• Darkraisisi@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Maybe a different angle from other replies here. Maybe like “Jeff can be a girls name too.” Why only call female cows traditional female names?

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          probably because they’re all cows and having a consistent naming scheme seems nice to the human psyche?

          It’d be weird to have one named betty, and then another named mark. The brain appreciates consistency and patterning.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m also hearing this notion for the first time, so there’s probably more to it, but I guess at the very least, if you’re treating all creatures as friends, you’ll also definitely treat women as friends.

      • iiGxC@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Dairy depends on exploiting and taking advantage of female reproductive organs. Misogyny also views human woman as only good for birthing kids and taking care of the kids, exploiting their reproductive organs in a different way.

        Both disrespect/disregard bodily autonomy.

        • TheControlled@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Cool connection! Too bad that’s all it is 😭 Would love something with actual evidence, because otherwise this might sound embarrassing and insane 😢😂

          • iiGxC@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            What do you mean evidence? Where do you think milk comes from? What do you think initiates lactation?

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              what they’re saying is that you’re pointing out that this is whats happening, and that this is another thing related to this thing via a tangential connection.

              You have no idea who owns those cows, or if those cows even exist, or if those are even the names of those cows. Literally all you know is that that’s what it says. We have nothing that should lead us to a conclusion of anything other than “huh, they used old human names, that are female, probably because naming non human things, human names would be weird, and probably female, because well, the animals are female, though since it’s not explicitly human animals, they don’t need explicitly human names, so quite a few of them are just, weird.”

              This is like seeing 911 happen, and then seeing another building collapse somewhere else due to bad maintenance (or whatever reason, it doesnt matter) and going “must be terrorism”

              • iiGxC@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                The names part of the connection is why I said the person in the post is making the point in a dumb way. The names are irrelevant.

                What we do know is that the body of at least one cow somewhere was used to get the milk that was turned into the yogurt. That objectification and exploitation of their body and reproductive organs has parallels to misogyny, for one thing both disregard bodily autonomy.

                • TheControlled@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  That objectification and exploitation of their body and reproductive organs has parallels to misogyny, for one thing both disregard bodily autonomy.

                  You go from fact to this insane bullshit in an instant. That’s your pseudo-psycho-sociological take with there is no basis in reality except you physically typing it out.

                  This Freshman-grade blathering needs actual evidence because it is such a outlandish claim.

                • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  idk i think i’d be more concerned about the fact that humans are literally willing to round up hundreds of thousands of animals for produce and food, and feeling no remorse for it, rather than the slight parallel between what is literally comparable to the holocaust (except it’s cows and beef/milk, instead of jews and hitler) than the very generalized problem that society has towards women specifically.

                  Like don’t get me wrong here, i don’t think you’re wrong, i just also don’t think that this is probably the place and time to be talking about it like it’s some sort of moral fixation. When there is literally a better one to use.

      • Nora@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Everyone with a vagina doesn’t have just names like those. Their names could be anything Alex, Felix, Dani, etc, but they choose names that they think people with vaginas should have, like all ones from back when women had very few rights.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      By pointing out that her theory had zero basis in at least one case? That’s an interesting way to “be right”