Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

“God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.”

-Genesis 1:28

Pronoun Alert: As I have done in other places on this blog, I will use masculine pronouns in this post to refer to Chelsea Manning. I think emasculation is mean, even if “she was asking for it.” And, to take a page from the Emasculator in Chief’s book of phrases, I don’t want to end up on the wrong side of history.

Earlier this month, PETA broke the Internet with this gem of a tweet that admonished the world to “Stop Using Anti-Animal Language.” The tweet listed, in chart form, five common English-language idioms and proposed five alternatives that would be less triggering to the animals referenced in the originals. PETA was widely ridiculed for this, even in liberal publications, but the tweet still got a little over 40,000 likes.

I first found out about the chart when my mom pointed it out to me in the December 24 edition of People magazine. (It is on page 4 in case anybody wants to look it up.) From what I have seen, People tends to toe the line on political correctness, but even they couldn’t resist having a little fun with the chart, writing that “the Internet had a cow” over it. I guess PETA would be okay with that expression, though, because giving birth to a cow (or, more accurately, a calf) is a natural process.

Or does it denigrate the experiences of laboring cows to imply that the Internet or a person can “have a cow”?

In my opinion, the most sinister part of PETA’s tweet is not that ridiculous chart. It is its use of the word “speciesism.” Racism says that one race is superior to the others. Sexism says one sex is superior to the other. Speciesism says one species is superior to the others.

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is good. As long as the species being viewed as superior is human.

Speciesism is an integral part of Christianity. (PETA be like, “Of course it is – that’s why it’s gotta go.”) We are called to be good stewards of Creation, which means that it is wrong to torture or abuse an animal. But if you subscribe to a biblical worldview, humans are unquestionably the pinnacle of Creation. Therefore, it is necessary and proper to have different standards of treatment for humans and animals.

Ironically, it should surprise no one that the people who rave about speciesism are often some of the biggest advocates of “human rights.” Human rights is a very loaded term and one that often means the opposite of what it looks like. It shouldn’t be this way, but if you hear someone going on and on about human rights, there is a good chance that she believes that abortion and emasculation are human rights and that spanking your child is a human rights abuse.

One thing I have in common with this crowd regarding emasculation is that we both think that the Constitution addresses it. The difference is that they find it in the Fourteenth Amendment under “due process of law” and “equal protection of the laws,” whereas I find it in the Eighth Amendment under “cruel and unusual punishments.”

And now let’s look in a little more depth at PETA’s chart. The format I use below is “Current expression/PETA’s proposed new expression.”

1 – “Kill two birds with one stone.” / “Feed two birds with one scone.”

Should birds eat scones? Also, isn’t feeding birds sort of like domesticating them? I thought PETA was against that, too.

2 – “Be the guinea pig.” / “Be the test tube.”

This one gets the award for “Most Orwellian.” “Test tube” coming from PETA conjures up images of all sorts of cutting-edge reproductive and eugenics technologies. And I guess one could argue it’s despeciesizing because it urges you not to refer to yourself as an animal, but an inanimate object that has no rights. But wait, is it wrong to say that an inanimate object has no rights? Is that another form of discrimination?

I probably shouldn’t even be referring to the test tube as an “object,” since to do so is literally objectification.

In addition to pondering the rights of test tubes, this one also made me think of the two different contexts in which the term “guinea pig” is used to refer to a human being. The first, and the one that I think PETA was thinking of when they made this chart, is usually a lighthearted one. This is when you agree to be the first to try someone’s new recipe or let a cosmetology student friend or relative give you a makeover.

The second way in which humans use the term “guinea pig” in reference to other humans is more serious. This is the “guinea pig” who is a victim of unethical experimentation. If you are a long-time reader of this blog, you may remember that I called out the U.S. military’s use of human guinea pigs in my October 16 post entitled “I Don’t Like Your Tone, Generals.” And I guess the Left would think that my referring to Chelsea Manning as a guinea pig was a problem because it trivialized the sufferings of laboratory guinea pigs.

Fun fact: The PETA crowd has already unloaded on Manning. In June 2017, less than a month after getting out of prison, he posted this photo of a veal dinner on Instagram and, not surprisingly, got shade from a variety of people. (If you ever want to see a sampling of the cruelest people on the Internet, from all over the political spectrum, all you need to do is read the comments on just about any of Manning’s social media posts.) User “hed.ieh” told him that “…the baby cow that was slaughtered for this meal died a prisoner to human ignorance. Choose compassion over murder.”

Unfortunately, I didn’t see anybody tell hed.ieh to “Choose compassion over dehumanizing hyperbole.”

“Losangelespigsavela” took it a step further and told him, “You’ve felt so deeply firsthand what it’s like to be bullied and victimized…The babies who were tortured and murdered for your veal wanted to live just as much as you do.”

You may be woke, but you will probably never be “telling a human who was tortured that eating meat is just as bad as torturing a human” woke.

3 – “Beat a dead horse.” / “Feed a fed horse.”

This doesn’t make any sense because it seems like the alternative is still an example of abuse. If you are “feeding a fed horse,” isn’t that like overfeeding a horse?

Or is criticizing overfeeding an example of fat shaming?

4 – “Bring home the bacon.” / “Bring home the bagels.”

First, let me say how hilarious it is that they replaced bacon with a Jewish food. But is that cultural appropriation? I guess it wouldn’t be if some of PETA’s leadership is Jewish.

Oh no – is that an example of the “those influential Jews” trope?

But wait, just how influential is PETA anyway? The post did get over 40,000 likes, but it’s a big world, and the post was roundly criticized. (PC Police be like, “So now you’re saying Jews are irrelevant?”)

5 – “Take the bull by the horns.” / “Take the flower by the thorns.”

Wait just a minute. Flowers are living things. And “take” is a very aggressive word.

PETA may as well be saying, “When you’re rich, they’ll let you just walk up to ‘em and grab ‘em by the thorns.”

This is even more sinister in light of the fact that flowers are often associated with femininity. PETA’s alternative sounds like a microaggressive contributor to the rape culture that is ubiquitous all around the world.

But wait, isn’t taking a flower the same as picking a flower? And picking a flower leads to its death.

This is incitement to murder.

Even if the suggested alternative weren’t so sexist and murderous, it would still confound me a little. It seems to be saying “Embrace both the beauty and sufferings of life,” which is a very authentically Christian concept, so I wonder how many of PETA’s fans needed a safe space after reading it.

This one is also confusing because it seems like an alternate interpretation could be that “Take the flower by the thorns” is a more severe version of “Go pound sand.” Consider: if you are being attacked by a bull, the horns aren’t necessarily your worst enemy. The hooves are also a problem. Really, the entire bull is a problem. But thorns are the only unpleasant/dangerous part of a non-poisonous flower.

Oh no, am I thorn shaming the flower by implying that no one would want to “take it by the thorns”?

Here’s the bottom line for me: It is not wrong to advocate for animal welfare. It’s not even categorically wrong to guilt trip people for eating meat. But if you are doing either of these things in a way that places animals at an equal or higher level of dignity than humans, you have crossed the line into idolatry. The people who are most likely to do this are the people who think Donald Trump is likely to unleash genocide on the American people.

And yet their attitudes are the kind that make genocide a lot easier.

Consider: If Trump really did want to round up the transgender community and throw them into death camps, what would be stopping him from saying, “It’s no worse than factory farming! Shut down Tyson and then we’ll talk!”

On a lighter note, I have compiled the following list of suggestions for promoting animal welfare that I think are common-sense alternatives to PETA’s nonsense.

1 – Instead of buying a pet from a breeder, adopt one from a shelter.

Or let a stray adopt you. Some municipalities have strict laws against feeding strays, but this is a very common practice in rural areas. And in my experience, strays have made very good pets. They are friendly and affectionate, but also hardy and independent.

2 – Don’t declaw your cat.

This article from The Humane Society explains the declawing process and why it is harmful for cats. It also includes tips on how to discourage your clawed cat from destroying your furniture. My view is that if these tips don’t work, you should either learn to live with clawed-up furniture or give Mittens away to a good home. But, depending on where you live, you have another option (that I think is great, but The Humane Society frowns upon):

Let Mittens live outside.

This is obviously not an option if she has already been declawed. But if she still has her claws, an outdoor life can allow her to enjoy freedom and adventure while remaining a big part of your life. People who are opposed to letting animals live outside often cite safety risks as one of their primary reasons for opposition. This is a legitimate concern, but I think a lot of pet owners underestimate the “street smarts” of their furry friends. Sure, most domestic animals are no match for a coyote (the animal, not the human smuggler, although a run-in with the human smuggler kind probably wouldn’t end much better), but our furry friends are pretty good at sensing predators and taking appropriate measures. And even if your pet does end up getting killed by a predator, consider this:

If you could give her 5 years roaming free or 10 years cordoned off in a corner of your house so she won’t tear up anything, which would you choose?

This is a morally acceptable application of the “quality of life vs. quantity of life” paradigm. This paradigm is much sketchier when applied to humans because it is often used to promote abortion and assisted suicide. The most radical animal rights advocates oppose any keeping of animals as pets, no matter where they’re kept, and these people certainly tend to have problematic views on the sanctity of human life. But you can find some truly evil irony in the views of more mainstream animal rights advocates as well.

These are the people who reject the “quality vs. quantity” paradigm for Mittens (and think you’re evil for suggesting she live outside) but will think it’s the bee’s knees when some Kevorkian 2.0 proposes it for their ailing parents.

3 – Obey leash laws and report violators.

An off-leash dog is a dog in danger. He could be hit by a car, stolen, or end up attacking somebody.

And it doesn’t matter if that kid was poking his eye out with a stick. If he bites the kid, he’s going down.

4 – Supervise and train your children.

Lots of horrific dog attack incidents are preventable. You’ll occasionally hear a story of a toddler who wanders all the way down her block before getting mauled by a dog. The biggest problem with this picture is not the dog, particularly if he was on his owner’s property at the time of the incident. (If he was roaming loose, that’s a different story.) Small children can be quick and unpredictable, and browbeating parents for losing sight of them isn’t helpful.

But neither is shifting the blame onto a law-abiding dog owner whose dog was minding his own business until Little Suzy wandered into his yard and started bopping him on the head.

I know that there are dog owners who either fail to train their dogs or train them to be aggressive, and it’s important to make sure that they and their dogs are dealt with accordingly. But I think that the horror of a mauled child (or a mauled adult for that matter) can sometimes compromise our objectivity and respect for the property rights of the dog owner. Property rights in this instance has a dual meaning. It means land, as in the land that the victim may have been trespassing on at the time of the attack. (In the case of Little Suzy, this would be trespassing in the literal sense rather than the legal sense, because I assume a toddler can not actually be charged with trespassing.)

And it also refers to the dog itself, which is property. And no one should be deprived of property without due process. Human life is more important than animal life, so if a dog has to be put down in order to stop attacking people, so be it. But I think sometimes we are too quick to put down a dog when an attack is really just a tragic accident or, even worse, the result of stupidity or cruelty on the part of the victim. (Obviously the “stupidity or cruelty” label would not apply to very young children or people of any age with developmental disabilities. I am not a horrible person.)

5 – Resist societal pressure to get a pet if it’s not the right choice for you.

This also applies to pets for your children. Don’t listen to that stuff about “Every child needs a dog” and don’t assume that dogs are great ways to teach responsibility. I would be willing to bet that parents typically end up bearing the brunt of the responsibility for the care and feeding of dogs, even if that wasn’t their intention. And in some ways, this is only fair. If a child is busy with schoolwork, he shouldn’t have to take time away from that to walk the dog. I would also argue that “You can’t go over to your friend’s house until you’ve given Fido a bath” is a little sad in light of the fact that kids today are in such desperate need of in-person (as opposed to digital) contact with friends. And if the parents are ticked off about having to take care of the dog, that’s their fault for getting it.

And if you are a friend of a marriage-minded single lady who has suggested that she get a cat, be an even better friend and try to find a
respectable two-legged cat who might be interested in her.

Verso l’alto,
Megan