So I’d like to introduce you to a blog one of my friends is doing. Posting is scarce but still fun. Go read Coloring Outside the Lines right now and awesomeness will flow like water in the ocean.
Archive for March, 2011
Part and parcel of property status is maligning the intelligence of the property class: their experiential, emotional, and mental capacity and complexity. Everyone assigned property status at any point in the world has been said to be simplistic, not in control of their actions, incapable of grasping or using dense logic.
Slaves were—one of the justifications for making it illegal to teach slaves to read and write was that they were incapable of learning. (Apparently it makes sense once you’re dealing with enormous cognitive dissonance; whatever.)
Women were—they had to maintain entirely domestic lives to prevent the atrophy of their frail ladyparts, and also to prevent their descent into violent, frothing craziness. (Which I have to wonder, were they just tired of laying back and thinking of England?) Except for poor women, anyway—the “lower classes” had no problems of the sort because, well, they were lower class, and already had those labels applied to them.
Speaking of, working class people were said to be like that—even now, our stereotype of a McDonald’s worker is completely unsympathetic: a vacant-eyed, slackjawed imbecile flipping burgers with a limp wrist.
Children are supposedly inferior, which only holds up as long as you refuse to take into consideration a) adult dissociation from their childhood and b) that not being able to argue effectively in a language you’ve only had a few years to learn, especially when everyone treats you like you’re fucking stupid, might make accurate results a bit hard to come by. Animals are supposedly inferior, too, in the same ways children are—driven by instinct; impulsive; simplistic and lacking in logic. The idea that animals are inferior falls prey to a lot of the same problems, too—but the one I want to talk about here is that believing they are stupid, crazy, and untrustworthy solidifies others’ power over them.
This is not some convoluted fucking theory, either, that makes you feel like you have to be on drugs to see it clearly. You have to believe that their thoughts and emotions are inferior and unworthy of being taken seriously because if you didn’t do that, you wouldn’t be able to keep doing this shit to them. To feel justified in consuming a cow’s corpse, you have to believe that the cow’s experience wasn’t worth taking seriously; to feel justified in forcing a child to eat that steak, you have to believe that the child’s experience isn’t worth taking seriously.
Zie just doesn’t know what’s best for zem. Pele’s erupting tits, that has been heard for centuries. Let me point out:
Crusades: They Just Don’t Know What’s Best For Them.
Conquistadors: They Just Don’t Know What’s Best For Them.
Native American Genocide: They Just Don’t Know What’s Best For Them.
U.S. Slavery: They Just Don’t Know What’s Best For Them.
Women: They Just Don’t Know What’s Best For Them.
Farmed Animals: They Just Don’t Know What’s Best For Them.
Et fucking cetera. No, seriously, white fucks actually argued that slavery was a good thing because otherwise black people would just run around being violent and tribal and natural (omfg!1) and crap and not knowing what was good for them, and it was up to the Good White Christian Men to kidnap them and submit them to horrendous lifelong multilayered torture to break their spirits for Jesus. And that runaway slaves didn’t say anything against slavery itself, because guess what: They Just Don’t Know What’s Best For Them.
Obviously, there’s that lingering, strikethroughed “Us” right before the Them, unspoken but not unheard. It’s present in every rape, every unspeakable act of violation on another’s body and soul. You just don’t know what you want; you don’t even know your own mind, and that’s why I get to do this to you without feeling a twinge of empathy or regret. You just don’t know that you’re perfectly fine with this, you stupid dog.
This needs to be repeated to you, over and over and over again. Whether it has to do with women, non-human animals, indigenous peoples, children, it does not fucking matter, you need to fucking understand this: the property status came first, the justification after.
It was not: “Animals are, like, retarded, so we’re gonna feel just dandy playing tiddlywinks with their social structures before killing them.”
It was: “We want to play tiddlywinks with animals’ social structures before killing them. Not because we need the food, mind, because there’s plenty of that all around us: we want to because being able to subjugate someone means that you are powerful, and we want that power. But, um, we’re gonna feel pretty shitty if we actually consider their feelings like the non-predatory species we are, so… They’re retarded! Take that, conscience!”
It was not: “Women are simplistic and irrational, so we get to own them and rape them whenever we want.”
It was: “We want to own women and rape them whenever we want… and women are simplistic and irrational, so we are perfectly moral in doing so. God/Science/Nature/Darwin/Psychology says so.”
Part of privilege, part of oppression, is being brainwashed into thinking that it was the other way around. Because if the justification came first, the oppression has a reason to exist—that’s rationalization, right there. It’s never been true, but if the oppression existed for a reason, then you have your reason to disregard it and continue the power structure.
DNA is a damn good self-perpetuating system. But I think oppression may be a little bit better—because even when it’s eating you from the inside until you’re an emotional and ethical cripple, you’ll continue on. Even when you’re killing vast swaths of your habitat and your community, you’ll continue on. And when someone gives a damn good post underlining why those prejudices you hold aren’t trustworthy, you’ll use the prejudices themselves as an argument for why they shouldn’t be listened to.
That’s fucked up, man.
There’s a longer post coming up on this in the meantime, but the transactivists who’ve been commenting seriously need to get a grip.
You want recognition and respect of your gender ID? Gotcha. There you go; you’re a man or a woman (or your choice of words). Yes, real ones. Unless you happen to be a balloon masquerading as a human animal. There you go. Problem solved.
If that’s what you want, then that’s what you get. I won’t bow to you or shut up simply because you don’t like what I say. That’s not a privilege I give to anyone. And hey, guess what? I can still disagree with you and respect you. Happens all the time. I can even disagree with you on the way your identity came about and how it can be helped and still respect you; I disagree with my friends, several of which are transsexual, but we get along great otherwise. Because… I respect them, and they don’t confuse agreement with respect.
In fact, I don’t need to agree with you on what causes your problems or how your problems can be solved in order to give you exactly what you say you want: respect and recognition. I do not need to agree with everything anyone-who-is-oppressed believes is in order to not be -ist. And, given that I’m a full person and I don’t particularly enjoy the limits compartmentalization would bring to my life, I can even believe several things at the same time! Some of which neither side of A Controversy wants to believe! Amazing.
I don’t need to agree with you on every single fucking facet of the world in order to think you’re a person that deserves respect. (Because that is my priority: that you are a person and all rights flow from that, not that you are someone that needs to be treated nicely because you’re so pitiful, or something.)
And in fact, this works everywhere, with every kind of oppression. Just because you suffer doesn’t make you enlightened on the specific mechanics of that suffering—only the experience of it. Hell, even I don’t claim to know what will fix X with me a lot of the time.
I don’t need to believe in capitalism and socialism and Marxism and anarcho-syndicalism, all of which are believed in by some poor people, in order to be anti-classist.
I don’t need to believe that Black people are better than animals because they’re human in order to be anti-racist.
I don’t need to believe that fat is inherently genetic and that environment plays a minute role in being fat in order to be anti-sizeist, and believe that fat people are people who deserve to be treated with basic dignity.
… But basic dignity doesn’t include the idea that if you say Y, because you experience X, you are automatically right. That’s never been true, but this is the impression I’ve gotten from the commenters I’ve had so far.
Let’s get this down. Among my many beliefs are:
– That everyone, regardless of assigned genitalia/gender-conflation, deserves to have their identity respected. Because they are people.
– That you are entitled to do anything you see fit to your body in order to feel okay with living in it, provided it doesn’t harm anyone else (SRS doesn’t affect anyone but you, so that fits).
– And for free.
– And with a minimum of hassle, too. I don’t have any aversion to people making “bad choices,” (whatever that means), as long as they’re not harming anyone else.
– Everyone has the right to not be harassed or attacked, because they are people. (Mind, I can’t really help it if you still want to believe I’m attacking you. Y’all need reading comprehension stat.)
– Everyone has the right to not just automatically assumed to be lying, or acting in bad faith.
– Everyone has the right to have their experiences listened to, have those experiences seen as valid. Maybe not objectively, I-feel-like-this-therefore-it’s-true valid, but objective gibberish is hardly necessary to treat someone with respect.
– Miscellaneous not-treating-you-like-the-devil item here.
Basic dignity, right there. I can’t and won’t do any more for you than this. And if you’re so bent on acting disrespectfully to me—I’ll note that not a single fucking transactivist has actually asked me anything; you’ve just assumed your initial misconceptions to be true—then, yeah, you don’t need to be here. Go take a walk in the sunshine. It’ll do you more good than running up comments here.
If you want to ask me things, and not assume that I am a horrible fucking person for not believing everything that you happen to immediately, then awesome. I have a lot to ask you too. Most of the comments I’ve let through, I’ve done so in an attempt to learn better—to goad someone into actually having a conversation with me. Alas, “to learn better” is actually entirely different than “accept everything so-and-so says as right.” What I’m asking for is not assertions; it’s descriptions.
But until you’re willing to treat me with basic dignity, too? This is an incredibly annoying phrase that, even when necessary, is still incredibly annoying:
I’m sorry you feel that way.
Now, on to actual posting! Also, comments disabled because y’all can go for a day without having to tell me I’m the Antichrist, I’m sure.
What is this crap I keep hearing from MRAs about “alpha men” and “beta men?” Are these people living in another universe? Assuming that “alpha” and “beta” are taken from the social structures of wolf packs—which undoubtedly they are, since humans have this unexplodey fetish for comparing themselves to the species, complete with ridiculous misconceptions—the assumptions involved are… unrealistic.
First! It’s irrational and tellingly biased that alpha and beta only get applied to those who are or who we’d like to imagine as predator-types. So there are references to “alpha men,” but very few to alpha women—who, in a strict hierarchal power-structure, would by necessity have to exist.
Second, it assumes characteristics that aren’t necessarily present in wolf packs. Humans like to believe that “alpha” means an aggressive, assertive power that commands everyone else to submit or they’ll rip you apart… but that isn’t the case in wolf packs: alpha wolves are actually the most social and are only rarely involved in a dispute. Actually, alpha wolves are alpha wolves not because they’re the biggest and meanest, but because they are the most charismatic—others want to follow them, trust them, and do what they say. I’ve met only a few alpha humans by the actual wolf definition of “alpha,” and that trait doesn’t have anything to do with looks—although it helps, given the persistent disregard and dismissal of those who aren’t freaking Barbies and Kens.
The MRA definition of alpha seems to be: aggressive, powerful, threatening rapist. Let’s talk about how far these types of individuals get in any social species outside of a civilization and imposed societal structure that prevents them from being straight-up disposed of because homigosh murder!!1
Then there’s the slander against “beta males.” Eh? Betas are actually those who work very well with everyone in the group, and are usually arbiter/secondary-Mommy role, and get this: they’re actually not that maligned or disempowered in wolf society because, hey! They are the second highest-ranking!
Actually, as a whole, the rage about alpha males and beta males and how those stupid beta males give in to the evil feminists is based on the idea that if the feminists weren’t around, women wouldn’t be able to stop men from getting their dicks wet whenever they wanted. Which doesn’t do much to convince me that MRA isn’t all about “those bitches won’t spread their legs for me!” Which speaks of entitlement, and guys… entitlement doesn’t come up in a society where you are underpowered and disenfranchised: nonwhites and women actually have to struggle against the idea that they aren’t as worthy, good, or smart as whites and men (and white men).
On the other hand, what’s the problem? Nobody but the alphas get to breed—ever. Betas, regardless of what sex they are, do not get to breed—it is one of those fundamental laws of wolf society: you don’t get to do this. That it’s a social tenet is underscored by the fact that wolves raised outside of wolf culture—by humans, for example—have no qualms with mating even though they’re not alphas.
… So, ironically, the MRAs have nothing to complain about: men and women are already equal, unless you count men’s disproportionate presence and representation inside politics, high-paying and high-prestige jobs, etc. They’re fine to object to that if they want—I agree, capitalism is fucking awful and drains your soul, and I’ll be happy to welcome them over to the anarchist side of things as soon as they get rid of their patriarchal, white and human privilege.
I do have a further problem with the idea of alpha as it is applied to humans: “alpha” standards for men and women differ, massively, in ways that are not borne out by personality differences between men and women. Men are supposed to be hyperaggressive, warlike rapists—chill, I said supposed to be, as in by society, and I appreciate your agreement that men are not inherently rapists and shouldn’t ever be—but women’s “alpha” status is… appearance. You have to be thin, made-up, perfumed, conventionally attractive—and silent, apparently, because no mention of women’s personalities are ever made in “alpha” standards. Because to men, women are fuckholes. Wait, I missed the part where society is supposed to value women more than men again, I think.
In conclusion, shut the fuck up and stop slandering other species you honestly know jack shit about. They do not support your concepts of how the world is supposed to be run, and if you weren’t constantly using only the measures of your paradigm on them, you’d know that. But what is carnism if not exploiting animals’ lives to reinforce your own sense of superiority?
It’s been my experience that when white men are called out on their privilege, regardless of what kind of privilege it is, they have a few select response patterns. First is the “quote me,” phenomenon, which assumes that he’s the one who gets to decide whether or not he’s privileged or if the caller-out was just “mistaken”; next is Appeal to Authority, especially when employed in the “show me studies!” shtick; last, though, is that a man will bring in someone of an underprivileged group and assert that because this person agrees with him, he couldn’t possibly be wrong.
I like to call this tactic “covering your dick.” By choosing someone who belongs to an oppressed group that agrees with them, he can pretend his beliefs are vindicated by the very fact that someone underprivileged agrees with him. Metaphorically, by using an underprivileged person to back up his privilege, he’s placing their face in front of his dick so everyone will be tricked into believing that it’s an Automatically Enlightened Oppressed Person speaking instead of, well, him. From his dick (privilege).
It can be used by privileged people of all stripes, but overwhelmingly it’s used by men, and even more overwhelmingly by white men. This stupid tactic has a long-ass history and many, many permutations.
Some of the most easily recognizable ones, I’m sure you’ll know them, are variations of, “Well, my black friend says he doesn’t mind racist jokes…” and “Some of my best friends are gay.” They get much more complex than that, though.
Christianity has been using the “cover your dick” tactic for centuries via flamboyant, dramatic conversions and confessions. Proclamations of, “I lived a life of sin,” do more to reassure the current followers than they do to convince the unbelievers. The evangelical Christian set in the U.S. still uses this tactic; I have little knowledge of its use in other countries.
Some underprivileged people, enjoying the admiration and honorary dick points that being used as an Automatically Enlightened Oppressed Person, deliberately set themselves up as unlike those meanie-head rebels, strictly pro-status quo. Phyllis Shafly played this role during the ’70s feminist movement, advocating against women’s rights and liberations—and being picked up by male mainstream media. Dr. Laura has made an extremely lucrative career out of shaming women, as have many pro-forced birth “feminists.” Sarah Palin et al. continue this thread of anti-women women.
The same has been borne out with people of color—whether pro-U.S. Rez residents, anti-hate crime/affirmative action Black people, or anti-immigrant Hispanics. (I can’t give sources for these; I’ve met them personally, and wouldn’t endanger their privacy no matter how much I may disagree.)
Part and parcel of the “cover your dick” tactic is actually intense contempt for the AEOP they’re holding up as better—because they are holding up that person as better. The one covering his dick is implicitly stating that an oppressed person’s worth is directly proportional to how much they agree with him, and if the AEOP he’s using is of the same status of the person he’s defending against, it gets even more bitter and hateful.
It doesn’t necessarily need to happen. There’s also a certain system of equivalence involved: a non-white man is worth more dick coverage than a white woman, but a non-white woman is worth more dick coverage than a non-white man (unless she’s Hispanic). An unpretty white woman’s dick coverage worth (DCW) is approximately equal to that of a visibly disabled man, unless said man is also openly poor. And an Asian kid dying of cancer speaking out against socialized health care is worth approximately 400,000 glods.
I had a conversation a while ago with a man who refused point-blank the idea that he could be privileged for consuming animal products, and he held up Lierre Keith as proof and said, straight-out, “Lierre Keith has done more for the world than any vegan has.” While I doubt that all vegans (an example) in social justice movements have been useless, he was expressly privileging her over every vegan woman and radical feminist—because she agreed with him. It was as simple as that: she backed him up when he didn’t want to let go of the idea that he was too “radical” to have missed the fact that he had privilege. He used Lierre Keith not because he valued Lierre Keith, but because he could cover his dick with her; he, a white rich man, used her, a white rich woman, as a weapon against every woman who was vegan and every person of color who +vwas vegan and every vegan who has ever fought for human and animal rights.
He used a woman as a weapon because she agreed with what he wanted to believe.
That’s the essence of “covering your dick.” By taking someone who’s grown up underprivileged in a fucked-up society and positioning them as an Automatically Enlightened Oppressed Person, by using them as a weapon against everyone who might disagree with him and prove him wrong, by using their oppressed status to cement his privilege of defining reality, he covers his dick so that no one notices it’s still his dick that benefits.
Just a small note.
Trans can be used in several ways, because it is merely a prefix that means to move. For example, transition means to move where you are positioned. It stands to reason that trans means different things depending on what it is placed before.
Next, sex is a binary: male and female. There is such a thing as “intersex,” but there’s a reason that the word means “to lie between” or “to take from both sides.” Sex is a binary only in that there are two clearly-defined sides, not to erase the existence or naturalness of intersexed people.
Gender, however, is not a binary. As a sensation or feeling, it does not have any clearly-defined sides whatsoever, and would be better explained by a sphere where all colors and luminosities exist, amorphous and unstable.
Granted, gender can also be understood as the inner feeling supposed to correspond to a given sex, with behavioral (and to a point appearance) stereotypes associated with those sexes described as gender roles.
When you are transsexual, it means you want to be identified as the opposite sex of the one you were assigned at birth. You can be genderqueer and also transsexual, but apparently it’s fairly rare—or maybe not, depending on how the individual interprets gender. Someone who is transsexual may very well simply associate their gender with their chosen sex regardless of “accuracy.”
The trans in transsexual means to go across—because there are two binaries. Like transcontinental, the prefix specifically refers to linear travel.
Transgender is to fall entirely outside of the gendered sex binary: your inner feeling of gender has no reflection or relation to your sex, regardless of whatever similarities it shows to gender roles. In this way, the trans in transgender means to transcend—to rise above or outside, that is, to move from the binary (feminine/masculine and assumed genitalia) outside of it, to the color-light gender cloud described above.
It is virtually impossible to tell who is “cis” or not because of two inarguable facts about the state of gender-sex relations right now:
1. Someone who you would define as transgender were you to see their gender-flavor might not define themselves as transgender for a number of reasons—because they assumed their gender corresponded to their sex, because they never wanted to actively change their sex, or just because they don’t feel any particular importance in identifying as transgender.
2. Large swaths of people—especially those who were assigned the sex of “female” at birth—are not comfortable with their assumed gender, gender roles, and the way they are treated and perceived.
There are serious ethical and ideological problems with focusing so strongly on dis-identification with one’s genitalia and the desire for surgery. Assuming that merely because someone does not want to alter their secondary/primary sex organs, they can be described as “cis”—which is shorthand for not oppressed by the gender-sex system. Similarly problematic is the assumption that someone also oppressed and trapped by the gender-sex binary is privileged simply because they “win,” even though it’s a pretty harmful thing to “win” at.
Destroying the gender-sex binary can only be a good thing for everyone involved. Transfolk, please stop treating people who were assigned “feminine” at birth as enemies: they aren’t in control of the gender-sex binary—in fact, they’re forced to compete in it as well, with consequences just as dire as you have seen for any transperson—and are not the people who are likely to enact violence against you at any level. Those assigned “female/feminine” gender roles at birth do not hold significant social or economic power over you.
Solidarity is working with everyone who is oppressed, marginalized and maligned by the status quo—not slandering them with accusations of nonexistent privilege.
We’re on page 24. I’m going to skip past Keith waxing poetic about how blissful human privilege in a human supremecist society is and go straight back to the apples. (What is with her and apples?)
The fruit tree gives me my food and I give back the seeds to nature so other trees can grow. The last time I ate an apple, I counted. There were ten seeds. Set aside for a moment that those seeds won’t produce edible apples … [script emph]
We just got through several pages in which Keith details how she “needs” to use animal products to grow a garden, and specifically how she “needs” to farm animals in order to do so. It’s hypocritical of her at this point to insist that compost cannot be considered as “giving the seeds back to the Earth so that other trees can grow.” This is a tactic people use when their argument rests on very, very thin grounds—they take the extreme literalist route, because it’s easier to argue against and because it sounds more convincing, even though it’s not nearly as truthful or accurate.
I like to jab at her, but at least I admit that’s what it is: jabs. I cannot bring myself to deliberately misinterpret her words for my actual arguments, because that would be a) unsatisfying, b) not fun, and c) not nearly as powerful as the argument I could make. So, for you pseudo- and anti-feminists out there, yeah, I really do believe Keith’s behavior is similar enough to sexual abuse to be compared. Go watch your rape porn and cry about it.
The author clearly yearns for food—for a life—based on reciprocity, not exploitation, and he believes that plants count as partners, as participants.
Keith, on the other hand, knows this is false. She starved herself and called it “veganism”; how could anyone do anything else while vegan? Obviously, the only real way to survive is to use animals as property, even though in Massachusetts she could easily get a hunting license and travel up into Canada to kill several elk and/or deer and eat their bodies. She clearly has the money—according to her, she eats a lot of grass-fed beef and dairy, and that shit ain’t cheap.
Additionally, it’s telling that she never once contacted the author to find out if it was true. Most fruitarians like their trees, but that hardly means they’re delusional enough to attribute first-person experience of life to them.
Having included them in the “us” of sentience and agency, he can’t just take. He needs to know that he is giving back, part of a circle of exchange, instead of the one-way extraction that he identifies as death.
1. “The fruit tree gives me my food and I give back the seeds to nature so other trees can grow,” doesn’t imply sentience and agency. Come on, Keith, reading comprehension.
2. “… that he identifies as death.” We know that’s not true, because Keith farms animals and she says it’s not a one-way exchange—she loves the animals she
owns uses traps takes care of! Only Keith’s lifestyle isn’t a “one-way exchange,” you see, because, um… HEY YOU’RE ANTHROPOCENTRIC.
That’s really the only feasible argument she’s giving me here, and that’s pretty damn sad.
But it also reflects the ignorance. He doesn’t know that apples eat, and what they eat is animals, including us. They need our excrement—the nitrogen, the minerals, the microbes—and our flesh and bones.
In actuality, this reflects Keith’s ignorance. I debunked the animal-requirement myth she’s presenting here in the last few installments—I’m not going to go over it again.
But I do want to harp, again, on two things: first, that she doesn’t actually give the trees her excrement—she insists on owning animals for that, even though there is no fucking way that animal products make up a really significant portion of the world’s topsoil. Second, she accuses others of ignorance all willy-nilly when the answer is out there for the taking—all you have to do is have a hunger for knowledge, real knowledge, and not merely take the easy way out. In a society that desperately wants to believe that domination and subordination are natural and necessary, the easy way out will always be the first answer you get.
There is a reciprocal relationship between animals and plants: predator and prey, until the prey becomes predator.
One of the basic concepts of “prey” is that, if you are eaten, you die. Your life—all of it, not just your fruits or a part of it—ends because someone else wants to eat you. I’m fine with that. But clearly, the “predator/prey” relationship that Keith is asserting between animals and plants looks nothing like the actual predator/prey relationship between wild animals. As such, I’m going to argue that Keith is wrong—that these relationships are not the same because they do not mean the same things for the participants.
Prey cannot generally lose a limb and survive, not just because of bloodloss and inhibited movement but because of the shock that sets in to avoid pain. Plants can, though. Losing a limb does not mean the same thing to plants that it does to animals—not from an objective or subjective viewpoint.
False equivalence is one of my pet peeves. Just because you say it is the same thing doesn’t mean it actually is the same thing; you have to describe how those things behave in the same ways in order for your argument to be valid.
It is only our attempt to remove themselves from that cycle that destroys it.
And what Keith chooses to do is exactly that: farming.
By farming, she shields herself from every aspect of a predator’s life. She doesn’t have to hunt, to practice, to learn to chase and climb and strike quickly with your teeth, and as such she doesn’t have to face the reality that humans aren’t predators at all—we’re bad at it, yo: our bodies say so. Even the fucking Masai have to train themselves up to catching gazelles. She doesn’t have to face starvation as a fact of life if she can’t hunt well enough—there is no failure rate, because her property can’t get away from her. She doesn’t have to face her own sociopathy—she can just ignore the fact that predators do not typically kill those they love, even if they are “prey animals.”
I ain’t gonna claim that grain farming isn’t self-deluded too, especially in that it provides a similar sense of security. I am gonna claim that the defense of grain farming isn’t usually made on the basis that humans naturally eat grains and that they have nutrients we can’t survive without. I am gonna claim that grains don’t experience being used as property because they simply don’t have the hardware for it.
Keith criticizes grains and then does the same damn thing, except with actual people who can actually experience betrayal and pain and horror, all the while pretending that she’s not farming because… something. I don’t know. She’s merely implied this entire time that it’s not the same thing by bitching about one kind of farming as though it is the only kind there is, and therefore she does not belong in the same category.
There’s more ignorance. He doesn’t know that seeds are alive.
Keith is again the one who’s ignorant here, and in fact she’s gesticulating rapidly at a row of dark iron kettles. Seeds are not necessarily alive; they only become “alive” once they germinate. They can be fertile, but one of the defining characteristics of life is that it requires metabolic energy expenditures. And one of the reasons that plants are considered “plants” and not, say, animals or fungi is that plants can lay dormant—in winter, in seed—without actually dying. Hibernation in animals is similar, but not the same, because animals still use energy the entire time they’re hibernating—that’s why bears stuff themselves and get luxuriously fat in the fall; because they’re going to be using that energy the entire time they’re in hibernation.
Seeds are not alive. Plants, in winter, are not technically alive. They can remain that way virtually indefinitely as long as they don’t have to deal with any physical or environmental damage.
I knew I was going to have to give a Biology 101 class here, but I was really hoping I wouldn’t need to. Dammit, fuckheads, love life and knowledge enough to never be satisfied with this kind of half-assery.
Since killing is the sacrilege in this moral system, he can’t acknowledge that in actuality he’s eating something alive.
For those who think that this might actually be true, allow me to burst your bubble. One of the basic reasons that most raw foodists will not eat animal products and instead stick specifically to plant foods is that they want to eat “living foods.” That’s actually another name for raw foodism—a “diet of living foods.” This is not metaphorical. All you need to do is Goodsearch “living foods” and pick damn near any page. Raw foodists and fruitarians specifically choose to eat produce because it is living.
Therefore killing itself, death itself, cannot be a moral wrong in a world of raw foodism. Ergo, Keith’s entire argument here has just been completely nullified. It didn’t have to be. She could have avoided this weakness in her position with just seconds of research—so score another one for honestly searching for information.
There is a relationship of reciprocity built into the human-apple exchange, but it’s not about humans planting their seeds.
Well, even assuming that there’s a “human-apple exchange” in the first place. I’ll repeat myself again: humans have not evolved to actually survive without a crutch in the climate and territory where apples naturally grow. There can be no biological “contract” between two creatures that never evolved around each other—because that “contract” usually takes the form of an ecosystem, and if you don’t have a place within the ecosystem, if you can’t survive within it without the use of technology and shelter and civilization, then you can’t be part of the contract.
It’s about humans grafting, planting, and tending the trees and extending their territory.
So the way to fight civilization, agriculture and colonization of the Earth is:
I. Civilization to allow us to go into areas we aren’t adapted to.
II. Agricultural cultivation of those species.
III. Colonizing the Earth with those species (and ourselves, of course) under the banner of “fulfilling the human-apple exchange.”
I was under the impression that one of the most basic parts of radical feminism is the rejection of colonization—of women’s bodies by men, of other countries, of other cultures, straight down to the fundamental idea that humans have the right to the entire planet. How is it that Lierre Keith misses this? How is it that Lierre Keith can be a radical feminist while at the same time believing that nature is inherently colonizing? That colonization is one of its fundamental behaviors? I’m not begging the question. I’m really confused here.
Fuck. Fuck, my brain is broken. Fuck, ow, I think she just gave me a stupidity-induced aneurysm. MEDIC!
Savage Rabbit will be able to come back later, once zie feels better and gets some chamomile in zir. Please accept this adorable picture of a bunny as compensation for the inconvenience. – Aslan