Would you say you are an "animal lover"? It's not hard to find people who say they love animals. Many of us have cats or dogs, or both. In the UK, for example, almost half of all households have a pet. Very often, these animals are considered members of the family. And many of us love to watch TV shows, like David Attenborough's, that bring the wonders of the natural world into our homes. However, most people who call themselves “animal lovers” knowingly engage in cruelty to animals – by eating meat, for example. Children easily appreciate inconsistency here, but most adults still find reasons for their behavior. At the same time, many in the animal rights movement reject the term "animal lover". Not only do they claim they don't like animals, but many of them say they don't own animals either. When they share their lives with animals, they often consider rescued animals as companions rather than pets. They believe that the word "love" devalues ​​the work they do, and they emphasize that it is possible to respect animal rights and work to improve their lives without feeling any affection for them. they. "Love," they say, is irrelevant. In part in response to the "animal lover" label that animal ethics pioneers such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan took an overly rational approach to their work - an approach has been criticized by ecologists, who instead focus on relationships and explore our connection to nature. Some philosophers have even suggested that "love" is the wrong motive for justice. In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer writes: No one but a racist anxious to slander his opponents by calling them "beloved ones" would suggest that, To care about the equality of racial minorities being persecuted, these minorities must be loved or seen as likable and cuddly. So why make this assumption that humans are working to improve the conditions of animals? The term "animal lover" has been used to disparage people who show affection or interest in animals. People who care about animals are often seen as unusual - as the term "cat crazy" illustrates. While jokes like this exist for women, men's affection for animals is limited to images of the poor bachelor living with his cat and no one else. (There is also the country man and his dog, but he is generally considered unloving; he may enjoy the company of the dog, but he does not show that joy.) Experience separately shows that the opposite is true. After years of campaigning for animal rights, Kim discovered he could love animals too, when he was adopted by a homeless Chihuahua named Boobaa, who adopted him in his lap. And during a particularly harrowing time in Philip's life, when he had to move back to his parents' house, he befriended their cat, Minnie; This relationship taught him that animals can have complex personalities and some are even capable of empathy. We know our experiences are not uncommon. Many people - boys and girls, women and men - have romantic relationships with other animals and do whatever they can to make them happy. The idea that we shouldn't care about animals is grounded in notions of superiority and inferiority—the same hierarchical logic that men and boys are more important than women and girls, and that "whites" are more important than non-whites. As Alice Walker writes in the preface to Marjorie Spiegel's book The Horrible Comparison: Slavery Between Man and Animals, "The world's animals exist for their own reasons. They were not made for man any more than blacks were made for whites or women for men.

The term "animal lover" is particularly problematic, because - as Singer's quote suggests - it repeats the term "n ***** - lover", a racial slur has been used to denigrate human rights defenders. The term "n ***** lover" is not very common these days, but historically it has been used in many colonial contexts around the world, such as Aotearoa in New Zealand, where it was dedicated to the Pākehā (European) who defended the rights of the Maoris. Some argue that we should not draw a link between our treatment of animals and racial oppression because comparisons between certain ethnic groups and animals have been used to oppressing people, but as Spiegel wrote: Comparing the suffering of animals to that of blacks (or any other oppressed group) only offends the ethnocentrists; a person who has accepted misconceptions about what animals are. Those offended by the comparison to a companion in misfortune have fallen victim to propaganda spewed out by the oppressors. To deny our similarities to animals is to deny and weaken our own power. It is continuing to actively fight to prove to our oppressors, past or present, that we are more like our oppressors than to whom our oppressors are also. was a victim. That is to say, we would rather be like the people who have become our victims than those who have also become victims. Remember that for the oppressor there is often little difference between one victim and the next. In their book, Aphro-ism: Essays on Pop Culture, Feminism, and Veganism by Two Sisters, Aph and Syl Ko explore more of the relationship between racism and ethnocentrism, which holds that the two are closely related. As Syl explains in one of her essays, "Racism is both anti-black and anti-animal, emphasizing racial ideology and glorifying the 'man' and "humanity", especially Westerners and whites". We will not eliminate racism. or speciesism if we don't address these connections. The belief that some of us are more important than others and the belief that it is possible to offend people by caring about others - whether those people are people or non-human animals - are ideas are harmful and we must fight them. We think it's time to embrace the term "animal lover". We wanted to transform the label and convey what it meant with a commitment to animal rights. Love is something we all have in common - those of us who call ourselves "animal lovers" and those of us who defend animal rights. We all care about animals, although we show our love in different ways. And every day, more and more of us are becoming animal activists: initiatives like "Meat-Free Mondays" are growing in popularity, and more people are adopting them than ever before. adopting vegetarian and vegan diets, citing that we often treat animals horribly, is the main reason for a change. The politics of love can help us think about our relationships with other animals. Love can be seen as an orientation or an “attitude”, that is, a way of relating to the world we share. The politics of love builds this relationship: it affirms the values ​​of love, such as compassion, truth, and justice (all asserted by the animal rights movement), and it promote commitments, such as nonviolence. . While not always seen as such, our treatment of other animals is a political issue. Loving animals is political. Politics is an aspect of morality – it concerns its relational aspects – and as feminists have long argued, “the individual is political”. What we eat is political, in the same way that the person who cooks dinner tonight is political - especially if we eat other people! When we understand this, we see "choice" as another privilege. What does love have to do with it? Love is something we all consider important. As such, it can unite us. Focusing on love helps us see that compassion is a value we all share – even when we don't show compassion explicitly or are reluctant to acknowledge its basis in love. love. We all want to show our compassion for animals, whether our love for them comes from strong affection or a deep respect for their rights. The politics of love pushes us to come together and supports us in the process. It is important to note that the politics of love also give us direction. In addition to allowing animal activists to see that our work is in fact loving, it can broaden our concerns. We've both been through it: Kim's relationship with Boobaa gave his activism a depth he lacked before, and Philip's relationship with Minnie helped ensure Tell him not to ignore animals as he develops the politics of love. At the same time, it allows people who call themselves "animal lovers" to see that they are being asked for more than just taking care of their pet's needs or speaking out against the abuse of animals they love. like a dog, while ignoring similar abuses. activities such as rodeo and circus. Significantly, the politics of love not only asks us to care about the suffering of animals, but it also asks us to care about them – just as it asks us to care for one another, as living beings. intrinsic value. In the book Living Among Meat Eaters: A Vegetarian's Handbook of Survival, ecologist Carol J. Adams suggests that those of us who don't eat meat should think of meat eaters as "obstructed vegetarians," like somehow stuck vegans. It allows us to "return to cannibals the humanity that sometimes their own actions have denied". This strategy allows us to see them in a positive light, learning from our interactions with them - instead of being subjected to cannibals who sometimes display rude and resentful behavior. She writes: Seeing meat eaters as blocked vegetarians also gives us a place and a foothold. We are actually more of a motivator than a motivator. We invite them