complain while I’m working to make a living.

    One of the recurring patterns in this feminist/animal rights/ecoterror movement is the way that they keep bringing back illogical and wrong ideas that were discredited decades ago, don’t even bother to apply a new coat of paint, don’t even bother to “explain” them better, and just “expect” people to blindly follow those so-called ideas. It’s tedious.

    • April 28, 2010 9:56 am

      “Which are you doing, Vegina? Are you denigrating humans? Elevating animals?” Neither. You start from a speciesist premise. No one has to be “moved” to another category. Human and non-human animals are moral equivalents.

      “Then you say that sexual contact between humans and animals, parties that you have just claimed to be morally equivalent, is degrading to women”/ “Two animals who are morally equivalent cannot degrade one another by the mere act of sex.”: You miss the point. It is degrading because it is done for the male gaze not because two consenting individuals enter into a contract of mutual pleasure.

      “Your solution is to pick on men for having only one X chromosome and what you see as a bad attitude.”: How did I once pick on men. A social system (such as patriarchy) is not the same as an individual person (such as a single man). Of course, many men are patriarchs, and so are some women. Likewise, many men are feminists and some women are not. You clearly are a patriarch and are not a feminist, so I am positioning myself as “morally superior” to you, but not to men in general.

      As to your last paragraph, don’t spend your time reading my work if you think it’s tedious. My ideas are pretty marginal, you don’t have to encounter them unless you try. Your uninspired ways of thinking are typical and run of the mill. You can muddle through life without being “bored” by arguments such as mine.

      “feminist/animal rights/ecoterror movement”: It is ridiculous to use the word terror in conjunction with a social justice movement. It is an illogical, unsubstantiated, vile, fear mongering tactic.

      • April 28, 2010 7:31 pm

        I’m beginning to believe that there is no such thing as a “social justice” movement that does not involve terrorism in a “can’t wait to kill some of those so and soes” sort of way.

        You’re tedious but the larger group that you are a part of is violent, and you encourage a violent faction with your words. This is, I have to admit, what keeps you from being ignored as you rightly should be. Your entertainment value is just about as limited as it was in the 1970s, and really, the best thing to do is to keep you talking so that you continue to discredit yourself.

        You wrote a thesis that actually destroyed itself. You support the alleged moral equivalence of humans and animals purely by assertion, a classic fallacy. Anything can be proven by pretzel logic. Your logic is often “downhill both ways.”

        Destruction, as in the illegal destruction that your icons encourage, and that you encourage, is easy. Even the results of the self-destruction of your own writings creates a facile form of disruption of the flow of ideas and ties up time and energy and misdirects people who think you have some kind of answer to something.

        You claim not to be attacking males, but then you say that it’s wrong if it’s “for the male gaze.” That’s bashing males. You’re bashing males but you’re not bashing males, even though the central thesis of feminism and your screeds is male-bashing. I think that at this rate if you enter into a mutual contract to have some kind of sexual pleasure with a non-human it had better be a female. The morally equivalent males of the non-human species will according to your own see-saw logic also have a “male gaze” and they will be just as bad as men, again according to your own logic.

        Your logic is a logic of convenience. When it’s convenient for you, animals are “morally equivalent.” When it’s not, “that’s different.” That’s what leaves you screaming that people should respect you, why don’t they respect you, well, I’m (“I” as in you, not me) going to blow the whole thing up and cut men’s Y chromosomes off and I’m going to scream until their ears bleed. Then they’ll respect me.”

        You can tell I’ve been down this road before, can’t you? That’s because you don’t have a single original thought.

  4. April 29, 2010 12:06 am

    T. Kirby, you don’t know what violence is. You use the word to demean others points of view without any connection. You and George Bush should go have a beer and maybe go hunting with Cheney.

  5. Cherry Bomb permalink
    April 29, 2010 7:29 am

    Dairy is very much a feminist issue

    From the treatment of the female animals enslaved to produce it, the women consumers of this product.

    I was researching a piece I was going to write based on a quote …(“Icecream is nonpatriarchal. Ice cream, frozen yogurt, milk-shakes– every dairy product we can think of is the exclusive product of females. So, okay, they’re cows… But eating this stuff can be a political act that neatly unities feminist principles with a love of animals… Fuck the vegans, I say. Anyone who doesn’t eat ice cream for purely “ethical” reasons is a killjoy and a moron and ultimately not to be trusted. Pro-ice cream is pro-woman” – Kiss My Tiara: How to Rule The World as a Smart Mouth Goddess (2001, Susan Jane Gilman, page 25)

    Which, I think has to be seriously, one of the most moronic statements I have ever read regarding dairy and feminism. The SINGLE most effective thing that got me to go from vegetarian to vegan was the two sayings “There is veal invisibly floating in every glass of milk” and “Meat is Murder, Milk is Rape”, and if anyone looks at where milk comes from, and the conditions of the cows, there is no way they could claim it to be a feminist act. And if this author saw the condition of dairy cows, there is no way she could claim to love animals.

    Quite apart from the fact, that unless the person gets their milk from a farmer they know, who happens to be female, the chances are, it comes from a large corporation, with a board of directors made up almost exclusively of men. Dairy is the very essence of imposing of patriarchal values – if you want it, take it.

    The body leeches calcium out of bones to the blood stream in order to neutralise excessive protein. Where does protein come from – animal products. So milk is sold to women as a cure for a disease that has a devastating effect on women, especially post menopausal – that being osteoporosis. Yet, too many animal products can be a large contributor to the osteoporosis. But do large corporations care about womens’ health? It doesn’t seem that way, not as long as they are selling a product to women whose only nutritional information comes from dairy and meat industry propaganda.

    And as for Thomas up there, it is not that the sex is degrading, it is the lack of consent, in terms of sex with animals, how do you judge what is consent?

    And it’s not about whether people and animals are the same, but are their Rights the same. Any living thing is as entitled to the most basic right of all, the right to live a life, especially without suffering.

    Great article Vegina, 🙂

  6. April 29, 2010 8:53 am

    “Rape” is a crime against a human being, not against a non-human animal. Cheapening the currency buys you well-deserved ridicule.
    he concept and can no longer assess his own behavior fairly. He isn’t being taught to do so, that’s for certain. He’s being taught, essentially, that there is no hope that he will “control” himself and that there is no hope that he will gain credit for being a gentleman. He has no way to learn good judgment. The path to good judgment has been taken away from him by those who feed on him.

  7. K.J permalink
    May 2, 2010 3:32 pm

    I’m not sure I can get past the bit where you likened human rape to the artificial insemination of a cow and said something along the lines of how feminism is about ALL female bodies. Have you ever slapped a female mosquito for biting you?

    I actually gave up dairy recently out of concerns that it might stress the animals too much but this makes me want to go chug a carton of milk just so people don’t think it’s because I’m worried about “raping cows”. Rape is a crime committed by one human against another, it has nothing to do with other animals! Next will we legislate against lions and dolphins for “raping” lionesses and female dolphins?

    • May 2, 2010 7:32 pm

      “Rape is a crime committed by one human against another, it has nothing to do with other animals!”
      Rape is an act of violence, undertaken to exert superiority and degrade and destroy the victim. It is an intimate and vicious violation of rights. Accepting that humans can restrain a cow and force an object into her vagina against her will, then insert semen into her and force a pregnancy simply so that they can consume the milk she produces for the calf that is taken from her after this horror has occurred is a big problem. The rape culture to which all women are victims in this society, is not only reflected, but also reinforced, by the fact that we unreflexively do this to cows and goats and any animal we want to breed. Might does NOT make right.

      “Have you ever slapped a female mosquito for biting you?”
      I try never to intentionally kill any living creature, though I am sure I am unintentionally the cause of death for countless insects and I regret that–whether they were/are male or female.

      “this makes me want to go chug a carton of milk just so people don’t think it’s because I’m worried about “raping cows””
      Is this some sort of a threat? Is saving face as a response to disagreeing with my article worth the risk of “stress[ing] the animals” or, worse, being complicit in rape? You can disagree with me, but please, don’t let my words turn you off from making a good moral decision to stop consuming reproductive products. This is an immature and silly reaction to your disagreeing with my article.

      “Next will we legislate against lions and dolphins for “raping” lionesses and female dolphins?”
      Consistent with my argument in this post is that we should NOT police or control the actions of other species (as we do when we forcibly impregnate them so that we can steal their milk). So no, I do not want to legislate “against lions and dolphins,” I want to legislate against humans sexually and physically abusing our own species as well as other species.

      • May 3, 2010 4:07 am

        So you’re saying that rape of a human is no worse than artificial insemination of a cow.

  8. K.J permalink
    May 3, 2010 7:24 am

    Exactly. I don’t believe you can “degrade and destroy” a cow the same way you can do that to a woman or girl. Humans have a level of self-determination and will that most other animals arguably do not have. That is not to say that animals cannot suffer or that their suffering does not matter – but do you have to use a word for it that is already belittled regularly via jokes, victim-blaming, and other general language?
    I am not really going to go out and drink milk just because of you, I just can’t think very clearly right now because everytime I look at this page I feel incredibly frustrated and it’s infuriating. The experience women go through when they are raped is not the same and that is the end of it as far as I’m concerned. I won’t be arguing with you anymore about this because I am not changing my mind, and I’m also taking it far too personally to sound perfectly coherent. I’m sorry for that much.

    • May 3, 2010 7:31 am

      I like to think of it this way: The more they do this the more they destroy their own credibility.

      Also, forcing it down our throats this way gives us the right to fight back in kind.

      • May 3, 2010 9:20 am

        Again, Thomas, I force nothing down your throat. You subscribe to my blog because you WANT to read this. Let me repeat my words form earlier: My ideas are pretty marginal, you don’t have to encounter them unless you try. Your uninspired ways of thinking are typical and run of the mill. You can muddle through life without being “bored” by arguments such as mine.

    • May 3, 2010 9:35 am

      It is a speciesist notion that only humans can be abused in this way. Cows are not property, they are individuals. If the parallel makes you upset ask yourself why. Frustration and discomfort often forces us to rethink things and allows us to grow as people. I have experienced sexual violence in my own life and I use that experience to help me empathize with others. My empathy extends not only to other women women but to all sentient individuals who are victimized and to all groups of human and nonhuman animals that are subject to systematic sexual exploitation and domination. One difference between myself and so many others, particularly cows, is that I am able to be a “survivor” while others are consistently victimized and can never transcend or escape their tormentors.

      • May 3, 2010 9:55 am

        Your “empathy” is nothing but negative emotions that you nurse and harbor so that you can throw them in the face of men. It is nothing but hate.

        Speciesism and human exceptionalism are fine by me. Those who want to live like animals are free to leave their homes and computers, strip off their human-made clothing, and live like animals, but leave me alone.

        It is not true that I am not forced to come here. I fear that the spread of your belief system will result in people using violence, including bombs and arson, to harm me. I also fear that the diet that you would force me to eat will cause me great harm and kill me. So I am forced to tell you what I think and defend my lifestyle.

      • May 3, 2010 11:38 am

        Thomas, you ARE an animal. If you could accept that and stop degrading anyone who is different from you, you might be a bit more empathetic and compassionate. I am threatening to you not because you think I will bomb something. Clearly I won’t since I spend my days in words, and my comrades in animal liberation have never hurt anyone. You are afraid of me because I am smart, well spoken and everything I say makes sense from and emotional, rational, philosophical and moral standpoint. Only adherence to tradition and submission to capitalism would allow someone (even a speciesist such as yourself) to continue to eat animals though it leads to increased human disease, destruction of the environment, bad labor practices and starvation on a global scale.
        A spread of my beliefs will be an end to rape culture, an end to meaningless divisions among humans as well as between animals (humans and non-humans) and an end to oppression. A spread of my beliefs would mean no more war, no more rape, no more exploitation.
        Finally, I do not hate men, I simply argue our culture should stop hating women. I think that threatens you, as you worry you will loose some of the power that is automatically conferred upon you as a man.
        I join with men and women equally when they are my comrades in this fight to end oppression. I do not forward separatist politics except in the case when a necrovore is unreachable and actively detrimental to the freedom of all oppressed groups, as are you. I am already steeped in your fear mongering murderous culture and am exhausted by your rhetoric. Be reflexive and think for yourself, stop repeating Bush-isms. We are not terrorists. Calling us that makes you look silly and reveals how faulty your ability to reason and think truly is.

    • May 3, 2010 12:32 pm

      Even if you believe that the experience for a cow and a human female are not the same, there is still the common factor of the human committing the act. They are taking advantage of someone less powerful for their own personal gains. They are doing it just because they can. And they should know better.

      I have also had the misfortune of dealing with violent, abusive males in my life. My feelings of animosity toward the individuals who exploit and abuse animals are just as strong as they are toward those who have done so to myself, and my friends. Morality is absent in both situations.

      • May 3, 2010 12:51 pm

        Taking advantage of “someone less powerful” means “taking advantage of a human who is less powerful.”

        And then your creed wants to gain the power to force others to do your bidding, to take advantage of those who are less powerful than you are. You can’t win for losing.

        It really is a matter of who is doing the act, isn’t it? You complain about the ethnocentrism that you think that someone else practices then you practice it yourselves.

  9. May 3, 2010 11:54 am

    There is a lot of covert violence in your words. You have only learned how to create a creed of hate, for the purpose of hate. No one can subscribe to your creed of hate without in some way supporting violence.

    A lot of people have been hurt badly by animal rights activists.

  10. Anti-Kirby permalink
    May 3, 2010 12:13 pm

    Although I don’t notice any “covert violence” in vegina’s words, I know of the intense, perpetual, and institutionalized violence and terror against the other animals, the Earth, and humans the culture you seek to defend maintains. In fact, “No one can subscribe to your creed of hate without in some way supporting violence.”

  11. Richard T permalink
    May 3, 2010 12:50 pm

    Mr Kirby, you really are displaying the classic persecution complex commonly conveyed by many men in the face of the ‘feminist threat’. Your own stereotype of feminism is that of some mythical ‘1970s feminism’ or that portrayed by the contemporary right wing media. The day to day violence that most humans commit against other animals and hidden behind the ‘myth of the commodity’ is, I suspect, leaving you blind to your own complicity. Your discourse of ‘logic’ against the author of this blog is laughable, and your comments appear as little more than the paranoid rants of someone unable to reflect upon the consequences of their own actions in the world, and least of all to consider actually changing them.

  12. May 3, 2010 1:24 pm


  13. Cameron Mahon permalink
    May 3, 2010 7:18 pm

    Thomas, I cannot express how close minded you come off, you talk of Activists having little credibility while off to the side you say “So you’re saying that rape of a human is no worse than artificial insemination of a cow.”, putting into question your own ability to understand along with your credibility.

    She explained extremely clearly what she meant by saying that milk is produced from the rape of a cow. Worse or not it is ,in its own way, an absolutely deplorable act that anyone with some sense of morality cannot help but abstain from.

    • May 3, 2010 8:16 pm

      Then is Vegina saying that the rape of a cow is not a crime?

      • Cameron Mahon permalink
        May 3, 2010 8:36 pm

        Of course it’s a crime.
        Crime: any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin.

      • flynny permalink
        July 22, 2010 2:32 pm

        wow. you are totally clueless about the issue. you’re so focused on convincing us that animals are not as “good” as humans that you are completely missing many, many points. your sense of your own superiority is actually painful to see in action and is the crux of the entire issue. i am all for intelligent discourse on important issues, but your comments are not intelligent and what you are spouting is not discourse but inanity. speaking of tedious….

  14. Laura St. Louis permalink
    May 3, 2010 8:30 pm

    Vegina: thank you for this insightful blog post. Dairy is a feminist issue, to be sure. Thomas Kirby’s replies remind us that there is much work to be done in breaking down people’s attitudes about the supposed superiority of humans over the non-human world.

    To Kirby: while you have written much in response to Vegina’s posts, it’s unclear what you’re attempting to argue. By distilling Vegina’s larger argument to a myopic question (“So you’re saying that rape of a human is no worse than artificial insemination of a cow.”) that asks which suffering is worse is a tireless tactic that attempts to direct attention away from the issue at hand. Animal liberation is human liberation, and those fighting to end animal exploitation are also fighting for a better life for you.

    • Laura St. Louis permalink
      May 3, 2010 8:56 pm

      I mean “tired”. Not “tireless.” Ha.

  15. Ho Humm permalink
    May 3, 2010 8:41 pm

    Kirby: So you’re saying that rape of a human is no worse than artificial insemination of a cow.
    Kirby: Then is Vegina saying that the rape of a cow is not a crime?

    I don’t know how you could get to the second statement by reading the above posts. Crimes are defined by the law, not by moral arguments. Rape of a cow is not a “crime” in terms of the legal structures that protect the abuse of animals. Does that mean it is not wrong? Clearly not. Laws have changed over time, as people’s moral sensibilities have. Slavery was institutionalized in the Constitution of this country, but that was a long long time ago and the laws have changed. Is slavery a “crime?” Ask the lawyers.

    In terms of the first statement, you are trying to place these two distinct scenarios into a continuum of “badness.” Asking “what’s worse, genocide or murder?” is along these same lines. It is morally imperative to declare that both are bad, and to work for the elimination of both genocide and murder, without placing one as somehow more important than another. Does this mean that if an activist has a choice on how to spend her time that she should always choose the “greater evil”? Absolutely not. Practicality, strategy, tactics, and possible outcomes all play a factor. But rhetorically, it would be hypocritical to declare that one is bad and the other somehow “less bad.”

    I must also say this. “Male-bashing feminists” are an antiquated bunch, with little political purchase in today’s society. On the other hand, terrified males afraid of being bashed for unquestioningly pursuing the ends of patriarchy are alive and well. You are a great specimen, Mr. Kirby. Nothing I have read here equates to some genetic valuation (two X chromosomes are better than Xy). What we are talking about is the social effects of the ideological construction of gender in today’s society. Get off your specious high-horse and step outside the bounds of your own corrupt logic for a moment, and you might be able to see that. When you take these arguments personally, you are unwittingly giving them strength. Because they do strike close to home, don’t they?

    • May 3, 2010 9:19 pm

      What “corrupt logic”? Calling it rape is all that it takes to posit a moral equivalence between cows and humans. If it is as bad to rape a cow as it is to rape a human then raping a human is no worse than raping a cow.

      Y’all spend an awful lot of time denying what is in these writings for people who think that they are the latest word in moral and upstanding citizenry. It’s painfully obvious, this facade for the expression of self-loathing that you relabel as some kind of lofty contempt for the achievements of humanity. When I was a kid the school bullies were always the ones who didn’t understand reading or writing, and definitely did not understand arithmetic.

      Ho-Humm here is saying that male-bashing feminism is antiquated. I agree with that, but that’s not even claiming that they are nonexistent nor is that claiming that Vegina is not a male-bashing feminist. She sits there and does the male bashing then there’s this song and dance that she’s not doing what she’s plainly doing. I know this game pretty well.

      So it is established that Vegina says that raping a woman is no worse than artificially inseminating a cow. Sorry, rape is rape and she’s the one who equated artificial insemination with rape. Read carefully for comprehension and it’s obvious that she wants to elevate animals above humanity. By equating them with women. What this actually amounts to is trying to elevate one’s self above humanity by sitting in judgment of anything they can think of. And you know what? People are going to throw you crumbs but eventually they will turn on you. This is because you people are rebels without a clue between you.

      • May 3, 2010 9:26 pm

        My god Kirby, your missing the point. Even if the rape isnt equivalent, its still NOT okay!? Is that simple enough? Tell me, how are you going to misconstrue it this time?

        (speak the following in your mind with a really stupid voice)
        “Well youre using the word rape, so you must find it equivalent”?
        “Well it is okay because theyre not human”?
        Why dont you just ignore what were saying and go for the classic “well you kill carrots, so youre obviously being hypocritical”?

        Its all the same “defensive omnivore” crap, its unoriginal and without merit.

  16. Tank Girl permalink
    May 3, 2010 9:23 pm

    Thomas Kirby you are a complete fucking idiot with a tiny dick so please shut the fuck up before I pull out my tweezers and magnifying glass to castrate you.

    Thanks and warmest regards


    • May 3, 2010 10:37 pm

      It seems like someone couldn’t resist lowering the bar. For your information, Tank Girl, that part of me that must never be mentioned is quite worth the mention thereof. It’s no more and no less than God gives a normal man.

      Cameron up there, I would say that there are some concepts that the whole lot of you are pretty unclear on. You really don’t have a point when you have to call it “rape” and then hem and haw and gibber. Feminism is a crock anyway because the only excuse you might have to judge anyone “sexist” is if you are for honest to God equality. Men aren’t “masculinist.” It’s a simple fact that we can move heavy objects a lot better than women can, even those like me who are a bit broken of body and are often a bit sick and weak. The way to gain physical or mental strength is to do real work, not to suck the life out of those who actually do work. Getting high on stolen life force only makes you think you’re smart and strong. Cutting the hamstrings of the men who bring home the bacon is really, really ill-advised and self-destructive.

      The only people who are going to be thought of as able to do the work, the heavy lifting, are going to be those who actually do it. Choosing to scorn such respect and manufacture contempt is just so not right that I can’t express it. The contempt for human works is written all over this blog, and it’s on account of being human, not on account of the alleged crimes that Vegina charges humanity with.

      I like strong women who can keep up with the work. They understand because you learn by doing.

  17. Richard T permalink
    May 4, 2010 12:59 am

    Mr Kirby, You really revealed your true colours on your last post there. Please go back to school (if you ever went in the first place)…

    • May 4, 2010 5:18 pm

      True colors? Fair enough, I suppose. The basic thesis is that if you want something, you work for it and you earn it. I do not count shrill denunciations of everything in sight, or everything that you imagine that you see, as working for it or earning it.

      The feminist movement is going to get out of it what it puts into it.

      • May 6, 2010 9:31 pm

        Youre saying we are unclear on concepts like rape. Yet you fail to see that milk is rape.

        “Rape is an act of violence, undertaken to exert superiority and degrade and destroy the victim. It is an intimate and vicious violation of rights.”

        Unless ‘rape is purely the act of sex forced on a woman’ to you, you must agree milk is rape. I will go on to say again, even if the “rape” isnt equivalent, its still NOT okay. You agree with this, unless you believe the above quote is ethical.

        To sum everything up Kirby, do you agree with the above definition of rape? and do you believe that the above definition of rape is morally justifiable?

        If you answered no to either question:
        You see, we understand what rape is, quite unlike you. We understand that rape is wrong, quite unlike you. At this point of mutual understanding there is no argument you can present to justify milk.

        BTW women with the same job as women, who do equally well, do actually earn less. (sexism)

  18. May 7, 2010 4:15 am

    Cameron, it serves an agenda to extend the definition of rape to cover an act that is done to another species. It is a further stretch to extend that definition to condemn an act that is not sexual intercourse.

    Between you all, “we” have created a trap. Either “rape” has degrees to it, something that I’m not going to be able to get “we” to admit, or it doesn’t apply to acts done to animals. One fallacy that has had far too much employment in recent years is the fallacy that if a thing is somehow “like” another thing, it becomes that thing. That fallacy is never employed even-handedly. If you declare that a man is a rapist because something that he does is “like rape” then by God he’s a rapist. Of course you are probably also going to try to control the conversation by declaring that I can’t put words in your mouth.

    It’s not even-handed because you will try not to let me use the same fallacy against you. You will attempt to prevent me from saying that you are a thing because something that you do is like that thing. Then, whatever else goes on, you are attempting to deny me a level playing field. Doing so does not give you superior moral ground. It in fact prevents you from taking the moral high ground. This is what makes so much of morality a pretense that is transparent to most people. It’s that much more of a false pretense when you try to change the rules again with the express purpose of putting others at a disadvantage so that you can use them for your agenda.

    • May 8, 2010 12:43 pm

      Kirby Boy, what agenda does it serve to use the word rape to describe rape when it happens to “another species”? What do you think animal rights activists have to gain other than a more just world. Do you think we all have stock option in soy milk companies or something? My question for you is what is YOUR agenda that you are so scared of people fighting for animal liberation that you have a blog dedicated to that end? Clearly you feel threatened by us. But why?
      And no, rape doesn’t have to have “degrees” for my argument, that forcibly inserting objects into the vaginas of unwilling females is rape, to hold. You clearly misunderstand rape. You say “It is a further stretch to extend that definition to condemn an act that is not sexual intercourse.” Rape is NEVER sexual intercourse. It is always an act of violence. Intercourse can not occur if one person refuses to engage but is forced.

      And let’s also repeat something Cameron said in his attempt to simplify his argument for you, which you did not address: “even if the “rape” isnt equivalent, its still NOT okay.”

      You say: “One fallacy that has had far too much employment in recent years is the fallacy that if a thing is somehow “like” another thing, it becomes that thing.” Your argument to this end makes NO sense. I am confused as to what it is you are trying to communicate. For example. your statement: “You will attempt to prevent me from saying that you are a thing because something that you do is like that thing.” WHAT? I am so confused. Calm down, breath deep, speak in complete sentences and explain. Once you are coherent I will be better able to tear down yet another one of your ill thought, speciesist, sexist, unreflexive, uninspired arguments.

      • May 8, 2010 7:29 pm

        I feel threatened by anyone who is connected at the hip with groups that are infamous for encouraging violence against anyone who works against their agenda. This is particularly true when that violence includes arson. Don’t ask that rhetorical question again. It looks really stupid.

        You can prove anything by using uneven and inconsistent logic. Thing is, you already know that I’m on to you and you’re trying to slide out from under it.

        So let me tell you something coherent: You arrogate to yourself the right to accuse me of being a rapist. You will try to hurt me if I exercise my right to call you a bitch. Did that lose anything in translation? I have a morality. Rape is an act of forced sexual contact against a person. If you want to cheapen that I will of course laugh at you because you’re screwing yourself by doing so. I won’t cheapen myself to force my sex upon you. I value it too much to cheapen it that way.

        An animal is not a human. It is not a person under the law and it is not a person according to the majority of humanity. You don’t have superior logic or a superior source of morality. What you have is anger and passive-aggressive nastiness that really can’t make a good case. You have a way to dish out guilt that people don’t deserve. What you don’t have is real strength or the ability to build anything.

      • May 8, 2010 11:53 pm

        Kirby, I do have superior logic, I do have a superior moral compass. I am angry. I am not passive aggressive–I am pretty up front about things. I obviously DO have “real strength or the ability to build anything,” or you wouldn’t be spending so much time on my blog. I scare you because I am smarter than you. I am well spoken and you are not, and I operate with a more coherent logic than do you.
        In regard to your comment: “I won’t cheapen myself to force my sex upon you. I value it too much to cheapen it that way.” This is one of the most disgusting “insults” I have ever heard. You are somehow threatening to rape me while simultaneously trying to degrade me by saying I am not worth raping. At the same time you are using the words sex and rape interchangeably. You are horrible and disgusting.
        And why don’t you tell me who is advocating violence here? Name one time one person, human or nonhuman, was hurt by an animal rights activist in this country. You are responsible for at least 90 dead animals every single year, by your diet alone. You are violent. You are a moral runt with nothing to offer this world. Go back to animal culture and blog for the uninspired average.

    • flynny permalink
      July 22, 2010 2:50 pm

      ooh the big bad feminists/animal rights advocates have an AGENDA! Damn, he’s on to us.
      Our only agenda is a peaceful world free of violence against all sentient life. Gee, aren’t we a nasty bunch?
      Your idea that you are superior because of your physical strength is pretty stupid, especially given that you are so lacking intellectually. PS–I can backsquat 220 pounds and I’m just a girl. What’s your personal best?
      Also, loved your use of the word “humanity,” given that you have none.

  19. May 9, 2010 7:57 am

    You’re a threat because you can get teenagers to set things on fire for you. Eventually you might build a power bloc from stolen and usurped power but you will never have real power for yourself. You don’t know how to earn it. The methods that you use preclude you from ever earning real power.

    • May 10, 2010 12:18 pm

      POWER? We have all been given power that we did not earn. We are living in a country that has power and wealth and so we are conferred power because of that. I am white. You are a man. We are human. Those things give us power we did not earn in a society that is racist, sexist and speciesist. We need to recognize that we have been GIVEN power. The goal should not be to earn more power but to recognize what power is, where it comes from, how is oppresses and then to use our privilege to work toward a world that is less power-based and less unequal.

      And I am confused, how does highlighting the violence implicit in dairy translate to me getting “teenagers to set things on fire”? When have I ever encouraged anyone set anything on fire? And why do you suggest I target teenagers? For starters, teenagers are usually more pragmatic than adults (in fact, you were outwitted by at least one teenager in the above comments) and would be less likely to put themselves at risk by “set[ting] things on fire.” But again, I am completely unclear about why you think I encourage this. I clearly never have, you are just going off on an illogical rhetoric rant. Study the history of the movement. Learn about the activists you dedicate your blog to condemning. Then get back to me. Almost everything you say is poorly researched and unfounded.

      • May 11, 2010 4:20 pm

        I consider you to be part of the network of animal rights terrorists that you link to. Thus you do encourage teenagers to set things on fire and vandalize animal care facilities and turn animals loose. You also encourage the elimination of domesticated animals.

      • May 11, 2010 11:27 pm

        There is no such thing as an “animal rights terrorist.” Stop with the rhetoric.
        What teenager set fire to what? What are you talking about?
        I have never discussed “domesticated” animals. I definitely do have strong opinions about it though since we put 5 million of them to sleep every year so that selfish jerks can have “bred” animals. I am guessing you might be one of these selfish jerks who doesn’t agree with spaying and neutering or banning puppy and kitten mills, thereby creating a situation in which millions of other animals who need homes are put to sleep for lack of safe homes.

  20. May 9, 2010 9:01 am

    Also, you know very well that in my statements I have added another list of reasons not to rape, you or any other person. It takes a special kind of pretzel logic to infer a threat from that, at least the way that you said it. The real threat is that the false accusations that you use will lose their power to hurt people. You will lose what little power you have, a power that can only be given to you by raping a human female. You feed on rape. Your brand of feminism feeds on rape. You have to extend the definition of rape to rope people in who would otherwise never rape a human female, and those people are refusing to participate in such rape because they are able to behave ethically. You’re trying to take that away from them.

    It’s not like I care what happens to feminism, or feminism merged with animal rights by the Carole J. Adams or Catharine B. Mackinnon method. I’m concerned because of all the people and animals that will go down with this movement as it self-destructs and tries to take the rest of civilization with it. You will cause a lot of harm. You will cause nothing good. Maybe I’m trying to persuade you not to set your own house on fire out of spite.

    There’s precious little that I can do about females who imagine that they are being raped because they are mentally ill or have bought into a sick ideology. That kind of thing naturally follows a “burn it all down” mentality and people like that are going to manufacture justification no matter what it takes. If they have to pay men to go to bed with them then call the police the next morning and claim that they were raped, they will do that. They don’t know how to earn power.

    If you really want to earn power, read more books, particularly from the side that you don’t agree with. Learn a trade. Stop living off your mom or your man and earn your own living. By that time you might have more insight into this world.

    Or would that just make you feel raped?

    • May 10, 2010 12:27 pm

      You said: “If they have to pay men to go to bed with them then call the police the next morning and claim that they were raped, they will do that. They don’t know how to earn power.” WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

      And in regard to your suggestions
      “If you really want to earn power,”
      I Don’t
      “read more books,”
      I’ve read plenty, but I average a few a week, so I will keep that up.
      “particularly from the side that you don’t agree with.”
      I do. But I will keep at it. You are right, it is important to thoroughly understand all perspectives so I regularly engage with literature that makes me uncomfortable. In fact, when I first read about veganism I didn’t agree with it, but by reading and having uncomfortable dialogue I changed my mind.
      “Learn a trade.”
      I’ve learned one.
      “Stop living off your mom or your man and earn your own living.”
      Thanks for the advice. It just so happens that I’ve been doing this whole “grown-up” thing for a while now.

  21. May 9, 2010 9:29 am

    Another fun fact is that your having to earn power the right way, the legitimate way, would destroy your ideology while causing a lot less harm to humanity and the rest of the planet.

    • May 11, 2010 4:45 pm

      What I am talking about is painfully obvious. It is setting men up to call it “rape” when we artificially inseminate a cow. This is called moving the goalposts. Paying someone to have sex with you then accusing them of rape is another way to do the same thing. So is advocating putting people on sex offender lists for paying a woman for sex.

      There isn’t anything in there that gives you real credibility and that’s why you openly advocate violence while denying that you advocate violence.

      • flynny permalink
        July 22, 2010 2:54 pm

        Awww it must be so HARD, being a man in a world that doesn’t like men. All those nasty women, setting you up for raping them.
        Dude, what planet are you FROM?

  22. May 12, 2010 5:07 am

    Yes, Vegina, there is such a thing as an animal rights terrorist. In some way or another most of you are terrorists and the whole point of the “Thomas Paine Corner” is to promote animal rights terrorism. I think that people who read this blog need to know this.

  23. flynny permalink
    July 22, 2010 2:56 pm

    hmmmm….you dismiss us as terrorists, much in the same way that men often discredit women by calling them whores.
    you sure spend a lot of time here for someone who disagrees with everything that everyone says here. maybe YOU should move out of your parents’ basement and get a job.

    • July 24, 2010 8:46 pm

      Did you know that if you practice terrorism according to the precepts laid down by Carol J. Adams, you are still a terrorist? Animal rights terrorism isn’t just our number one domestic terrorist threat in the U.S., except for three incidents it is our only ongoing and active terrorist threat. Since it’s been almost nine years since anyone but an animal rights terrorist caused any significant damage in the U.S., the animal rights terrorists have that field to themselves.

  24. Dan permalink
    November 4, 2010 10:51 am

    Not to be nit picky, but referring to female farm animals as “female bodied” is a bit too redundant/PC, as I’m pretty sure that non-human animals don’t have the mental capacity to understand/assert gender, let alone identify as trans.

  25. rabbit permalink
    February 25, 2011 5:03 am

    Excellent post! I’m a Vegina addict!!!

  26. August 22, 2011 12:09 pm

    I used to have a website that I used to cover this, but it got spammed to death. You seem to be better at keeping out the spammers than I did! Well done!

  27. elizabeth permalink
    March 13, 2012 3:51 pm

    I have been modifying my diet slowly to consume much less meat. So far this year, I have only eaten fish, and only once a week. This is a very difficult change for me to make. I really appreciate this post. I am a nursing mother and I am embarrassed that this is the first time I have recognized that the cows who produce the dairy I consume are exclusively female, and that they are mothers whose babies have been kidnapped. Thank you for writing this. I will go buy some almond milk.

  28. Will permalink
    March 18, 2012 4:11 pm

    Excellent article, Vegina. I recently read about this in a chapter from Will Tuttle’s World Peace Diet, “The Domination of the Feminine”. Food is both our most intimate connection with nature (it literally becomes us), and one of our most frequent rituals (3 times a day) so it has a profound effect on our values.
    You cannot separate the values that commodify and degrade nonhuman animals as food from those that commodify and degrade other humans (albeit more subtly), because they are the same values – when you become vegan you no longer have to make that artificial split in your mindset.
    Everyone is hurt by an exploitative system, including those doing the exploiting. Patriarchy damages men, and a meat centred culture damages humans.
    One of my favourite milk substitutes is to blend a spoonful of white almond paste (or soaked almonds) with water. You can add a banana and/or spices to make a milkshake.

  29. December 24, 2012 4:08 am

    Hey there, You have done an excellent job. I’ll definitely digg it and personally suggest to my friends. I’m sure they will be benefited from this website.

  30. Louise. permalink
    May 1, 2013 4:10 am

    Honestly, do any of you actually understand the point she is making? Your arguments are pathetic and completely ignore the issue.

    Nowhere did she attack men, nowhere did she state that rape of a human is the same as artificial insemination of a cow, but rape of a human is not a commonly perceived GOOD as rape of a cow is. A woman having sex with an animal is wrong because the animal has no way of consenting; it doesn’t nullify her points. One can consider an animal’s right to live in peace and without abuse equal to that of a human, without alluding to the idea that we are one and the same. We, as humans, are also different from each other. Presumably you don’t believe we should be artificially inseminating people with learning difficulties because they are largely considered intellectually inferior?

    I haven’t heard a valid reason for treating animals in this way because they’re different – why exactly is it more morally acceptable? I suspect the answer is that it’s purely “because we can”, in which case anyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.


  1. DAY 1 : vegan (follow the expert) experiment « Cara4animals's Blog
  2. Don’t avoid with your eyes, what they must endure with their bodies. « stopthebarbarism
  3. Mi l ch | zwischen null und eins

Leave a Reply to Richard T Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: