Fractelle - like I said, I only agree with Yabby about half the time. I don't support live exports, but neither do I support the vilification of farmers by animal rights extremists. Dickie's latest comment above is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

I agree that gender should have nothing to do with issues surrounding cruelty to animals, but it's also a fact that the endless arguments on OLO about animal welfare tend to be between various female animal rights activists and one or two male farmers. Not all the animal rights advocates present irrational arguments but any reasonable observer would have to conclude that some of the more prolific of them are well and truly beyond the pale (so to speak).

Why do you think that the debates about animal welfare issues on OLO are so obviously gendered? I ask that as a serious question.

"Why do you think that the debates about animal welfare issues on OLO are so obviously gendered? I ask that as a serious question."

Answer: DUNNO

Why are child welfare threads so obviously gendered as well?

For a start the regular posters at OLO are not representative of our society.

However, I do encounter more hostility towards women here than I do in my day to day life - thank goodness, or I'd never leave the house.

sides to the argument have worthy points, but it really gets my back up when Yabby assumes all animal welfare advocates to be both female and hysterical. Easy to resort to stereotyping when one has run out of cogent points to make.

Yabby often resorts to turning an issue into a gender war rather than providing evidence to support his farming practices. I admit that Yabby is far from the only poster on OLO who indulges himself in this way. As a female poster, I get fed up with the number of times I have to justify myself for my right to express an opinion before even getting to the point of my post.

On the other hand I do cringe with some of the badly worded and irrational posts when they are made by other women, because I know that much will be made of the assumed lack of logic rather than focusing on the truth in the opinion itself. A little more forethought from all posters would reduce the friction.

And the truth is this; livestock produce can and must be managed far more humanely than it is now. There is no justification for live export, I would like to see someone develop a practical alternative to mulesing and other practices where animals are (even for a brief time) harmed.

I would like to hear from farmers who actually practice humane treatment. I know they are out there, I talk to them at my local butchers.

Much can be done to both farm efficiently and humanely:

http://9am.ten.com.au/compassionate-farming.htm

"Each year Australians consume an average of 137 eggs and 107 kilos of meat per person.

But it's not often that we stop to think where these products have come from. When you think of a farm, you might think of animals grazing in wide-open paddocks, sheepdogs, tractors and drovers on horseback, but...

Welfare Issues

Most of Australia's meat and eggs does not come from the traditional type of farm. Farming is big business, and in order to meet demand, intensive methods have been developed that promote high production levels for a lower cost and therefore, greater profits. Sadly, these profits often come at the cost of the animals' welfare.

Each year, many of Australia's farm animals suffer from inhumane treatment and cruelty that most people would consider unacceptable and would be outraged if it were a dog or a cat. Practices such as battery hen farming, and the use of sow stalls continues because they are not illegal.

The RSPCA believes that wherever humans use animals, they must be treated humanely, compassionately and with consideration. For farm animals in our care, we have a responsibility to provide for their basic needs, in accordance with the RSPCA's Five Freedoms. And if the animal is to be slaughtered, it should be done quickly and humanely.

RSPCA: The five freedoms for animals

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst.
2. Freedom from discomfort - appropriate environment/ shelter.
3. Freedom from pain, injury or disease
4. Freedom to express normal behaviour
5. Freedom from fear and distress."

"What I like about fur is the way my girlfriend looks, sprawled naked across it.

The sensuous and sensual experience is quite unique."

While chomping on the animal's child too? I prefer an artifical fur - because it calls for more input.

Nicky “Col Rouge, I have no alternative but to treat your post with the contempt it so deserves. I see nothing humorous in the way animals are brutalized for their fur in China.”

Hey Nicky, don’t knock it ‘til you’ve tried it…..

Celivia “I’m stuck with an image of Col having his way with Grevilla de Vil on a fur rug at Hell Hall.”

Be happy for that image C… me in real life is so much worse : - )

IamJoseph “I prefer an artifical fur - because it calls for more input”

Appropriate, for someone who is so patently

“Artificial”

or maybe the attracting is the static electricity, from rubbing against the nylon

btw is your partner real or inflatable ?

Fractelle, of course I defend myself! Has it ever occured to you,
that the insults which NicknDick dish out to thousands of industry
professionals, academics, vets, farmers etc, claiming that they
have no integrity, whilst these two blabber on about subjects
for which they have no qualifications or experience apart from
being maternal, is not insulting to those many people?

So they get back what they dish out. At least Dickie can take it,
whilst Nicky seems to be a delicate petal, so quick to patronise
everybody else including the whole Middle East and its population,
yet so touchy when somebody points out the truth to her.

If Nicky insults people on the internet, she will get it back,
its as simple as that.

Farmers rely on the thousands of professionals employed by Govts,
to give them qualified advice, when it comes to various animal
procedures. Farmers do not run the Govt. Farmers do not manufacture
drugs which could be used. Farmers simply use the things made available
by the rest of society. It is in their interest that animals
do well and thrive.

I am not as arrogant as Dickie, to claim to know more then professional vets do,
when it comes to sterilising cattle. I will
leave it to those professionals to decide. All that Dickie has
so far shown is a heap of anthropomorphism and some empathy, with
absolutaly no understanding of the subject.

You say you don't know, why so many middle aged women are involved
in animal liberation. Why do so many women dress up their pet
doggies in clothes and jewelry? Could it be maternal instinct
kicking in here? To deny that women commonly have a maternal
instinct, would be to deny nature. So why should I do that?

Instinct does in fact affect human behaviour. The fact that many
of these women think that we should bemother our livestock, rather
then treat them as livestock, kind of makes my point. Sometimes
the truth hurts. So be it.