Post Punk Kitchen Forum

To me, and apologies in advance if it has been mentioned before, but I think that the dairy cow reference to rape has an effect on me because of numerous reasons, not the least of which the chosen words of the industry. The fact that it's called a "rape rack" instead of an AI cage or whatever resonates with me because it seems to speak to something that I cannot quite put into words this early in the morning. The title of the device does a fantastic job of marginalizing women and animals. I would probably not use the term "rape" if the industry itself didn't. I'm not sure how that fits into effective messaging other than simply describing how the industry views animals and presumably, to some extent, women. Granted, I've never read any of the fem lit discussing the politics of meat, so I'm sure that case has been made before and much more cogently.

I do think it's effective, it helped make the connection for me as a survivor, and it's nice that some of you don't, but that hardly negates the fact that it is effective for some.

I do think it's effective, it helped make the connection for me as a survivor, and it's nice that some of you don't, but that hardly negates the fact that it is effective for some.

Welcome to the PPK. Some members like to take a pseudo-authoritarian position and try to make others feel like their position is universally wrong.

I think the point though is if it is effective for some but highly offensive for some, to the point that it would turn them off entirely, is it really effective? I personally don't like the rape analogy and if someone started to use it, I'd shut down entirely and think they were crazy whackos who don't care about people. Isn't it more effective to use something that is more neutral? Rather than something offensive?

Why should the word "rape" only speak about a human experience? I think the fact that you'd like to exclude the experience of non-human animals is telling about how even vegans view them as lesser than humans.

I feel that rape is definitely an accurate description of what happens to dairy cows and all breeder animals. That's why I don't support it and it upsets me so much. But, I still don't say it. Maybe because even the word rape is triggering to me or maybe because I feel like it makes me sound nuts and people automatically tune me out and my effective messaging is over. I don't know. But I just categorize it as one of those things that I actually believe, but don't really talk about because I haven't found a good way to not offend people while talking about it.

I think this is mostly it. What is done to dairy cows is inhumane. I think rape though is a word that is triggering for many. If some rape survivors think their situation is similar to that of dairy cows, then it may be effective for them. It would shut down other people though and I don't think that makes it effective in terms of messaging.

Also, would you be ok with dairy if cows were roaming pastures with bulls and mated 'naturally'? Ok with the fact that their purpose would still be to provide dairy and take away their calves? I am guessing the answer to that is no.

I'd like to clarify that I've never actually used the rape analogy myself, because I generally don't speak about those things. I make a conscious effort to only speak about veganism in positives, not negatives. What I'm arguing against was the implication that it's not rape or that rape is somehow just a human experience.

It isn't a human only experience but I don't think it is effective vegan messaging because it will shut many people down. That is all I'm saying.

Oh no, not you, linanil. It was further upthread.

This.

Thank you Fee - that is exactly right.

I think the confusion here is between (1) could you call it rape and (2) is it effective outreach. And the answers are very different (yes and no). Let's stop conflating the two issues.

And I completely agree with 4P - the most effective vegan messaging is focusing on the positives, which include yummy food.

I am surprised by how many people approach me to tell me they are cutting down on their meat intake. I don't proselytize. I like to be a safe space for people to bring their thoughts and efforts and I validate their choices. Oh and I bring cupcakes :)

I disagree that cows are raped and I don't believe it's effective outreach. Both are horrible, and appear similar on the surface, but I think that considering the motivation for the two actions make them very separate things. When ones calls inseminating cows "rape" it takes away from the understanding of both situations, in my opinion. I do actually think that non-humans can be raped, though.

Furthermore, the people that make this analogy are often using it for its shock value, and if you're going to make the analogy, you should have as much care for both travesties. I don't think anyone here is doing that, but it's worth pointing out.

Hey, we try our best. This is a sensitive subject, obviously, and if it is too upsetting, perhaps stepping away for a bit is the best way to go here.

Although, honestly, this thread will probably be closed for obvious reasons.

Also, JonnyWoop, sometimes threads take a detour. It's ok. You don't really need to worry about it. We do have mods here and they can take care of it.

I think any of these controversial comparisons can be useful in one-on-one conversations but not as part of an ad campaign or more public conversation.

I have no problem with the Holocaust analogy because when people say "But they're only..." my mental response is often "Yeah, that's what they said about my grandparents. Thanks" (even if it doesn't always come out of my mouth).

While I wouldn't run around Midtown Manhattan shouting "DAIRY IS RAAAAAPE!" I would use that language in a more political context, like the Milk Not Jails program.

But it's obviously hard to figure out when it's appropriate and when it isn't, so I'd probably err on the side of not shouting about holoslaverape.

I feel like what this thread needs is the opinions of some old, white, conservative men.

You rang?

I'm sorry. I must not have been clear. I have no problem with the thread going in a different direction. I was merely trying to make the point that Tofulish said more elegantly than me:

I don't know if this was about me or not, but I feel like there are a lot of raw nerves on the line here and that didn't help.

In my experience of doing social justice work the understanding has always been "just saying it hurts is enough". It doesn't matter if I don't understand why using a certain word hurts people of colour, or using heteronormative language is hurtful to queer folks. That they have told me it hurts is enough for me to not use it.

I understand that using the term "rape" is useful for you and some others, but for me (and others) it is triggering and inappropriate. I honestly don't even think the "why" matters, and I don't think we're going to agree on it any time soon.

I love this response. I think the comparisons to rape are inaccurate for a variety of reasons. I think it oversimplifies what we mean when we say rape. I also think that shock tactics are ineffective, especially when they use someone else's suffering to shock.

Thank you for saying this. It's sort of what I tried to articulate in my earlier post (which was among the slew of accidentally deleted messages), where I wanted to push back against the idea of anthropocentrism as the default position, even among (some) vegans. I'm simply not prepared to accept that the human experience of suffering, loss, exploitation, pain, etc. automatically trumps that of other species. Some people may disagree and/or be offended by that position, but based on a lifetime's observation, I'm nowhere near convinced that humans are more relevant/important/insert-valorizing-adjective than everyone else; in fact, sometimes I think my own species is highly over-rated. But only by itself.

isa and vantine, what if innocent human orphaned teens (or other powerless women) were taken and jailed and artificially inseminated against their will as part of an underground baby factory? would you not call that rape?

I am calling for a one-hour moratorium on posting in this thread.

I don't want to tread into the absurd and start discussing hypothetical methods for this hypothetical insemination and the victim's hypothetical state at that time. And I'm not sure why they have to be innocent human orphaned teens, instead of just humans - innocent, orphans or not. But I'll repeat myself: I don't think that rape is limited to human experience. At the same time, I also don't think that all actions have to be equal for humans and other animals, as has been suggested in this thread.

Not everything has to be equal for us to understand that animals have just the same right to life and freedom that we do. There are so many things that we wouldn't do to a human being, that we, even as vegans, do to animals. For instance, if you get your cat fixed, that is considered being a responsible pet guardian. Would you do that to another person? How about one of your orphaned innocent teens?

And to use a much lighter scenario, if I fed my dinner guests from a bowl on the floor, that might be considered odd. But of course when I feed my cats that way it's totally fine. Hope you see what I'm getting at.

I already did!