I said it yesterday and its worth repeating – you cannot be as close to working with this material and these issues without noticing patterns. Patterns are not absolutes though. Patterns merely mean that something is definitely visible in a consistent way – it does not mean there are zero exceptions to a pattern.
Yesterday I stated that one big pattern I have noticed is that the matter of wanton cruelty seems to be mainly the domain of the very young. I gave a bunch of high profile examples and people could see they were anything from 12-19.
Today I am going to point out another pattern that I cannot help but to have noticed. When it comes to the specific action of starvation of pets, this seems disproportionately represented by females.
The very direct and physical abuse seems a mainly young male issue. But the action of starvation always and without fail seems to involve a lot of females.
The story at the bottom just being the latest one.
That this pattern exists is not in doubt imo. The question is why? My best guess would be that some women can be every bit as twisted and sick as men, but men by nature are more directly aggressive, while women are more passive aggressive.
I dislike comparing two evils as it means having to state one is better or worse. The physical actions of young males like AF and DF definitely seem more shocking, as they involve brute force and extreme violence.
However, there is a very sound argument for saying that wilfully causing starvation is indeed possibly worse. For one thing its not some spur of the moment action. Its enduring.
For another thing, to starve to death is incredibly painful and a horrible way to die. In terms of pain and fear, you could definitely argue that this would be as bad, maybe worse than an extreme act of physical violence. When you starve you don’t just feel super hungry and then sort of keel over nice and peaceful. Its a slow, painful and terrible way to die.
It is every bit as wilful as the more direct and violent methods more commonly associated with young males. In some ways its more wilful as its something they are not doing each day and every day and not, as mentioned, a single act of extreme violence.
I’ve laid out how to change the entire dynamic in my previous post. I wont repeat it here, but if you want an end to this type of culture and these sorts of impotent penalties then there’s only really so many ways you are going to get it.
(Another case of a female culpable of the same)
A movement that is independent of any party politics and that isn’t bound by charity status is your best bet. You need an edgy advocacy group that has easy to understand goals and who can do things that get the issue in the mainstream press. That’s how you will alter the landscape. Waiting on ANY party to take the lead isn’t going to work. Hoping that the big animal charities will take the lead isn’t goingto work. And as angry as the stories and penalties may make a person, nothing has ever been won by bursts of anger without direction or follow through.
Lets be honest. This here is just totally unacceptable.
“Benji’s death is so tragic, and was caused because his owner showed such shocking disregard for a fellow living creature”, he said.
“Veterinary inspection found this poor dog was malnourished, emaciated and was weighing only 3.3kg”.
“Owning a dog like Benji is a privilege, and it is heartbreaking to think what he went through after being left to die.
At Flintshire Magistrates Court in Mold on Monday, Peet was given a decade-long ban from keeping animals and was told she must observe a three-month tagged curfew, where she will remain indoors between 8pm and 6am.
She was also given an eight- month community order with rehabilitation, and told to pay £200 towards costs, and a £85 victim surcharge.