Yes, your pets are being oppressed, and the only reason keeping pets is considered to be okay is because other animals are worth less in the eyes of humans. You have absolute power over them, and their freedom only extends as far as you will allow it. Depending on where you live and the type of pets you have, you might have subjected them to medical treatments in order to bring their behaviour more in line with what you desire.
I haven’t subjected my cats to any “oppressive” medical treatment, such as having them declawed, if that’s what you’re alluding to. I think their right to defend themselves trumps the right of my furniture, and yes even my arm sometimes (ow!) from being scratched. This is important, because I let them outside to play and hunt, because I value their freedom, and ability to be cats. This is often itself criticized for its affects on local wildlife, but the alternative is to keep fat and miserable indoor cats, which I think is even more inhumane, personally.
I don’t have nor want “absolute power” over them, nor do I think other animals are “worth less”. I think they’re cute, they make common pets, and they needed a home.
But the comparison to pets is apt. Women were considered to be worth less than men, and their freedom only extended as far as the men "owning" them would allow it. In the right circumstances, they could lead a great life, but they could never work towards a great life. And in the wrong circumstances? Anything from a complete lack of agency to terrible abuse at the hands of their owners.
I think women are demonstrably inferior in some ways, and demonstrably superior in others. I view them as human beings, not variables in some utility function. I think there is an under-recognized social cost in their so-called emancipation, which is mostly born by children, that is to say, all of us. There are other costs as well, for example, I think their relative lack of physical strength makes them poor firefighters. I would prefer that firefighters be selected on merit, given the life or death stakes of that profession. Should the odd brute woman that would merit a firefighter force male firefighters to accept her by way of feminism, politics, and state power? Maybe, but I would prefer not. That would require separate showers, bathrooms, and other accommodations which would be a waste of resources not unrelated to the idea of separate transgender bathrooms. Society would probably be better off if the noble dreams of female firefighters went unrealized, and that goes for men who seek employment in female dominated professions as well. It’s not that I absolutely object to women in such a profession, I object to the use of force. If a woman would be willing to conform to the demands of formally male dominated professions and she is good enough that males would accept her with no other concessions, then fine.
The comparison of women to pets is very apt and also absolutely horrifying.
It’s apt, but it doesn’t really capture the essence of the relationship, which is based on human love. We “own” our children, but that doesn’t mean we have the right to destroy them, or transfer (sell) them as we (theoretically) do with pets. It means we have the right to make decisions on behalf of our children, and that children should be obedient. Neither are women like children either, and one could reasonably say that males are “property” (in a similar limited sense) of their female spouses, with all the restrictions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
