Each day, hundreds of millions, if not billions, of adults around the world consume food and beverages that are made from cows’ milk, and they don’t give it a second thought. But if you were to ask these dairy consumers how they feel about drinking human breast milk, the majority would probably express disgust about the idea. That reaction was played out in an episode of Friends, where Phoebe tastes the breast milk of Ross’ ex-wife.

Humans been so brainwashed by the dairy industry that we actually believe that drinking human milk, which is intended for humans, is revolting and borderline immoral while consuming cow’s milk, which is designed for calves, is not only normal but appealing.

Cast of Friends Recoils in Disgust as Phoebe Tastes Breast Milk

The dairy industry has also brainwashed us into thinkng that adults should consume milk products. But milk is a drink specifically designed for infants. That is why human and cow mothers stop producing it when their babies stop nursing. And that is also why female cows have to be impregnated over and over in order to continue producing milk for humans.

If human adults want to consume animal-based milk, then we should take it from other humans, not from cows who wail in despair when their babies are kidnapped from them at birth so that we can drink their milk. Or, better yet, buy healthy and delicious plant-based milk products.

Say no to udder milk; say yes to other milk.

When advocates refer to an animal as “it” instead of “he” or “she,” we reinforce the perception that animals are objects, not living beings. Why do we do that? Bad habit? Because we don’t know the sex? Because that’s what the media does?

How can we expect others to regard an animal as “someone” (who deserves to be treated kindly) as opposed to “something” (which can be discarded) when we ourselves describe animals as inanimate objects?

The burden is on us to use every opportunity we can find in our daily lives to use “he” or “she” or “him” or her” when referring to an animal. Let’s lead by example.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Tasmania, Australia, has triggered anger and confusion by serving sausages at a fundraiser and defending its decision to do so.

On its website, the RSPCA describes itself as “the voice for the animals of Australia” that “defends their dignity, fights to stop cruelty, and prosecutes those who would harm them.”

The photo, posted by the RSCPA itself, has triggered backlash from supporters and activists around the world who argue that serving abused animals is inconsistent the organization’s stated mission. In response to the criticism, the RSPCA defended itself:

“The RSPCA believes you can eat meat or eggs and still care about the welfare of the animals that provide it. These animals are living, feeling creatures, capable of experiencing fear, pain and distress. The RSPCA believes all animals should be treated humanely, whether they’re animals we farm for food or live with as companions.”

To make matters worse, the RSPCA acknowledged that it didn’t know the source of the animals who they served, which means that they most likely originated from a factory farm:

If the RSPCA, whose mission is protect animals, can’t connect the dots between the cruelty it opposes and the cruelty it supports, then how can the organization expect the general public to shift toward a cruelty-free lifestyle? Their decision to serve and condone the consumption of meat makes the RSPCA part of the problem, not the solution.

Post a comment on the RSPCA’s Facebook wall to encourage them to stop serving the animals who they claim to protect. The BBQ photos were posted on October 4th.

Hundreds of readers took the time to post comments on the article “What Should We Say to People Wearing Fur?” This post summarizes the feedback – in case it’s useful, inspiring or, at the very least, interesting.

The suggestions varied widely, but most could be filed under one of two approaches: measured or confrontational. Each approach has its merits, though some snarky one liners like “Bitch” or “Fur hag” probably do less to help the animals than to satisfy us in the moment.

Among the measured suggestions that were shared more than once are the following:

“Thank you for wearing fake fur.” (even if it’s real)

“Fur looks most beautiful on its original owner.”

“Is that fur real? Do you know where it comes from?” (This question opens up the possibility for a dialog.)

The confrontational suggestions were more varied. Following are a couple of standouts:

“Do you know how many innocent animals had to die so you could wear that?”

“How can you stand the cries of the tortured animals?”

“Do you know your coat was made by skinning the animals while they were still alive?”

Khloe Kardashian’s approach to protesting fur

Several readers who may or may not be activists said, “Don’t say anything. It’s none of your business.” One reader wrote, “If the person is older than 70, leave her alone.”

Others, who clearly are activists, suggested a menacing approach: “They should be followed and yelled at so that they feel unsafe wearing the skins of tortured animals.” Another reader suggested action, albeit unrealistic, instead of words: “Tie them down and force them to watch videos of  animals being tortured.”

A few readers expressed discomfort with fake fur alternatives on the grounds that “it still makes the fashion more popular” or “it glamorizes the idea of wearing an animal.”

The “I am an asshole. I wear fur” stickers mentioned in the article received a mixed response. A few readers asked where they could get them. Another reader, however, had a visceral reaction and, ironically, gave the kind of combative response that she herself opposes:

When it comes to fur, passions run high – higher than they do on most other animal rights issues. Perhaps that can be attributed to the fact that fur is so gratuitous. As activists say – or shout – at the protests, “Stop the insanity. No blood for vanity.”

We’ve heard it a million times before as a justification for mistreating animals: “Animals aren’t people.” We are accused of anthropomorphizing – attributing human personality to animals.

How do we break through to people who roll their eyes when we say, “Just because animals don’t speak our language doesn’t mean they don’t experience the same emotions: fear, pain, hunger, thirst, fatigue, sadness.

Pictures speak a thousand words. If the naysayers don’t take our words seriously, then perhaps this video and the photos that follow will help them see the light:

https://youtu.be/v33R7fAyaZk

Fear & anguish

Terror & pain (photo: SHARK)

Fear and Sadness (Baby clings to fake mother in maternal separation study)

Lonely

Sad & Lonely

Happy