Followerism and no infighting against Animal Objectification
“Hi, no infighting”, but a bunch of people rally for closing down animal shelters and bring this argument forth as their academic output from within Animal Rights + Animal Liberation scenes. You may call a clear cut stance > a critique within movements “infighting”, while we simply talk about messages. One must be seriously upset about of the amount of speciesism that’s being tolerated as part of antispeciesism. To us it’s time to take the unhandy step of an explicit even more far reaching separation from these currents, even if they are the norm/mainstream, within all that what we conceive as animal advocacy.
We wrote on social media:
„Wir können ja auch jegliche Schutzeinrichtung für Menschen aufgeben wollen und es bleibt trotzdem unethischer Quatsch. Wir sind gerade allen entfolgt die den hier benannten und kritisierten Akademiker*innen folgen, welche dafür plädieren … lest selbst“ > https://news.nathanwinograd.org/p/regarding-henry
„ … Tierrechts- und Umweltschutzthemen machen klar, dass weiblich gelesene Personen gleichermaßen zur Verantwortung zu ziehende culprits sind, wie ihre männl. gel. couterparts, nur nehmen sie in dem Theater eine andere Rolle im gemeinsam getragenen Skript ein. Subject closed!“
“We can also want to give up any protection facility for people and it still remains unethical nonsense. We have just unfollowed all those who follow the academics named and criticized here, who advocate this … just read for yourself” > [Nathan Winograd bringing up the issue and writing an excellent critique] https://news.nathanwinograd.org/p/regarding-henry
“ … Animal rights and environmental protection issues make it clear that female-read people are equally culprits to be held accountable, as their male-read couterparts, with the only difference that in the theater they take on a different role in the shared script. Subject closed!“
—
The tipping point really has been reached by this call that Nathan Winograd criticizes here, where two academic animal advocates unitedly call for closing down shelters – and with that proposal they implicitly undermine all the crucial efforts of the no kill movement in the USA:
“The Anti-Heroes: Katja Guenther and Kristen Hassen betrayed animals for self-aggrandizement. They now want to abolish animal shelters and leave animals to fend for themselves on the streets.” https://news.nathanwinograd.org/p/the-anti-heroes
This, while at the same time some proponents of Total Liberation within the Animal Liberation field seek to undermine discursive pluralism and normal democratic behaviour as animal advocates, calling divergences, critical analyses of speciesism and animal objectification and debate signs of „infighting“, and suggesting that Animal Liberation was only to be achieved when advocates would speak in unisono, and obviously consider themselves to be one political body in itself (though I assume they do secondarize animal issues in regards to any other issue that might lay in their interests – otherwise why would they even consider Animal Liberation to work in a more simplified way that Human Liberation, etc.).
How can people assume that Animal Rights issues should not be evaluated using all possible ethical criterions that apply – and that from people coming from all political angles. Animal Rights subjects are not a „world in itself“ that stands outside of all other political issues. They are to be understood exactly like Human Rights: They are our direct concerns. And no one can lay a claim on being the authorative main movement with an unquestionable entitlement.
Just learn to think of Animal issues like Human Rights issues and Animal Rights like Human Rights, and you can understand the approach our group choses. And in times of human conflict we may choose to do so decidedly.
—
rev. 24.10.24
