Just to clarify

I have recently gotten myself into numerous veganism-related discussions, some more amicable than others. I felt that perhaps I should clarify why I feel so strongly about the vegan lifestyle, and why I will not shut up J

Yes it is a personal choice. But while omnivores exercise that choice, animals suffer and die. People attack vegan ideology from economic, cultural, personal liberty and other perspectives. And whereas I feel that the facts stand up for themselves in these matters, the plain and gory truth is that, for you to eat an animal, the animal must die. For you to eat eggs, a chicken must lay them. For you to eat dairy, a cow must become pregnant, have a calf, and be milked.

This is where Mr James LaVeck's brilliant quote comes in:

"There is a reason why human rights groups do not endorse 'humane' methods of executing political prisoners, and why children's rights advocates do not collaborate with the pornography industry to develop standards for films that make 'compassionate' use of runaway teens. To do such things is to introduce moral ambiguity into situations where the boundaries between right and wrong must never be allowed to blur."

Yes I completely subscribe to that. Even if slaughtering methods were humane (which it simply cannot be due to the overwhelming demands for meat, and let's for one minute forget how animals are raised), it is my honest opinion that taking away a sentient being's life – except in extremis, such as a dog with a terminal illness – can never be anything but cruel.

As for eggs and dairy, is it possible to provide these to a 7-billion strong population in a "humane" way? No, again the demand is too big. We simply do not have the space for truly free-range chickens, and cows do not produce enough milk to be viable if their calves are left with them. Besides that, as long as animals are exploited for their "products" they will remain a commodity, in the same way that slaves were still a commodity no matter how well they might have been treated by some of the slave owners. And being a commodity means not having universal, inalienable rights. It means being vulnerable to abuse, it means never being free, and it means that when you are no longer economically useful, you will be discarded by the cheapest means.

Gary L. Francione calls our relationship with animals morally schizophrenic, and I feel this is accurate. We accord some rights to companion animals and all decent people are horrified when cruelty is inflicted on these companion animals. But most of the same people seem blissfully unaware that similar cruelty is perpetrated against "food" animals every day. And of course people generally do not feel that animals should have rights like humans do, forgetting how the same rhetoric, the same excuses were used to subjugate black people and women, to excuse the horrible abuses of religious inquisitions and in the early lunatic asylums.

We are told that anthropomorphising animals is bad science, but is it? Animals, especially mammals but to a large extent birds, have similar brain structures and similar neurotransmitters, and their brains behave in similar ways to ours when similar stimuli are applied. So how different can their emotions be? Even here our beliefs about animals display a certain logical disconnect. We accept that animals can feel fear, but not that they can experience love, or grief. Except maybe a dog, right?

When these things are brought to people's attention, those doing so are usually seen as "extremists" and all-round unpleasant people. But knowing how animals – whom I passionately love – suffer every day, for every egg or slice of bacon someone eats, how can I be expected to remain silent? I do not judge nor do I seek to prescribe. What I want to do is to challenge misconceptions, but perhaps more importantly, I want to challenge why people hold the opinions they do. Is it truly your opinion or did you inherit it?

I have lost my mojo...

...or have at least misplaced it. For a while now I haven't blogged because I couldn't think of anything to blog about. Now I have realised why. I am too happy. My life is going quite smoothly. I have a decent job, family life is good, I have actually been out a couple of times, etc etc. Generally life is very good. So I am not angry enough.

While I am certainly not complaining (I am quite satisfied with my life being this good thank you very much), the rest of the world is pretty much the same as always and there's plenty to be angry about.

So to start off with I have today's WTF moment - I mean who would want their daughters to be armed with knowledge about sex, right? And who actually sits down with their 13yr olds to see what they're watching on TV?? Shocking *rolls eyes*

But even better, read this. Seriously, when is this crap going to stop? How can this madman and his evil camarilla be allowed to continue destroying Zimbabwe? And will our president actually do something for a change??

Only time will tell, but of one thing you can be sure: I am back, and pissed off as ever ;)

Real men don't rape

I read this article about a rather scary research study conducted by the MRC regarding rape and HIV/Aids. Do read the comments section too.

I responded to the article (and the commenters):

"Firstly, in the context of polygamy, virginity testing, women being violently abused for wearing trousers or short skirts, dry sex, jackrolling, female genital mutilation, and voting against the UN declaring rape an act of war, I am going to be so bold as to say that Africa has some serious problems when it comes to the issue of women's rights, and men's sense of entitlement. This does not mean that Africa is the only place where this is true, but many of these sexist practices are socially sactioned. If you do not oppose the practices I've listed, in my opinion you do hold that problematic ideal of masculinity Prof Jewkes refers to.

Secondly, my studies tell me that rape (by and large) is not a problem of "sick people". It is a problem of a society with skewed beliefs about women and sexuality. Be honest, how many of the men (even women) on here truly believe that an incident was rape if the woman did not physically resist and scream? Even if there was a weapon involved. How many people would say that a drunk woman in a bar was "asking for it"? All cultures have been subjected to pathological ideas about women's rights and about rape for centuries. As Gareth said, marital rape, "corrective" rape, date rape etc are not seen as rape. I agree with Delia that a more in-depth study of the motivating behaviour and the thinking behind rape would be beneficial, but such studies have been conducted on convicted rapists and the results are not particularly surprising. Entitlement and sexual myths play a huge role.

Thirdly, do remember that the study (if not the newspaper article) is peer-reviewed and the raw data, workings etc must be published and *will* be ripped to shreds if not rigourous. I am not sure about the provinces and the age group apparently used, but the sample size seems reasonable. The stats don't literally imply that if I'm on a bus with 4 men that one of them *is* a rapist.

Has any of the commenters actually read the report? And why do some of the men here seem so precious about this? Kind of like that ad with Charlize Theron. Can anyone deny the seriousness of the problem?

Oh and finally this is not a race issue. It's a gender rights issue."

Mysogyny should never be confused with traditionalism.

Omar al-Bashir is a c*nt

Last week, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President al-Bashir. In response, Bashir ordered 13 humanitarian aid organisation to leave Sudan.

I think we can all agree that he is an unmitigated arsehole.

What can we do?

1. Sign a petition urging US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to lead an urgent, intense and sustained diplomatic push to ensure the continued flow of humanitarian aid and end the genocide in Darfur here. 
   
2. Make a donation to Oxfam America to pick up where Oxfam UK was forced to leave off here.

Any other suggestions are welcomed.

Ostriches

Yes, I know, they don't really stick their heads in the sand. But the South African government does on a regular basis.

The xenophobia violence of earlier this year caused the violent deaths of 62 people (among them 21 South African citizens), displacement of and suffering for many thousands of people. People who were once friends, neighbours and colleagues were suddenly targeted by angry mobs. Some of the violence occurred only a few streets from where I live, and we feared for the safety of friends.

Now the government has claimed that they have "done enough" for the victims of xenophobia and are forcing them to either go back to the communities where they were attacked, or the countries they fled.

Unfortunately, most of these people no longer have homes - many of them lived in informal settlements and their "houses" and possessions were looted and sold as scrap by their erstwhile neighbours. What I consider to be some of the underlying issues - poverty, disillusionment, and a sense of being disempowered - have by no means been addressed. So what does our government think will happen when these traumatised, now destitute, people are forced to return to hostile communities?

Blithely disregarding these questions, however, the government started dismantling camps three days before today's deadline, despite - or perhaps in response to - an application by The Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa and the Wits Law Clinic to keep the camps open for two months.

There is no reintegration plan, no provision at all for their future. They are supposed to go back to places where many of their fellow foreigners had been attacked, raped and murdered. Those who don't leave the camps will be considered trespassers and dealt with as such by our merciful government.

I shall be keeping an eye on the situation, and will post more information as the situation unfolds. Please spare a thought for the people returning to possible violence and certain misery, and for a once-promising Rainbow Nation gone horribly wrong.