972
And now I'm concerned (startrek.website)
submitted 11 months ago by Stamets@startrek.website to c/memes@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 44 points 11 months ago

Why?

If the women are fine with it, get a wage from it and can quit any time they choose to, where is the problem?

And just to add to the pile: humans can lactate without the need for pregnancy - even males - and some women can develop a condition called hyperlactation where the body goes full throttle on producing milk, beyond any needs of an infant. And never stop, in very extreme cases.

Sounds a good deal more sustainable and fair than cows milk and a heck lot more efficient than milking trees.

[-] new_guy@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago

Maybe I'm being cynical but I think humans would find a way to exploit this market and make women suffer, just like we can do with cattle.

Inject women with hormones to make them produce more milk is an example I can think of.

[-] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 67 points 11 months ago

This is why we need a strong, massive milkers union

[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 9 points 11 months ago

Do you mean milk producers union?

Because the milkers would be those paying for the milk to resell it.

[-] sparky678348@lemm.ee 18 points 11 months ago

No the milkers are the titties, they were trying to be clever.

[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 5 points 11 months ago
[-] sparky678348@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

No it was a stretch, I'll let this one pass

[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 months ago

Thank you. Very courteous of you.

[-] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago

No I'm talking about some serious mommy milkers

[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago

No kinky business

[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 7 points 11 months ago

To my knowledge, the use of hormones in milk cattle is banned. And hormones in humans have severe life lasting side effects.

[-] IonAddis@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

And hormones in humans have severe life lasting side effects.

Not having hormones has pretty severe effects. Women who've gone through menopause (or had ovaries removed) and don't produce hormones often get prescribed hormones to prevent things like osteoporosis. Men with low testosterone get prescribed it. Children who don't produce hormones don't go through puberty--in the past, they castrated boys with pretty voices so they'd never have their voice break, and that had severe health consequences on the boys turned into eunuchs.

I'm saying all of this because when it comes to "hormones", you kinda have to be specific. You can't just throw it out there like, "oOooOO! Hormones! Scary!" Otherwise you get into a realm similar to how people hear "dihydrogen monoxide" and don't make the connection between the "scary science word" and the fact that dihydrogen monoxide is water and is necessary for life.

[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago

Sometimes I really hate the english language...

Back there, when I mention hormones, it is implied it is non necessary for the normal functioning of the organism.

In my language, using the word "hormones" in a conversation immediatly carries the meaning it is something artificially added, like hormone therapy for menopausal women or hormone therapy for transgender individuals or even for people with thyroid problems.

[-] schmidtster@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

If they pay hazard pay and people willingly contribute, what’s the issue?

[-] new_guy@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

At first glance, none.

But then "willingness" and "money" rarely mix well. Yeah, there are humans "willing" to be paid for their plasma but it's a marginalized part of the population trying to have just enough money to survive.

I'm sorry. I'm trying not to ruin the meme any further.

[-] schmidtster@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

People donate blood, plasma, sperm and breast milk from all walks of life already. Some get paid too.

If you want it to be about a particular group in can be, but even well off people donate/get money for their bodily fluids.

[-] new_guy@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Donation is one thing completely different than selling their fluids. There's no incentive to exploit people when there's not a payback in cash.

[-] schmidtster@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

And people sell them too already. They aren’t exploited.

Yeah there will be people that try to abuse it, that applies to literally everything in life and should never be the reason to not do something.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

it's the definition of exploitation

[-] schmidtster@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Unless they are forced to it can’t be exploitation.

Now if they work health benefits into instead of just paying better wages, that would be more on the exploitation side. But thats the bad eggs ruining it for the other 98% that don’t abuse it.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

it's definitely exploitation. you just don't like the connotation. they are being exploited for their blood just like a well is exploited for oil a mountain is exploited for minerals and forests are exploited for wood.

[-] schmidtster@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Exploit has multiple meanings, exploiting a resource and exploiting someone in an underhand or unfair way do have the same phrase to explain them. But exploiting a resource is obviously much different than treating workers unfairly.

Verbs and nouns typically have different meanings for the same word, maybe time for an English refresher.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

since you clearly went to a dictionary, you can see none of the definitions even mention "force".

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I'm using it correctly. don't be condescending. you might think it's a fair exploitation, but it's exploitation nonetheless.

[-] schmidtster@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Not your decision it make. Hazard pay exists for a reason, many people view that as exploitation as well. Doesn’t make it so, sorry.

Words have different meanings, and you missed the mark thinking it was like mining.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

by the barest definition, it is exploitation.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

you missed the mark

oh, I think I hit something.

[-] schmidtster@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago
[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

calling me names doesn't change whether I'm right

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

mounds and greens have nothing to do with this. we are only using the transitive verb here.

[-] schmidtster@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

And if they are paid fairly it’s not exploitation anymore. That’s their decision to make, not yours.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

pay isn't part of the definition of exploitation, either

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

Males do not lactate if human. Some others do. Humans males might suffer from Galactorrhea as well as some females.

this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
972 points (97.1% liked)

memes

10369 readers
1872 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS