|
Philosophy > General AR Philosophy
Animal Rights and the Philosophy of Domination As if reminiscent of the Stepford Wives film, it is difficult to examine the philosophy of animal husbandry as it became popular through the ages without also noticing that males have, at different times, used the same methodology in managing households including wives and children. In fact, some might say the Biblical philosophy and male tradition of patriarchy is built on nothing less as an evolution of men's attempt to organize themselves for progress and prosperity. Besides the offensive nature of the design for women, equally human, with their own desires, thoughts, and knowledge, the design is among the least efficient in human history at the present time. The design itself became obsolete when women were allowed to enter schools and become educated. Opening the entire world of knowledge to them enabled them to assume a similar degree of autonomy, in theory, but not yet in practice due to the prevailing narcissistic choice of males to continue the subrogation. That it may well have done to women what we have done to animals, identified in your note on subjecting animals to mankind's whim of their natural order is one of the primary reasons that gave rise to feminist ideologues, and activism - too often, today, interpreted as "male hating," the gender wars, etc. where men fear displacement within the Darwinian hierarchy of world affairs, and certainly domestic affairs. The unwarranted fear can be caused by nothing less than male recognition that women are, indeed, as capable as men, with the possible exception of the two structural elements of nature devised specifically for them among humans - the ability to impregnate and the muscular strength they enjoy - both of which have, in modern days, become nearly obsolete since society requires neither of men today except in limited circumstances. To justify male superiority, therefore, and remove the natural inclination of women (along with their innate wild nature) progress in their autonomy is especially harmful and not benign, but an act of resistance that can be seen only as female oppression, just as it would be if females were to use the same methods to oppress men. Since there were two persons on the earth, the debate for hierarchy has been a particularly difficult one for humans to manage regardless of gender since it is assumed that one will be dominant, the other subservient, according to Darwin, or in any other manner, designed to confer that badge of presumed honor as leader for a follower. Until mankind can comprehend the idea of dual leadership, how can this problem ever be solved? Certainly, among gender relations, this is exactly what women are facing in domestic, and often in work affairs. The concept of co-leadership is an alien concept that has never apparently been able to be recognized by mankind, and perhaps, not by animals. Yet families exist with both parents and we are encouraged to therefore justify co-leadership. By operation, we rarely succeed with any measure of identifiable success. Yet, Biblically, we design a Trinity. We endorsed a three part government with equal balancing power to cure the problem of domination. Not so with families however, in practice, or in society which encourages a male head, male only governments, or male only corporate heads. The inconsistency is suffocating to female autonomy and spirit as they are relegated to the status of animals through human husbandry principles. We are told there are no limits of the mind; yet, in practice, humans are very limited, and not always to their advantage. Failing to combat that ignorance, we are each guilty of perpetuating a design that encourages a human approach for one person, but not for another, the embrace of the principles that underlie the foundation of slavery, and the advantages that arise from it. Thanks for the article that addresses what mankind has done to the animals. It's a good framework to examine what mankind has done to humans. Pat R. |