The Social Construction of Domestication

[Brandon Becker]

Ida Hammer make a powerful critique of Friends of Animals' speciesist and patronizing views of "domesticated" nonhuman animals:
http://www.veganideal.org/content/social-construction-domestication

Excerpt:
-----
Most pets are classified as so-called "domesticated animals." The root term "domestic" comes from the Latin word for house. As such, it's no wonder that the "domestication" of other animals relates to the social construction of our inability to understand these other animals as capable of living independently of a human household.
-----

[Bill Cherry Jr]

It would appear as if some of the folks here would condone just letting domestic pets go free to do as they will in an environment in which they do not even belong in the first place.  Is my perception correct or wrong?

[Bill Cherry Jr]

Red dog, If I could 'like' your post I would.

[Bill Cherry Jr]

Thank you, sir. One more question. Is  "not-yet born nonhuman individual"  indicative of 'birth-control' methods on animals?  Particularly Wild vs domestic. (If that is what you are referring to,... ?)

[Bill Cherry Jr]

concerning wild vs domestic Mr Gier, I refer you to the same question i just asked dr Yates.

[Brandon Becker]

FoA didn't misspeak when they said that "domesticated" nonhuman animals can't have rights. FoA follows the philosophy of their legal director Lee Hall who advocates an "ethic of care" for those deemed "domesticated" and rights only for so-called "wild" nonhuman animals. And it's not even clear what rights Hall advocates, considering Hall only talks about the "right to live on their own terms."

 

How do we expect end the enslavement of other animals without abolishing their legal property status and according them rights as persons? Without rights, some humans will continue to violate other animals' bodies (for breeding), keep individuals captive (for exploitive purposes, not shelter from harm as in rescued "pets" who may not be able to live freely), and murder them (which is unjustified killing - not accidental, in self-defense, or true euthanasia).

[red dog]

Thanks, Bill.

[red dog]

Brandon, I have no problem with your second paragraph whatsoever. I also dislike the way Lee Hall worded her essay, and I agree that what she advocates in that essay isn't very clear--indicating that it's not as well written as it could have been.

But Hall, along with everyone on ARZone, supports spay/neuter, rescue and adoption and opposes breeding. I don't know enough about FoA as an organization to wholeheartedly support or oppose them, but they seem far ahead of many other mainstream organizations when it comes to having programs and policies that are respectful of captive animals. I'm not affiliated with FoA and I'm bringing that up only in the interest of fairness. Some of the comments in this discussion really concern me because they could suggest that it's reasonable to turn dogs, cats, cows, etc., loose in the streets. Anti-AR readers take those comments out of context and use them to distort the meaning of AR.

As far as animal rights having failed domesticated animals who are alive now, I don't understand that at all. Humans have collectively failed nonhumans in all sorts of ways, many of which have been discussed in depth here at ARZone (and they should be discussed). Has Farm Sanctuary failed the animals under its care to the same degree as "humane" societies that seize neglected farmed animals only to sell them for slaughter? Did Nathan Winograd fail the 90-plus percent of animals who got adopted from his shelter to the same extent that the Montreal SPCA failed the 90-plus percent of animals it gassed to death in the early 80s? As I understand it, FoA began offering subsidized spay/neuter services long before it was popular or PC to do so. Other organizations tried and backed down after vets complained they were losing business. It's only within the past decade or so that people have been refusing to accept those excuses.