Question Why don't People care About Female Animal Welfare?

[pascal]

Only few and mostly women seem to care and try to do something, to make life better for these animals.

But the majority of humans, men and women, seem to have zero problems to abuse female animals.

If some try vegetarism, they do this often just for health or climate change. It's not their priority to end the abuse of female animals.

 

[Lou]

Only few and mostly women seem to care and try to do something, to make life better for these animals.

True. but I don't think what gender of the animal has much to do with this.
Milking cows and egg laying chickens are the most abused animals. But I don't think they are abused because they are female but for their profitability.
I dont' think that women want to protect these animals because of some kind of female solidarity. They just want to protect animals.

Women, and especially girls, are more compassionate than men and boys. So it's not surprising that there are more female vegans and more females in animal rights organizations.

But why are women more compassionate than men? it might be because of biology - mothers are female. But I'm sure that some societal norms also come into. play.

 

[Col]

When people take eggs from hens they over-lay eggs instead of having a clutch to brood over, causing the hens become weak.
Hens have been bred to lay hundreds of eggs a year instead of following a cycle and resting, even if their bones cannot take any more it is more cost effective to induce this, in this state they would eat their unfertilised eggs but they have been taken for human consumption.
Also in many cases their beaks are clipped and after not being productive they are starved to induce more egg laying with little cost and then killed.
This is abuse of female chickens.
It is so unnecessary, yet people are still sold on these animals being a provider of products.

 

[Brian W]

It only clouds the issue to focus on gender. @Lou said it well.

True. but I don't think what gender of the animal has much to do with this.
Milking cows and egg laying chickens are the most abused animals. But I don't think they are abused because they are female but for their profitability.
I dont' think that women want to protect these animals because of some kind of female solidarity. They just want to protect animals.

 

[Lou]

It only clouds the issue to focus on gender. @Lou said it well.

Right. I kind of think the gender issue is more circumstantial than intentional.

 

[Col]

I agree there is abuse of both genders eg with chickens the males are killed off early in most cases.
I did focus on the gender of hens as the original poster mentioned some vegetarians not having problems with the treatment of them before they are killed later,
focusing on that once the males are 'out of the picture' it does not mean that the females are not also abused for the eggs.

 

[Lou]

Another thing about female animals like cows and hens are they are exploited for their milk and eggs.
Vegetarians don't seem to have a problem with this. I don't think it's because it's just females but because they don't see it as harmful to the animals as killing it for the meat. Of course this may have been true in the past but now milk and eggs probably cause more harm to more animals than anything else.

And although animal rights activists and vegans are "mostly" women, us guys have done a lot too and I don't think our efforts should be disregarded or minimized. In fact if you look at the leadership of those movements - I think the guys are well represented.

 

[MikkelMuan]

I'm not saying that it's more sad for the male animals, but they are mostly considered a waste og an unwanted by-product.

Eggs: I don't know if hens lays as many male eggs as female eggs, but I would expect so. The number of female chickens, egg layers far outnumbers the male chickens. That's because, in the egg laying context, when the gender can be seen, the male chicken are picked up and dumped in a grinder, alive and not sedated in any way

Milk: All cows being milked had at least one calf. If the calf is a male one, them when it's 12 weeks old, its removed from the mother, killed and dumped I'm a container. Everybody knows that there's a strong emotional bond between a cow and it's offspring, so the mother is left missing it's baby.

Pigs: About 20% og all piglets just dies without anyone knowing why, and it seems without anyone really caring. More than half of the male piglets are castrated without sedation.

All the female animals that are left alive are abuser to produce what they product.

This is how the situation is in DK.

Mikkel

 

[Lou]

There is no math that could calculate this:
But which is worse the fate of the male chick or the life of a female chick
Same with calfs.

 

[Brian W]

Vegetarians don't seem to have a problem with this. I don't think it's because it's just females but because they don't see it as harmful to the animals as killing it for the meat.

There is an ethical difference because the eating of an egg doesn't require the killing of an animal. It's profits that motivate the abuse and therefore not eating eggs is as optional as any boycott.

 

[Lou]

There is an ethical difference because the eating of an egg doesn't require the killing of an animal. It's profits that motivate the abuse and therefore not eating eggs is as optional as any boycott.

I know what you mean but it's more than just an economics motivated boycott. For me, anyway, it is an ethical point.

The male chicks are killed.
The terrible conditions the chickens endure at the egg factory farms.
The selective breeding that has created chickens that lay twice as many eggs
The shortened life span of the hens.

Sure when you buy an egg you are contributing to the economic conditions that support this. When you eat an egg you are participating in the abuse.

 

[Andy_T]

It is my understanding that scientists in the area of animal exploitation are tirelessly researching the possibility to have less male and more female offspring...

Polyunsaturated fatty acids influence offspring sex ratio in cows - PMC

Scientists Gene Edited a Cow to Have Mostly Male Offspring | by Emily Mullin | OneZero

Altering poultry sex ratios - Poultry World

For everybody - both male and female - I think this is one of the most moving testimonials against dairy I have ever encountered:

Dairy Farming Went Against Everything I Believed In As a Mother

From this article, this is now my standard answer when anybody accuses me of "shoving veganism down their throats", as meat eaters are wont to do:

The tiniest babies are tube fed, which involves a tube being shoved down their throats and into their tiny stomachs, and a litre of colostrum poured in. This is traumatising to watch, and I can’t even imagine how it must feel. Their poor, tiny, soft mouths and throats that should just be suckling small amounts from their mothers while their systems are learning to work, must be so sore from the tubing.

It is not uncommon for day-old babies to have the tube incorrectly forced into their lungs and drown in colostrum within a minute or so, with colostrum pouring back out their noses. When this happens, there are many more fearful and crying babies lined up behind these, so the dead baby is thrown onto a pile of other dead ones as you don’t have time to do anything else but keep working on automatic pilot. Oh God, what I numbed myself to.

 

[Brian W]

I know what you mean but it's more than just an economics motivated boycott. For me, anyway, it is an ethical point.

The male chicks are killed.
The terrible conditions the chickens endure at the egg factory farms.
The selective breeding that has created chickens that lay twice as many eggs
The shortened life span of the hens.

Sure when you buy an egg you are contributing to the economic conditions that support this. When you eat an egg you are participating in the abuse.

So every corrupt business that you buy from (that is virtually all businesses) implicates you in something heinous. When Anita Roddick sold the Body Shop to, I think it was Proctor and Gamble, anybody buying from the Body Shop is participating in vivisection? What are you going to do? It's profits that motivate the issues you outlined and therefore the responsibility lies with the producer. You now, therefore have to start boycotting a whole load of businesses otherwise you are a horrible person by the standards you outlined.

 

[MikkelMuan]

So every corrupt business that you buy from (that is virtually all businesses) implicates you in something heinous. When Anita Roddick sold the Body Shop to, I think it was Proctor and Gamble, anybody buying from the Body Shop is participating in vivisection? What are you going to do? It's profits that motivate the issues you outlined and therefore the responsibility lies with the producer. You now, therefore have to start boycotting a whole load of businesses otherwise you are a horrible person by the standards you outlined.

In my opinion, what you do with the knowledge you have it up to you. If you know that you support an abusive business, whether it makes you a good or horrible person is totally up to you, but you have to recognize that your actions and choices have an impact, have consequences.

Take Nestlé for example. Go watch the documentary Bottled Life, telling a story about Nestlé that I don't think they like. In the film, its shown how very poor villagers in Pakistan get their water stolen from them by a water factory made by Nestlé. The water level i the village drops so they only can extract muddy water that makes their children sick. They asked Nestlé if they could provide just one tap for the whole village so they could get clean water again, and was refused. They now have to use about 50% of their money buying back the water stolen.
Now, what kind of person are you, if you, with the above knowledge in mind, keeps buying products from Nestlé? I don't know, you decide, but you must agree, that you are a person that, understanding and knowing about the exploitation done by Nestlé, help make them richer.

Or take Facebook for example. Amnesty International recently documented that Facebook actively helps the Vietnamese government harass, torture and imprison persons that writes about human rights in Vietnam. The story is, The Vietnamese government asked Facebook to give them access to data so they could find these persons. Facebook refused. The Vietnamese government reduces the internet speed to Facebook. Facebook says that they have no choice than comply. The result, documented by Amnesty International is that these people, talking about human rights, get harassed and trolled on the internet. Some is passed up by groups of men on the street and are beaten up, some get imprisoned. Now, what kind of person are you if you keep using Facebook with thin knowledge? I din't know, you decide, but one thing is certain, by using Facebook, you give them data about you, data that are sold for profit by the same company that helps the Vietnamese government suppress its people.

Or take soy beans for example. In a documentary, I think it was 8 Billion Angles, there's this story about a pretty poor village in Africa. They had like nothing compared to us, but they had a few animals and some land they were farming. They had the food they needed. Then in comes a Dutch soy bean producer and steals their land and use if for soy bean production, and since their land have been in their possession for so long, they don't have any paper to prove it. Now they can hardly survive. Now if you keep demanding soy beans in the global marked after knowing this, what kind of person does this make you? I don't know, you decide. I still eat soy beans. I try to get them from Europa if possible. Also knowing that the major environmental and, as exemplified in the above, human rights problems we when it comes to soy beans stems mainly from the humongous amounts produced to feed livestock. If soy beans only were produced for human consumption, I highly doubt it would have the negative impact it has today. But this is something I have to decide, its something I have to consider, its my conscience and morality I have to go to to figure out what kind of person it makes me.

Now this is somewhat off-topic in relation to the opening post, but relevant anyway I think.

Take care out there
Mikkel

 

[Lou]

So every corrupt business that you buy from (that is virtually all businesses) implicates you in something heinous. When Anita Roddick sold the Body Shop to, I think it was Proctor and Gamble, anybody buying from the Body Shop is participating in vivisection? What are you going to do? It's profits that motivate the issues you outlined and therefore the responsibility lies with the producer. You now, therefore have to start boycotting a whole load of businesses otherwise you are a horrible person by the standards you outlined.

You make a very good point - and that is a good argument.

First off I need to point out that I do not "boycott" eggs. I just don't eat them. I don't eat them not because of some economic purpose. But because of an ethical one.
Perhaps belaboring the point, but just to make sure it's clear. I'm not eating eggs because I want to influence the egg companies. I am not eating eggs because I feel it's Wrong to do so.

I will admit that is a blurry fuzzy distinction - but it's clear in my own mind. We do have some amateur philosophers who probably could destroy that distinction. but we also have some who might be able to make my point better than I can. @MikkelMuan has already helped.

That may be all I Need to say but you have brought up a good point.

In fact, many vegetarians use your Point of View to defend their stance on eggs: that they are not directly harming an animal and that its just not "practical" to avoid violating animal rights in the second degree.

The other thing, and I mean no disrespect to you, is that a version of your argument is used by many Carnists: the world is a complicated place and you can't exist in it without doing some harm. Or. I can't do everything so I will do nothing.

In response, Perhaps my point of view can be expressed as: so you do what you can.

And not eating eggs does not really require any effort. (except for reading ingredients). There is a quote that I like. I can't remember how exactly its stated. or who said it. (and I've tried researching it in google to no avail. ) but it goes something like this. Not eating animals is both the least you can do and the most you can do. Damn, that doesn't sound right. But if you think about it, it makes sense. Maybe someone here knows the quote. I'm sure I've heard it said better.