There hasn't been an emotional, irrational "dogs hate kids" story in the news for a while so the herald this morning came out with this. As an ex journalism student and an ex dog control officer, the way this story is written really chaps my ass. First of all, a non-factual and totally irrelevant assessment of the dogs breed is made, as usual, in the form of the line "believed to be a pit bull". From a journalistic perspective, this completely lacks credibility. WHO thought it was a pit bull? The little girl? Her parents? The owner? The dog control officer? The police? This is about as credible as the much touted "according to a source" cliché. Additionally, it is also pretty irrelevant in terms of giving any weight to the story. I mean you didn't point out the supposed breeding of the family involved, though it might actually be a bit more informative (in terms of assessing which sectors of the community need education and assistance in dealing with their dogs). But you don't do it, because it may have been racist, non-factual and totally inappropriate to do so.
Secondly, this story groups together several, unrelated incidences in order to make it appear as if there is some kind of dog attack epidemic going on. Like the dogs were in on it together. But, as the commentary from one Rodney Hide makes clear, this is just another emotive pre-election issue. (I wish they had made HIM go on "Make the politician Work" at the SPCA).
And as usual, the father of Carolina Anderson, a girl mauled by a dog in a park (a dog which, by the way, was NOT a pit bull, or any breed on the "dangerous dogs" list, but a Staffordshire Bull Terrier) is called in for comment. I'm sorry, but just cus some guy's kid got severely injured by a single dog almost a decade ago does NOT make him some kind of go-to expert on the subject. In fact, this article makes him appear quite ignorant. His comment: "If it's not the animal, why don't we have tigers and lions as pets?" shows complete lack of understanding for the process of domestication that has occurred over the past 14,000 years in our interactions with dogs. Even after successive generations of captive breeding, no one could ever suggest that lions and tigers have been domesticated. They are fucking wild animals. The fact you don't even understand the difference suggests you are not the man to ask about this. There are so many behaviourists and scientists and academics whose opinion the Herald could ask, but instead they choose a man whose interests in the subject are completely based in emotion having had ONE bad experience with ONE dog.
It is clear that this man was unsuccessful in protecting his daughter from a dog, and he expects the law to do it. If there is reform, I am sure that banning breeds is not the way to fix the problem. (The number of German Shepherds involved in dog attacks and bites worldwide confirms this). The best thing we could do, to prevent dog bites is make it a legal requirement that dog free access be granted to the front door of every home. That alone would have a great impact on the safety of people who have to go door to door to do their job. I also believe a dog is more relaxed and happy when they are not given the job of defending the territory from every single person/dog who walks past.
I'm not sure what we can do about the number of people who are attacked in their own home, or the kids who get hurt. But as I've mentioned, I'm a bit of a libertarian and a fan of individual responsibility. Was anyone watching the kid and dog interact? Who are these parents/caregivers letting their kid, TWO and FOUR years old for fucks sake - interact closely with a pit bull terrier?! A dog bred for fighting and much maligned (fairly or not) by the media. How could they be so relaxed about that? And further more, how could the owners be cool with it? Like, I know my dogs are fine with kids, but I would certainly not be comfortable with a two or four year old in their face.
The problem here, as usual is a human one.
Saturday 28 May 2011
Sunday 22 May 2011
Vegan and Child Free
Just this weekend I met my latest nephew. He was a pretty relaxed little dude, he didn't cry, and he didn't smell, so we were cool. My brother in law says to my partner, "well, there's no squealing about how cute he is, so you're probably safe."
And he's right. But my ambivalent feelings towards the issue of child rearing are turning into more staunch ones thanks to the number of people who are suggesting I should/will have babies, which fucking annoys me. Polly Vernon is right, it is downright patronizing when people say "you'll change your mind".
I had a lecturer tell me I'd change my mind the other day. And he of all people should be the last to suggest that the intelligent, idealistic decision-making part of my brain will be trumped by some ridiculous, biological desire to pop out a few sprogs.
My sister-in-law posted on my facebook "what's wrong with babies?" after some thoughtless comment I made, and I answered with "the birthing process, for a start" but I could have gone on and on. I try to refrain from going too ranty on this subject, because Murphy's Law dictates I'll get knocked up and have to retract my ramblings.
But to support my strengthening anti-baby stance (anti-myself-having-babies that is, I couldn't give a fuck if you do it) I have been reading up on the subject on the internet at large, and found some wonderful points written by some forward thinking and clear headed women. Because the decision not to have children doesn't come from an emotional position, it comes from a rational one.
A very interesting piece described a vegan woman who decided never to have kids because of the ecological impact, echoing Doug Stanhope's insightful "Don't Fuck in the Front Hole" rant on YouTube. And as a vegan, this reason has definitely crossed my mind. Even beyond the content of the anti-vegan lecture I revived from a masseuse telling me "It's really important to eat right, especially if you're thinking of having kids." Not that I am, but thanks for the advice Ms. Nutritionist - no, wait, you're a masseur so why don't you SHUT THE HELL UP?!
Kids take up resources, and they might choose not to be vegan when they grow up, move out of home and do some procreation of their own. However, veganism in itself is not a reason for remaining childless as demonstrated by the Vegansaurus Happy Vege Kids Series - known to speed up the slow/non existent biological clocks of a generation of vegans.
In addition,and this comes from the position of a staunch animal rescue advocate, adoption is a far better alternative, morally. These kids already exist, on a planet overrun with human beings, and it makes sense to take these ones in (and make them vegan :P) rather than create more. Adopt, don't breed! Also, spay your kids.
Then there are the other lifestyle factors: Kids cost money. Fuckloads of it. And I don't think I'll ever make enough to feel like I ought to squander it on a tiny, loud human being. And time, I like my time. And sleep. Oh and I like to travel, and drink, and study and live in a squalid mess at times. Yeah, I'm selfish like that.
My grandmother describes my one childless aunt as "selfish" and said therefore she would have made a terrible mother. Not to suggest that I think my aunt is selfish, (I think a better word would be "sensible") but I feel, as an evolutionist, that the opposite would in fact be the case. Selfish animals make excellent mothers - always looking out for their own (genetic) interests, which off course, includes the interests of their beloved offspring! And fuck the rest of the world. Gwyneth Lewis's description of the four wheel drive as a "symbol of the desire to protect my family at the cost of everybody else" is the perfect example of this. I'm not sure if the cost to everyone else is that of physical endangerment due to the number of accidents involving four wheel drives, or the carbon footprint impact, but the symbol holds either way.
Again, to paraphrase Polly Vernon, what exactly is 'selfless' about having a child? I really can't stand the whole martyrdom of motherhood - like you're doing the world a favour by spreading your genes? Get over yourself. Similarly, I feel those "your mother gave you LIFE" sentiments a bit vomitous. Ah, she didn't do it FOR you, she either did it because she WANTED to, or you were an accident. And even if you were an accident there's a chance you were wanted to some extent, because babies on the whole, are actually quite avoidable in this day and age.
So to conclude, there a number of green/vegan/evolution/animal rescue based reasons why remaining child free is a valid choice. You can see I am a post grad student just by the number of references I have included here, please take the time to read them, even if you disagree with my thoughts. It might just stop you being the person who asks why a person is child free by choice, when the question should actually be, "why not?"
I'm childless so your kids will have enough food to eat, and clean air to breathe. That's why.
And he's right. But my ambivalent feelings towards the issue of child rearing are turning into more staunch ones thanks to the number of people who are suggesting I should/will have babies, which fucking annoys me. Polly Vernon is right, it is downright patronizing when people say "you'll change your mind".
I had a lecturer tell me I'd change my mind the other day. And he of all people should be the last to suggest that the intelligent, idealistic decision-making part of my brain will be trumped by some ridiculous, biological desire to pop out a few sprogs.
My sister-in-law posted on my facebook "what's wrong with babies?" after some thoughtless comment I made, and I answered with "the birthing process, for a start" but I could have gone on and on. I try to refrain from going too ranty on this subject, because Murphy's Law dictates I'll get knocked up and have to retract my ramblings.
But to support my strengthening anti-baby stance (anti-myself-having-babies that is, I couldn't give a fuck if you do it) I have been reading up on the subject on the internet at large, and found some wonderful points written by some forward thinking and clear headed women. Because the decision not to have children doesn't come from an emotional position, it comes from a rational one.
A very interesting piece described a vegan woman who decided never to have kids because of the ecological impact, echoing Doug Stanhope's insightful "Don't Fuck in the Front Hole" rant on YouTube. And as a vegan, this reason has definitely crossed my mind. Even beyond the content of the anti-vegan lecture I revived from a masseuse telling me "It's really important to eat right, especially if you're thinking of having kids." Not that I am, but thanks for the advice Ms. Nutritionist - no, wait, you're a masseur so why don't you SHUT THE HELL UP?!
Kids take up resources, and they might choose not to be vegan when they grow up, move out of home and do some procreation of their own. However, veganism in itself is not a reason for remaining childless as demonstrated by the Vegansaurus Happy Vege Kids Series - known to speed up the slow/non existent biological clocks of a generation of vegans.
In addition,and this comes from the position of a staunch animal rescue advocate, adoption is a far better alternative, morally. These kids already exist, on a planet overrun with human beings, and it makes sense to take these ones in (and make them vegan :P) rather than create more. Adopt, don't breed! Also, spay your kids.
Then there are the other lifestyle factors: Kids cost money. Fuckloads of it. And I don't think I'll ever make enough to feel like I ought to squander it on a tiny, loud human being. And time, I like my time. And sleep. Oh and I like to travel, and drink, and study and live in a squalid mess at times. Yeah, I'm selfish like that.
My grandmother describes my one childless aunt as "selfish" and said therefore she would have made a terrible mother. Not to suggest that I think my aunt is selfish, (I think a better word would be "sensible") but I feel, as an evolutionist, that the opposite would in fact be the case. Selfish animals make excellent mothers - always looking out for their own (genetic) interests, which off course, includes the interests of their beloved offspring! And fuck the rest of the world. Gwyneth Lewis's description of the four wheel drive as a "symbol of the desire to protect my family at the cost of everybody else" is the perfect example of this. I'm not sure if the cost to everyone else is that of physical endangerment due to the number of accidents involving four wheel drives, or the carbon footprint impact, but the symbol holds either way.
Again, to paraphrase Polly Vernon, what exactly is 'selfless' about having a child? I really can't stand the whole martyrdom of motherhood - like you're doing the world a favour by spreading your genes? Get over yourself. Similarly, I feel those "your mother gave you LIFE" sentiments a bit vomitous. Ah, she didn't do it FOR you, she either did it because she WANTED to, or you were an accident. And even if you were an accident there's a chance you were wanted to some extent, because babies on the whole, are actually quite avoidable in this day and age.
So to conclude, there a number of green/vegan/evolution/animal rescue based reasons why remaining child free is a valid choice. You can see I am a post grad student just by the number of references I have included here, please take the time to read them, even if you disagree with my thoughts. It might just stop you being the person who asks why a person is child free by choice, when the question should actually be, "why not?"
I'm childless so your kids will have enough food to eat, and clean air to breathe. That's why.
Tuesday 3 May 2011
Vegan Imperialism
I read today on this Food Politics blog about New York thinking of introducing a law forbidding people from buying "soda" with their food stamps. My first reaction to this is: sucks for the poor people! They have so few luxuries in life, and now you want to take away their sugar water too? In the end, you have to accept that people are adults and have the right to eat and drink whatever they choose - even if the money was given to them by the government. Plenty of "if you want soda you can pay for it with your own money" is coming out of this debate. I take exception to people self righteously complaining about "their" taxes paying for people on the benefit. We all pay tax for things we don't agree with and social welfare is just one small piece of the equation. Taxes also pay for defence, even though some of the population don't support war, and just the other day our government voted on this $850,000 injection for the red meat industry. People with no kids still pay for education and people who don't drive still pay for roads. So there is no point in whining about it, we just have to accept that as a society we have some socialist policies and we support each other through taxes. We have to live and let live, it is totally condescending to tell people what they can and cannot buy to eat. And at the end of the day, I don't give a shit. If they get diabetes, if they give their kids diabetes, that's none of my damn business. Even if I have to subsidise their healthcare with my taxes. I am a libertarian in that sense.
The only exception to this rule - my ethics in reference to veganism. I suppose, as a vegan, I am telling people what is best for them and for the animals. But the key difference is this - I don't actually tell people they shouldn't eat meat, dairy or eggs, I just raise the point with them that it is in fact a choice. Just like choosing to farm animals is a choice. Nobody made you. So many people assume that the omnivorous diet is the only option, for nutrition, convenience and societal reasons, and that just isn't the case. Some of the arguments for eating meat are just so inherently weak, so it is important to make people consider that the real reasons they eat meat are: they like the taste, they don't know what else to eat, or they just haven't thought about it. Not that they will die without it. Not that they can't afford the alternatives.
The only exception to this rule - my ethics in reference to veganism. I suppose, as a vegan, I am telling people what is best for them and for the animals. But the key difference is this - I don't actually tell people they shouldn't eat meat, dairy or eggs, I just raise the point with them that it is in fact a choice. Just like choosing to farm animals is a choice. Nobody made you. So many people assume that the omnivorous diet is the only option, for nutrition, convenience and societal reasons, and that just isn't the case. Some of the arguments for eating meat are just so inherently weak, so it is important to make people consider that the real reasons they eat meat are: they like the taste, they don't know what else to eat, or they just haven't thought about it. Not that they will die without it. Not that they can't afford the alternatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)