Feminists criticising PETA need to look at their own behaviours, writes Katrina Fox.
Every few months or so PETA raises the ire of feminists. Whether it’s another version of the animal rights group’s ‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’ campaign, or pushing an anti-obesity message encouraging people to go vegetarian, the feminist blogosphere goes crazy.
Why? Because of PETA’s focus on using nudity and particularly naked (young) women in their campaigns.
In the case of the obesity ad, this featured a cartoon picture of a large woman in a bikini with the tagline 'Save the whales: lose the blubber, go vegetarian'. Fat women reported feeling ashamed of their bodies and PETA was once again accused of misogyny and degrading women.
The most recent video ad, State of the Union Undress, features a black woman doing a striptease, ending with horrific images of animal cruelty. This time there were accusations from the feminist community of racism thrown in with the usual battle cries of sexism.
Blogger Womanist Musings says, “The truth is, PETA’s objective is to paint all other marginalizations as secondary to that faced by animals and that is why they routinely features ads that are sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic etc.”
The irony of that comment is that for the majority of feminists, the marginalisation of animals is not only secondary to that faced by any kind of human, it’s of no consequence. In fact, many feminists actively support the oppression, use and abuse of non-humans every single day by ‘consuming’ (in the same way people consume porn and anything else) animal parts or products.
I’m not just referring to those who eat meat or wear someone else’s skin. Consider the ‘dairy’ industry, which has successfully conjured up images of ‘happy cows’ who love to give their milk for human consumption. Wrong.
The dairy industry – which artificially inseminates female cows, forcing them to stay pregnant, and hooks them up to ‘milking machines’ (causing them painful mastitis) – is based on the control of the reproductive systems of female non-humans. The same goes for the egg industry.
I’ll say it again: the dairy and egg industries are built on the control of the reproductive systems of female non-humans. Ironic again, considering that feminists have fought for decades against the patriarchy controlling our own reproductive systems.
And think about the term ‘artificially inseminates’ for a second. These female non-humans are imprisoned and forcibly impregnated. If that were done to female humans, it would go by another name. It begins with ‘R’ in case you can’t work it out.
There is nothing consensual about the use and abuse of female non-humans’ bodies (and therefore it is arguably more problematic than the women in PETA ads who do at least consent to going naked).
But attend any ‘feminist’ conference and there’ll be cow’s milk to put in your coffee. Or cheese and crackers to nibble on. Animal rights fell off the feminist agenda years ago and is seen as ‘old-school’. A well-known feminist magazine’s response to a suggestion to cover the topic was ‘It’s been done already’. Well, so has all the body image/raunch culture stuff that fills the pages each issue, but obviously this is more ‘hip’ and ‘trendy’ than anything that requires women to actually make a huge change in their consumption habits by rejecting food, clothing, cosmetics and so on that have been made off the oppression of non-humans.
Feminists complain of sexism and racism from PETA while at the same time engaging in speciesism and are therefore guilty of the very oppressive behaviours they despise PETA for.
Now, I am not saying that PETA’s ads are not problematic. The nudity thing is getting a bit tired and I believe they need to come up with something smarter and more innovative to get people’s attention. People should discuss, debate and critically analyse PETA’s tactics and call the group out on anything they find offensive.
But if you’re condemning an organisation for using, commodifying, degrading and oppressing women, while actively engaging in consuming behaviours that do all of the above to non-humans, it’s the height of hypocrisy.
The excuse that ‘They’re only animals’ is just that: an excuse not to give up your privileges that are gained off the backs of oppression of others – a tactic routinely used against women, queers, trans people or people of different ethnic backgrounds: “We don’t need to give them equal rights/treat them with respect, they’re only women/black/gay/trans.”
There needs to be change on all sides. Yes, PETA needs to come up with ways of getting the animal rights message across without relying on sexualised images of women. But in addition, otherwise progressive people have to get over their blind spot when it comes to non-humans. Non-vegan feminists need to come to the table too and put their money where their mouths are and be prepared to make big lifestyle changes.
Only then will we come close to achieving equality for all.
Add to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Comments (32)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Katrina Fox, 28 January 2010
@M: This article is not about Renee or trying to public shame her. I quoted her briefly and have addressed the womanist issue above. The article is, as Alex pointed out, about feminists' refusal to embrace AR as a feminist issue and to only talk about it to criticise PETA. You say you do not want to get involved in AR issues or change your consumption habits because you don't like one AR group's tactics? That's got to be the ultimate cop-out that even surpasses the 'But I like meat' excuse. Try substituting anything else in there to see how feeble your excuse sounds eg: "I thought of stopping trying to be racist, but I didn't like the local anti-racism group." Please. Stop trying to blame one AR group on your refusal to even consider the oppression of non-humans.
Perhaps PETA do fail to see the intersectionality of oppressions but so do feminists, so do some womanists (and that's not aimed at Renee as she hasn't stated her position on AR issues), queers, trans and other oppressed groups. You are failing to do that yourself. Leaving AR issues out of feminist discourse is a glaring omission. In addition to the control of the reproductive systems of female non-humans as outlined in my original article, there's also the issue of male workers in abbatoirs and factory farms sexually abusing female animals. While all animals suffer horrendously at the hands of humans, often it's the females who made to suffer more. The fact that so many women/feminists are refusing to acknowledge or discuss this, but instead focus on the tactics of one AR group speaks volumes.
Jump up and down and criticise PETA all you like. But at least do it from a position that's not hypocritical.
Perhaps PETA do fail to see the intersectionality of oppressions but so do feminists, so do some womanists (and that's not aimed at Renee as she hasn't stated her position on AR issues), queers, trans and other oppressed groups. You are failing to do that yourself. Leaving AR issues out of feminist discourse is a glaring omission. In addition to the control of the reproductive systems of female non-humans as outlined in my original article, there's also the issue of male workers in abbatoirs and factory farms sexually abusing female animals. While all animals suffer horrendously at the hands of humans, often it's the females who made to suffer more. The fact that so many women/feminists are refusing to acknowledge or discuss this, but instead focus on the tactics of one AR group speaks volumes.
Jump up and down and criticise PETA all you like. But at least do it from a position that's not hypocritical.
written by Dan, 28 January 2010
And actually, M -- you're the one calling this woman a whore. Nice job.
written by Dan, 28 January 2010
M says, "Feminists are whores! Male privilege doesn't exist! These are your AR allies Katrina! Good luck with that one!"
Nobody has said any of that. Nobody. Reading comprehension -- it's fundamental.
Nobody has said any of that. Nobody. Reading comprehension -- it's fundamental.
written by Alex, 27 January 2010
I wanted to state clearly what has been suggested throughout this thread. M wrote, "After being exposed to PeTA's advertisements, and the deluge of AR activists who either endorse PeTA's tactics or express token disapproval before launching into excuses, I have almost zero interest."
Please note that the argument for "animal rights" stands independent of the various proponents of veganism. It doesn't follow, then, to say I have "almost zero interest" in animal rights because those associated with PETA upset me. Katrina's primary thesis is that the argument for animal rights, that is, our oppression of nonhuman animals cannot be justified and often takes a similar form (in its roots) as sexism and racism, is valid, regardless of M's opinions about PETA.
This means that feminists who ignore the issue of nonhuman animal oppression because they don't like PETA are being disingenuous and avoiding the critical moral issue at stake. In other words, ignoring the oppression of animals, other than humans, is justified by ad hominem attacks on PETA, which is clearly fallacious.
What Katrina has done, then, is shift the burden back onto feminists who ignore the oppression of animals. Or we could say feminists are ignoring intersectionality.
Please note that the argument for "animal rights" stands independent of the various proponents of veganism. It doesn't follow, then, to say I have "almost zero interest" in animal rights because those associated with PETA upset me. Katrina's primary thesis is that the argument for animal rights, that is, our oppression of nonhuman animals cannot be justified and often takes a similar form (in its roots) as sexism and racism, is valid, regardless of M's opinions about PETA.
This means that feminists who ignore the issue of nonhuman animal oppression because they don't like PETA are being disingenuous and avoiding the critical moral issue at stake. In other words, ignoring the oppression of animals, other than humans, is justified by ad hominem attacks on PETA, which is clearly fallacious.
What Katrina has done, then, is shift the burden back onto feminists who ignore the oppression of animals. Or we could say feminists are ignoring intersectionality.
written by M, 27 January 2010
Ugh, seriously? Renee has made it very clear in the past, on many different occasions that she is NOT A FEMINIST. A large proportion of womanists, in fact, do NOT identify as feminists; this is obvious to anyone who even understands what the word "womanist" means and where it comes from. So basically, you haven't been listening to what a great number of women's activists of color have been saying for the past forty years, and you didn't bother to find out even basic background info on Renee before you decided to write a blog post about her. I think Renee has a right to be pissed off here, because you are clearly not trying to open a dialogue with her, but to publicly shame her.
I'm a feminist, but I spend 2 days a week volunteering for animal welfare. I'm not, however, involved in the animal *rights* movement -- I was interested in it, at one point, and had a great amount of respect for AR advocates in general. After being exposed to PeTA's advertisements, and the deluge of AR activists who either endorse PeTA's tactics or express token disapproval before launching into excuses, I have almost zero interest. I still respect those who go veg*, but the AR movement consistently fails to take into account issues of intersectionality. PeTA has thrown just about everyone under the bus but young, straight WASP men at this point, and they are the biggest AR group around, thanks to the donations of all those lovely people who just care so much (about the animals, at least). Even if I *wanted* to look into AR activism I couldn't, because PeTA is the only group in my area and I refuse to associate with bigots. AR activists are the ones who burned those bridges*; why do they now expect everyone else to rebuild it for them? Seriously, complaining that Feministing doesn't cover AR enough for you? Hello, most of the activity on Feministing is in the community section. If there's a lack of AR coverage, there is absolutely nothing stopping AR activists from adding new ones -- except that most of them are anti-feminist, and/or too busy ogling pictures of naked women in cages and tiger paint (FOR GREAT JUSTICE)!
* And are still doing so. Feminists are whores! Male privilege doesn't exist! These are your AR allies Katrina! Good luck with that one!
I'm a feminist, but I spend 2 days a week volunteering for animal welfare. I'm not, however, involved in the animal *rights* movement -- I was interested in it, at one point, and had a great amount of respect for AR advocates in general. After being exposed to PeTA's advertisements, and the deluge of AR activists who either endorse PeTA's tactics or express token disapproval before launching into excuses, I have almost zero interest. I still respect those who go veg*, but the AR movement consistently fails to take into account issues of intersectionality. PeTA has thrown just about everyone under the bus but young, straight WASP men at this point, and they are the biggest AR group around, thanks to the donations of all those lovely people who just care so much (about the animals, at least). Even if I *wanted* to look into AR activism I couldn't, because PeTA is the only group in my area and I refuse to associate with bigots. AR activists are the ones who burned those bridges*; why do they now expect everyone else to rebuild it for them? Seriously, complaining that Feministing doesn't cover AR enough for you? Hello, most of the activity on Feministing is in the community section. If there's a lack of AR coverage, there is absolutely nothing stopping AR activists from adding new ones -- except that most of them are anti-feminist, and/or too busy ogling pictures of naked women in cages and tiger paint (FOR GREAT JUSTICE)!
* And are still doing so. Feminists are whores! Male privilege doesn't exist! These are your AR allies Katrina! Good luck with that one!
written by Ciara, 26 January 2010
I know what ye mean ! i love PETA soo much but i think they should cut out the rotten pictures and they will get a lot more support and stufff!
written by r, 26 January 2010
BRILLIANT!!! You have said it so well: the abusive control and manipulation of nature is the single most sexist, patriarchal, abusive, ANTI-WOMAN, ANTI-LIFE thing happening. Why do women's groups decry PETA and animal rights? It's very simple, and it has nothing to do with philosophy. They have sold their souls to corporate America. Capitalist whores. They have no conscience, only insipid, trivial attitudes. They have no effectiveness. They are laughed at. They are ignored. Because in their hailstorm of words, they have excused so much that is FASCISTIC: that which is agressive, competitive, violent, sexist, hateful and cruel in this society. They haven't formed any meaningful coalitions. They are more about PC than revolution. LIBERAL FEMINISM is BS. IT'S DOA.
Thanks again for the kick-ass article!
Thanks again for the kick-ass article!
written by Kathryn, 26 January 2010
We must never halt in our fight for animal
rights and welfare.
We will never back down when
the issue is pain, cruelty, and
deliberate stupidity with regard
to animals.
These animals must be helped,
they have no voice.
think of this, humans have
voices that can help them, animals
have none
rights and welfare.
We will never back down when
the issue is pain, cruelty, and
deliberate stupidity with regard
to animals.
These animals must be helped,
they have no voice.
think of this, humans have
voices that can help them, animals
have none
written by EAS, 25 January 2010
The tactics PETA use are nothing new to social movements (whether you're burning your bra or going naked for a cause). There's so much censorship, so much attention to non-issues (Brittany Spears for example), that movements are forced to compete with all the nonsense. Plus the money machine pays a lot to discredit important issues like animal rights, human rights, and the environment. Sometimes an extra effort needs to be made to get attention.
I wish humans were more attentive to important issues, where providing facts is all that’s needed to inspire change. Unfortunately, human beings can get lost in the mundane and disconnected from the important things (one of many of our species’ flaws) that we need more incentive (or a kick-in-the butt, if you will).
For me, human rights (GLT, Women, Race, Culture, etc.) are just as important as animal rights and the environment. I support all causes. I believe the solution involves working together rather than against each other.
People definitely need an awakening where we learn to treat all beings humanely, regardless of gender, race, culture, sexual orientation, and species.
Here's to the Humane Revolutions
!
P.S. Even as man I believe women should be in charge. That might help!
I wish humans were more attentive to important issues, where providing facts is all that’s needed to inspire change. Unfortunately, human beings can get lost in the mundane and disconnected from the important things (one of many of our species’ flaws) that we need more incentive (or a kick-in-the butt, if you will).
For me, human rights (GLT, Women, Race, Culture, etc.) are just as important as animal rights and the environment. I support all causes. I believe the solution involves working together rather than against each other.
People definitely need an awakening where we learn to treat all beings humanely, regardless of gender, race, culture, sexual orientation, and species.
Here's to the Humane Revolutions
! P.S. Even as man I believe women should be in charge. That might help!
written by Dan, 25 January 2010
@Jenny: For the record, I definitely agree with much of what you've said! One last thing about PETA's tactics -- PETA is one group among many fighting for non-human animals. We need all of their various tactics to make moral headway because every listener is persuaded in different ways. PETA arose at a time when the animal advocacy landscape was much less established. Their mission is to put these issues into a mainstream that had never engaged with them before. By that standard, they have been wildly successful and beneficial to the world and its inhabitants.
@Elizabeth: Right on!
@Elizabeth: Right on!
written by Dan, 25 January 2010
Jenny, I am not saying this is a competition of who suffers the most. Of course the depth of one being's suffering does not mitigate that of another. But I doubt Renee feels similarly. In fact, that was Renee's move in the first place, when she wrote in her blog post:
"The truth is, PETA’s objective is to paint all other marginalizations as secondary to that faced by animals and that is why they routinely features ads that are sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic etc."
This of course invites several rejoinders. First: To explain that this ad does not constitute an example of sexism/feminism/womanism. I've done that. Second: To point out that it is Renee who is painting another marginalization -- species -- as secondary to that faced by women. I did that too. Third: That PETA acts in good faith and has its own necessarily focused agenda -- PETA cannot be all things to all people and still fulfill its mission. I haven't yet responded in this way, but Ingrid Newkirk has done so, on the record, including in this very comment section. Moreover, I do not see Renee asking that women's groups stop serving animal products and start advocating for animal liberation. It's one thing to talk about competition -- but I'm talking about priorities. Not only do 50 billion non-human animals suffer exponentially more, both in quantity and degree, than just about any humans alive today; the animal industry is also the single greatest categorical source of carbon emissions, the greatest waster of potable water resources in the world, a destroyer of massive swaths of rainforest, and a destroyer of other local ecosystems throughout the world -- not to mention the direct adverse health effects on those who consume the flesh they sell. Very conspicuously, Renee so far hasn't had a word to say about any of that.
Each of us has direct control over whether or not we will support the most evil and harmful operations that ever existed. Whether or not Renee is aware of the details of the animal industry, the misguided-ness and pettiness of her particular outrage, against PETA and against a woman who made a liberated statement on PETA's behalf, is on obscene display.
"The truth is, PETA’s objective is to paint all other marginalizations as secondary to that faced by animals and that is why they routinely features ads that are sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic etc."
This of course invites several rejoinders. First: To explain that this ad does not constitute an example of sexism/feminism/womanism. I've done that. Second: To point out that it is Renee who is painting another marginalization -- species -- as secondary to that faced by women. I did that too. Third: That PETA acts in good faith and has its own necessarily focused agenda -- PETA cannot be all things to all people and still fulfill its mission. I haven't yet responded in this way, but Ingrid Newkirk has done so, on the record, including in this very comment section. Moreover, I do not see Renee asking that women's groups stop serving animal products and start advocating for animal liberation. It's one thing to talk about competition -- but I'm talking about priorities. Not only do 50 billion non-human animals suffer exponentially more, both in quantity and degree, than just about any humans alive today; the animal industry is also the single greatest categorical source of carbon emissions, the greatest waster of potable water resources in the world, a destroyer of massive swaths of rainforest, and a destroyer of other local ecosystems throughout the world -- not to mention the direct adverse health effects on those who consume the flesh they sell. Very conspicuously, Renee so far hasn't had a word to say about any of that.
Each of us has direct control over whether or not we will support the most evil and harmful operations that ever existed. Whether or not Renee is aware of the details of the animal industry, the misguided-ness and pettiness of her particular outrage, against PETA and against a woman who made a liberated statement on PETA's behalf, is on obscene display.
written by Dan, 25 January 2010
R, I don't know about my "male privilege," but your lack of reading comprehension skills is definitely showing.
Renee obviously considers her "suffering" to be more significant than that of the animals' -- despite the fact that they are tortured in myriad deep ways and eventually slaughtered -- because she directs all of her outrage at the horror -- the horror! -- of being marginally mislabeled. Never mind the points that Katrina actually made about the parallel moral cases that undergird both feminism and non-speciesism.
You said: "...it isn't up to you to decide whether or not she can be upset." I certainly didn't say Renee can't be upset. In fact, I said: "You want to be upset -- and clearly, you really do want to be upset -- about whether or not someone you don't know gets your self-prescribed label correct. Fine." Thanks for reading, I guess?
What is truly amazing is that you and Renee cannot see that she -- and I suppose you, by proxy -- would deny the woman featured in PETA's ad the right to do what she wants with her own body. This is basic stuff here, and I think the feminist/womanist movement(s) might be better off without the advocacy of those who do not give the time and thought required to do a good job of it.
Renee obviously considers her "suffering" to be more significant than that of the animals' -- despite the fact that they are tortured in myriad deep ways and eventually slaughtered -- because she directs all of her outrage at the horror -- the horror! -- of being marginally mislabeled. Never mind the points that Katrina actually made about the parallel moral cases that undergird both feminism and non-speciesism.
You said: "...it isn't up to you to decide whether or not she can be upset." I certainly didn't say Renee can't be upset. In fact, I said: "You want to be upset -- and clearly, you really do want to be upset -- about whether or not someone you don't know gets your self-prescribed label correct. Fine." Thanks for reading, I guess?
What is truly amazing is that you and Renee cannot see that she -- and I suppose you, by proxy -- would deny the woman featured in PETA's ad the right to do what she wants with her own body. This is basic stuff here, and I think the feminist/womanist movement(s) might be better off without the advocacy of those who do not give the time and thought required to do a good job of it.
written by Christine, 25 January 2010
I love this article, Very well written and points from both sides.
written by Elizabeth, 25 January 2010
If being a womanist means that one is bad tempered, rude, and small-minded like Renee, count me out!
I enjoyed this article immensely and I feel like the writer made a lot of great points. I consider myself a feminist and I agree that if a man or woman chooses to disrobe themselves to shed light on the suffering of others, more power to you!
I enjoyed this article immensely and I feel like the writer made a lot of great points. I consider myself a feminist and I agree that if a man or woman chooses to disrobe themselves to shed light on the suffering of others, more power to you!
written by Katrina Fox, 24 January 2010
@Renee: You make many (incorrect) assumptions. Perhaps we don't hear about womanists or activism by WOC because much of the feminist media I mentioned doesn't bother to cover them - the same as they don't bother to cover AR and other issues. I wish they would. I'd be happy to host such an article here on this online magazine. The migrant workers you mention are victims of the same system of corporate greed that also fosters the incredibly cruel system of factory farming. Mass change is needed to make life better for all - animals and humans alike. You wrongly assume that AR activists don't care about human rights. It's not a case of either/or. You can do both. We can educate each other, work together and ajust our consumption habits accordingly.
written by Jenny Grubbs, 23 January 2010
I had to post as two separate entries... it begins with, "The article" and the second half begins, "Carol.."
written by Jenny Grubbs, 23 January 2010
Carol, Thank you for brining up the tradition of feminists that do precisely the analyses Katrina claimed feminists are not doing. (Although I do understand the larger frustration with the majority of feminist discourse). Your work, and those you mentioned, have created a critical discourse within feminism that deconstructs how ideologies intersect. This work provides the tools for other people to incorporate these analyses- including those who do not identify as feminist. Having attended both Minding Animals and the National Women's Studies Conference in the states, I feel that frustration watching people who claim to examine oppression and even animal issues pour that dairy into coffee or bite into the flesh-filled sandwich. But, as you said, it is about inclusivity and providing the analyses that are accessible to not only vegans. You talk about these issues in Living Among Meat Eaters, which encourages dialogue rather than blame or shaming. I think it's an excellent way to understand the feminists (and other activists/scholars who engage social causes) that do not examine speciesism.
Ingrid, Yes- you can make the news by showcasing naked women. But perhaps you could make the news by setting up a booth outside Barnes and Noble and handing out a text like the "Sexual Politics of Meat" or better yet, "Pornography of Meat". While trying to understand the State of the Union Undress, a friend said to me, "Well they are using sex, and sex sells," Yet, the movement in the fight for other-than-human animals is predominantly women. PETA's own membership is predominantly women. Who are they selling the sex to? And what about the movement are these ads selling? ...You are simply selling sex and naked bodies. You are not educating through these images. Rather, you are creating a distraction for people that might otherwise actually be interested in the education. The "slideshow" at the end does not integrate text boxes, dates of demonstrations, information about veganism, or any other productive blurb. It's simply the same photographs and videos that people have seen for years. It's images the public is saturated with and there is no context to these images provided. No, you do not need to strip to liberate animals. For in fact, that is laying down the naked female body on the ground in order to step on it to potentially open a cage. That does not bring about liberation at all. You can be sex positive and also understand that pornography is embedded in patriarchy and the capitalist commodification of women.
This article did get a discussion started. I'd like to see other feminists engage in this important discussion about why it is that critical activists and scholars do not consistently engage speciesism. Perhaps it is precisely the intersecting ideologies that perpetuate the notion that there is only "so much" activism one can wrap their head around. Audre Lorde wrote about the notion that capitalism has created the myth that there is only so much money to go around, and that we all must be in competition for that limited wealth. That mystification perpetuates the belief that in order for me to be "rich", someone else must be "poor". This naturalizes competition of wealth that leads to caste-like classes in society. I see this operating in activism, where we believe there are only so many rights or battles to win- so we (activists) must compete amongst ourselves rather than challenge the system itself.
Ingrid, Yes- you can make the news by showcasing naked women. But perhaps you could make the news by setting up a booth outside Barnes and Noble and handing out a text like the "Sexual Politics of Meat" or better yet, "Pornography of Meat". While trying to understand the State of the Union Undress, a friend said to me, "Well they are using sex, and sex sells," Yet, the movement in the fight for other-than-human animals is predominantly women. PETA's own membership is predominantly women. Who are they selling the sex to? And what about the movement are these ads selling? ...You are simply selling sex and naked bodies. You are not educating through these images. Rather, you are creating a distraction for people that might otherwise actually be interested in the education. The "slideshow" at the end does not integrate text boxes, dates of demonstrations, information about veganism, or any other productive blurb. It's simply the same photographs and videos that people have seen for years. It's images the public is saturated with and there is no context to these images provided. No, you do not need to strip to liberate animals. For in fact, that is laying down the naked female body on the ground in order to step on it to potentially open a cage. That does not bring about liberation at all. You can be sex positive and also understand that pornography is embedded in patriarchy and the capitalist commodification of women.
This article did get a discussion started. I'd like to see other feminists engage in this important discussion about why it is that critical activists and scholars do not consistently engage speciesism. Perhaps it is precisely the intersecting ideologies that perpetuate the notion that there is only "so much" activism one can wrap their head around. Audre Lorde wrote about the notion that capitalism has created the myth that there is only so much money to go around, and that we all must be in competition for that limited wealth. That mystification perpetuates the belief that in order for me to be "rich", someone else must be "poor". This naturalizes competition of wealth that leads to caste-like classes in society. I see this operating in activism, where we believe there are only so many rights or battles to win- so we (activists) must compete amongst ourselves rather than challenge the system itself.
written by Jenny Grubbs, 23 January 2010
The article, although it does take an abrasive tone, makes a good point. And that point is that critical activists and scholars (including but not limited to feminists) need to examine the intersections of ideology. Oppression does not happen in a vacuum, and the ways in which they operate seek to uphold one another (speciesism, racism, sexism, heterosexism--- particularly through the capitalist mode of production). Therefore- our work to analyze and destabilize these ideologies/systems needs to incorporate that they intersect.
Dan, I think it is good that you are engaging in this dialogue. I may not agree with you and I do find a lot of your assumptions/accusations offensive, but I do believe if you continue to work through these issues you may think differently about some things eventually. It is not a competition of oppression- where the people of color need to illustrate they are oppressed more or that activists need to somehow prove it's speciesism that is the worst. Like i said, it is about examining the intersections and margins of these ideological systems.
That said, I think Renee has made several assumptions also. We are all embedded in this world in various ways. That means that no one exists outside of ideology, outside of the cultures that oppress. That means that as a vegan, I do not sit within a discourse of purity and claim that in no way am I implicated in the systems I critique. As a queer woman, I am not outside of the homophobic ideologies. And so on. That also means that no one, not even people of color, exist outside the realm of racism. I am not charging that everyone is a raging homophobic, racist, sexist person. I am saying that it is a very charged accusation to claim that "white vegan feminists" are somehow more of something than you.
- You charge Dan with his ignorance of Womanist, and that I actually agree. However, you turn around and make an accusation about another subset of the population that is equally ignorant. Yes, we are all embedded and implicated in a racist culture. But, no one within that society is deemed "above" or "outside" of that. We cannot theorize our way out of the world, but we can use theory to deconstruct and critique.
- And if you do want others to be wise to Womanism, which I agree they should, you yourself should make a conscious effort to read about other branches off from feminism. Yes, womanism is to feminism as purple is to lavender. But there are other shades of feminism that you should read as well. There you will find the analyses of globalization that do examine who people of color are exploited in farming practices, marxist analyses that look at how the sexualization of animals perpetuates various forms of violence against humans (including women, people of color, migrant workers, children, and so on). I suggest Carol's work, for example.
Dan, I think it is good that you are engaging in this dialogue. I may not agree with you and I do find a lot of your assumptions/accusations offensive, but I do believe if you continue to work through these issues you may think differently about some things eventually. It is not a competition of oppression- where the people of color need to illustrate they are oppressed more or that activists need to somehow prove it's speciesism that is the worst. Like i said, it is about examining the intersections and margins of these ideological systems.
That said, I think Renee has made several assumptions also. We are all embedded in this world in various ways. That means that no one exists outside of ideology, outside of the cultures that oppress. That means that as a vegan, I do not sit within a discourse of purity and claim that in no way am I implicated in the systems I critique. As a queer woman, I am not outside of the homophobic ideologies. And so on. That also means that no one, not even people of color, exist outside the realm of racism. I am not charging that everyone is a raging homophobic, racist, sexist person. I am saying that it is a very charged accusation to claim that "white vegan feminists" are somehow more of something than you.
- You charge Dan with his ignorance of Womanist, and that I actually agree. However, you turn around and make an accusation about another subset of the population that is equally ignorant. Yes, we are all embedded and implicated in a racist culture. But, no one within that society is deemed "above" or "outside" of that. We cannot theorize our way out of the world, but we can use theory to deconstruct and critique.
- And if you do want others to be wise to Womanism, which I agree they should, you yourself should make a conscious effort to read about other branches off from feminism. Yes, womanism is to feminism as purple is to lavender. But there are other shades of feminism that you should read as well. There you will find the analyses of globalization that do examine who people of color are exploited in farming practices, marxist analyses that look at how the sexualization of animals perpetuates various forms of violence against humans (including women, people of color, migrant workers, children, and so on). I suggest Carol's work, for example.
written by R, 23 January 2010
Dan, Your male privilege is showing.
No where did Renee claim that her feelings are more important than animal suffering. And it isn't up to you to decide whether or not she can be upset. I'd suggest you check yourself before you begin telling anyone what is and is not a feminist or womanist issue.
No where did Renee claim that her feelings are more important than animal suffering. And it isn't up to you to decide whether or not she can be upset. I'd suggest you check yourself before you begin telling anyone what is and is not a feminist or womanist issue.
written by pat cuviello, 23 January 2010
What a woman does with her body is her choice. If she want to strip for animal rights that is her choice. Similar for a man. If people have a problem with nudity, or overt sexuality, then that is their problem. We are all sexual beings and if it feels good to people to express their sexuality by stripping for a cause then I am fine with that. Whether stripping for a cause is the best way to promote a cause that is an entirely different issue.
written by Francesca Kennedy, 23 January 2010
PETA does not represent the entire animal rights movement. Plenty of animal rights activists care and actively work for human rights issues and care about racism, feminism, homophobia and issues of worker's rights.
There are several excellent blogs about the links between speciesism and other forms of oppression. Vegans of Color is one. http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/
The Vegan Ideal is another. http://veganideal.org/
Please don't believe all animal rights activists support PETA - many di not support them because of their many offensive ad campaigns.
There are several excellent blogs about the links between speciesism and other forms of oppression. Vegans of Color is one. http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/
The Vegan Ideal is another. http://veganideal.org/
Please don't believe all animal rights activists support PETA - many di not support them because of their many offensive ad campaigns.
written by Dan, 23 January 2010
"Womanism is not just some label to me, it is a part of my identity. How dare you suggest for one moment that I don't have a right to be upset."
Renee, your myopia is truly a thing to behold -- not only relating to your unwillingness to consider that PETA's tactics may not transgress feminist/"womanist" principles after all (they don't), but also relating to your complete lack of perspective about the tremendously greater suffering that non-human animals are made to endure.
You want to be upset -- and clearly, you really do want to be upset -- about whether or not someone you don't know gets your self-prescribed label correct. Fine. But don't for a second delude yourself into thinking that your "suffering" at being mislabeled in any way approximates, let alone surpasses, the suffering that PETA works to alleviate. You are a classic example of the self-identified victim who reacts to their self-identified plight by excusing the victimization of others -- in this case, non-human animals.
And by the way, you don't get to make another woman's personal decisions for her. It is not your place to assume that the woman who chooses to strip for her cause is not liberated from the patriarchal dictates of the past. A woman (you) who attempts to dominate another woman (the stripper) is no better than a man who attempts to dominate a woman.
Renee, your myopia is truly a thing to behold -- not only relating to your unwillingness to consider that PETA's tactics may not transgress feminist/"womanist" principles after all (they don't), but also relating to your complete lack of perspective about the tremendously greater suffering that non-human animals are made to endure.
You want to be upset -- and clearly, you really do want to be upset -- about whether or not someone you don't know gets your self-prescribed label correct. Fine. But don't for a second delude yourself into thinking that your "suffering" at being mislabeled in any way approximates, let alone surpasses, the suffering that PETA works to alleviate. You are a classic example of the self-identified victim who reacts to their self-identified plight by excusing the victimization of others -- in this case, non-human animals.
And by the way, you don't get to make another woman's personal decisions for her. It is not your place to assume that the woman who chooses to strip for her cause is not liberated from the patriarchal dictates of the past. A woman (you) who attempts to dominate another woman (the stripper) is no better than a man who attempts to dominate a woman.
written by Renee, 23 January 2010
Ingrid would not know what a feminist if one came and bit her on the ass. Feminism like womanism is not practiced by continually demeaning women. It is not practiced by engaging in acts of fat hatred, homophobia, racism and transphobia. Regardless of whether or not these women consent their actions are still sexist, or in the case of this recent stunt, sexist and racist. Not every decision women make is free of problematic elements. Sexism and racism or both maintained in part by the collusion of the oppressed. Because we are steeped in the culture of the oppressor, unpacking the ways in which we have been influenced is a life long journey.
@Dan Womanism is not just some label to me, it is a part of my identity. How dare you suggest for one moment that I don't have a right to be upset.
@Katrina...the fact that you claim that Womanist is not an everyday concern is a sign of your privilege. WOC have been identifying as womanist for quite sometime and your ignorance of our existence speaks of your ability to ignore the activism of WOC. This is part of the problem with the AR movement; it is filled with White women who don't give a damn who they oppress to save animals. While you are busy advocating everyone go vegan have you even given a thought about the millions of migrant women that are forced to labour so that you can have cheap fruit and vegetables? Have you thought about those that are subjected to rape? Have you thought about the fact that they are paid slave wages? Such thoughts never occur to the AR people because after all, they long ago decided that human life has no value and of course since WOC have no value, ignoring these migrant workers is just par for the course right?
@Dan Womanism is not just some label to me, it is a part of my identity. How dare you suggest for one moment that I don't have a right to be upset.
@Katrina...the fact that you claim that Womanist is not an everyday concern is a sign of your privilege. WOC have been identifying as womanist for quite sometime and your ignorance of our existence speaks of your ability to ignore the activism of WOC. This is part of the problem with the AR movement; it is filled with White women who don't give a damn who they oppress to save animals. While you are busy advocating everyone go vegan have you even given a thought about the millions of migrant women that are forced to labour so that you can have cheap fruit and vegetables? Have you thought about those that are subjected to rape? Have you thought about the fact that they are paid slave wages? Such thoughts never occur to the AR people because after all, they long ago decided that human life has no value and of course since WOC have no value, ignoring these migrant workers is just par for the course right?
written by Katrina Fox, 23 January 2010
Ingrid has read this article and her response is as follows:
"PETA does a million different things, from painstaking and risk taking investigations, research, committees, government work, children’s ed, other types of very creative ads, billboards, debates, op eds, free food give-aways, prosecutions – the list is almost endless – but we won’t stop the “stupid naked tricks” as long as that’s the ONE thing that the press will cover. And, again, I really don’t think it is a feminist issue: sex trafficking, wages, day care are feminist issues: my right or any woman’s right to strip for a cause, to strip for fun, to be sexual, is her business and no woman should call her sexist because she is exercising her right to go naked. I am a feminist and think that people are a bit mad if they call an ad in which a black woman happily appears “racist” because she strips and they don’t like stripping. And it isn’t “sexist” to strip, it is sexual. But those who don’t like stripping, don’t care except to scream."
"PETA does a million different things, from painstaking and risk taking investigations, research, committees, government work, children’s ed, other types of very creative ads, billboards, debates, op eds, free food give-aways, prosecutions – the list is almost endless – but we won’t stop the “stupid naked tricks” as long as that’s the ONE thing that the press will cover. And, again, I really don’t think it is a feminist issue: sex trafficking, wages, day care are feminist issues: my right or any woman’s right to strip for a cause, to strip for fun, to be sexual, is her business and no woman should call her sexist because she is exercising her right to go naked. I am a feminist and think that people are a bit mad if they call an ad in which a black woman happily appears “racist” because she strips and they don’t like stripping. And it isn’t “sexist” to strip, it is sexual. But those who don’t like stripping, don’t care except to scream."
written by Dan, 23 January 2010
Renee, it is astounding that you are more offended by being mislabeled than you are by the torture and slaughter of fellow animals. You clearly lack any semblance of perspective.
written by Katrina Fox, 23 January 2010
Carol, I thank you for your comments and taking the time to respond. On your first point, you are right, there has been much written on the topic of feminism & veganism by your good self and the others you name. There are a lot of excellent points in The Sexual Politics of Meat, much of which (not all) that I agree with and would recommend people read the book, especially now the 20th anniversary edition is now out.
Yes, there are plenty of feminists doing great work as you've outlined above. But often when the issue of speciesism and the whole meat/dairy/eggs issue is raised with them, their response is often 'Oh I don't have time to do animal rights, I’m too busy helping humans/women’.
Even when it’s explained that they don’t need to go to meetings or do anything ‘extra’ outside their human/women’s rights work, except make a change in their consumption habits, they’re not interested. I’ve encountered this time and time again with women of all ages and generations. Even worse is the response by otherwise progressive people, ‘But I like meat!’
Take a look at some of the online feminist communities, especially those run by younger feminists, such as Jezebel or Feministing. How often do you see a headline along the lines of ‘Dairy is a feminist issue’ or any kind of analysis of speciesism and how it relates to feminism? Very, very rarely, if ever. The only time the issue of AR comes up on this kind of site is to criticise PETA.
The latest post on Jezebel relating to AR on this issue is titled ‘Ingrid Newkirk: The worst person in the world’. Now, ok, Ingrid is not everyone’s cup of tea, but worst person in the world – seriously? So all the dictators who actively carry out rape and violence all come second to the female head of an AR group?
My frustration is with the fact that AR issues and eco-feminism are no longer part of mainstream feminism’s agenda. It’s seen as ‘old school’ and not ‘trendy’. Feminists are – rightly – concerned with body image and raunch culture, but it’s almost to the exclusion of anything else (equal pay included!). Bitch Media/magazine isn’t any better. The same goes for Ms (yes they carry some animal-friendly ads, but when was the last time there was a good, solid article on AR issues and how they relate to feminism?)
I applaud each and every woman who is doing her bit to make this a better world. But fighting to save women from violence while tucking into a bacon sandwich is hypocritical, in the same way that attendees at animal conferences, such as last year’s Minding Animals conference pour dairy into their coffee (a point you brought up publicly).
The aim of this article was to point out to those non-vegan feminists who only raise their heads above the parapets on AR issues to slam PETA that they are engaging in behaviours similar to those they are railing against. I see it so often in the feminist blogosphere and feminist media and I’m pretty tired of it.
This online magazine, of which I am editor-in-chief, is aiming to introduce those who are new to AR issues to concepts such as speciesism – see social justice/animals section on the home page of this site. We are not going to agree on everything, but I’m all for getting dialogue going.
Yes, there are plenty of feminists doing great work as you've outlined above. But often when the issue of speciesism and the whole meat/dairy/eggs issue is raised with them, their response is often 'Oh I don't have time to do animal rights, I’m too busy helping humans/women’.
Even when it’s explained that they don’t need to go to meetings or do anything ‘extra’ outside their human/women’s rights work, except make a change in their consumption habits, they’re not interested. I’ve encountered this time and time again with women of all ages and generations. Even worse is the response by otherwise progressive people, ‘But I like meat!’
Take a look at some of the online feminist communities, especially those run by younger feminists, such as Jezebel or Feministing. How often do you see a headline along the lines of ‘Dairy is a feminist issue’ or any kind of analysis of speciesism and how it relates to feminism? Very, very rarely, if ever. The only time the issue of AR comes up on this kind of site is to criticise PETA.
The latest post on Jezebel relating to AR on this issue is titled ‘Ingrid Newkirk: The worst person in the world’. Now, ok, Ingrid is not everyone’s cup of tea, but worst person in the world – seriously? So all the dictators who actively carry out rape and violence all come second to the female head of an AR group?
My frustration is with the fact that AR issues and eco-feminism are no longer part of mainstream feminism’s agenda. It’s seen as ‘old school’ and not ‘trendy’. Feminists are – rightly – concerned with body image and raunch culture, but it’s almost to the exclusion of anything else (equal pay included!). Bitch Media/magazine isn’t any better. The same goes for Ms (yes they carry some animal-friendly ads, but when was the last time there was a good, solid article on AR issues and how they relate to feminism?)
I applaud each and every woman who is doing her bit to make this a better world. But fighting to save women from violence while tucking into a bacon sandwich is hypocritical, in the same way that attendees at animal conferences, such as last year’s Minding Animals conference pour dairy into their coffee (a point you brought up publicly).
The aim of this article was to point out to those non-vegan feminists who only raise their heads above the parapets on AR issues to slam PETA that they are engaging in behaviours similar to those they are railing against. I see it so often in the feminist blogosphere and feminist media and I’m pretty tired of it.
This online magazine, of which I am editor-in-chief, is aiming to introduce those who are new to AR issues to concepts such as speciesism – see social justice/animals section on the home page of this site. We are not going to agree on everything, but I’m all for getting dialogue going.
written by Carol J. Adams, 23 January 2010
I think your blog would be more balanced if you talked about the history of vegan feminist writings (Adams, Donovan, Kheel, Gaard, Birke, Gruen, Jone, and lots more) and that you are sad that more feminists haven't heeded us and, as well, that groups like PETA haven't heeded us. If you positioned yourself there, pointing out that a critique exists toward both groups and wondering why a critique that has been around for 20 plus years remains unincorporated into the movements for social change, I'd think you were being fairer. You want to charge feminists with being hypocrites; let's not ignore what feminists are fighting -- a Taliban-like right wing takeover of reproductive politics in the United States; trafficking in women across the world; continuing violence against women. I know many, many wonderful feminists who are giving their lives to make this a better world. Instead of calling them hypocrites why not provide the analysis that could help them see past species limits. PETA used to give away Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. I would like to suggest that if they are really serious about making connections rather than destroying them, they should buy multiple copies of The sexual politics of meat and give that away to progressives and feminists.
written by Shelly, 22 January 2010
Guess what? I can't get past PeTA's tasteless ads to understand the rape of non-human females. As a feminist, I don't take campaigns that rely on women in bikinis seriously, and PeTA's no exception. If they wanted people to care, they need to incorporate, not alienate people (read: women who care about women's issues) to get on board. There are plenty of vegan, animal-loving feminists out there that this is not completely impossible.
written by Katrina Fox, 22 January 2010
Renee, I came by your post via Twitter from a group with feminist leanings. The word 'womanist' isn't in everyday use, so I assumed you were a feminist. I apologise for that. The rest of my article stands. It's aimed at non-vegan feminists, who only seem to talk about animal rights when it's to slam PETA. I'm not defending PETA's ads, as I said the article, but the hypocrisy of those who constantly call PETA out while perpetuating similar types of oppression on non-humans. We all have our failings and discriminations that we've been brought up with. I wrongly assumed you were a feminist. I hear you, I apologised and take on board what you've said. But so many feminists ignore the issues outlined in my article and carry on with their oppressive consuming behaviours. I'm not looking for fans, just to speak up for those who are so marginalised that even the most otherwise progressive people think it's ok to use and abuse them.
written by Renee, 22 January 2010
Please tell me why I should take you seriously when you wrongly identified me as a feminist. This is just another example of the ways in which animal rights groups erase and appropriate women of colour for convenience. The name of the blog is WOMANIST MUSINGS erfo the woman writing, that would be me is a self declared WOMANIST. You won't win any fans pepetuating PeTA's behaviour.
Write comment
Dan, I am not sure at all about some of these comments: "First: To explain that this ad does not constitute an example of exism/feminism/womanism. I've done that." Have you now. Hmmm. Apparently writing: "PETA's tactics may not transgress feminist/"womanist" principles after all (they don't)" constitutes an argument!
Strikes me that it does not make it okay that a woman willingly allows herself to appear in an advertising campaign that uses her body to make a point. This is not a private choice or a private forum, this is a billboard. Acquiescence to partaking in a global signifier of the female body as a marketing tool, as a product, as nothing more than a sign? Well that does not seem empowerment to me. Participation even at the softer end of a spectrum of the idea that women's sexuality sells, and doing so for a good ideal, still means participation in an idea that leads directly to women as second class citizens, to rape, to oppression and to womens' invisibility. Choosing to strip for this cause is a choice that directly buys into patriarchal ideas of a woman's body as a commodity. And note it is a woman, as if that is not a giveaway in and of itself (and no, having a man strip does not suddenly nullify this or the millions of other images of sexually objectified women). Saying that this is not exploition does not make that the truth. And as for animals suffering? Yes, they do, more's the pity. But so do women, and not just in the subtle ways of exploitation and oppression, but violently and brutally, from the Congo to, no doubt, your own neighbourhood.
And this: "Third: That PETA acts in good faith and has its own necessarily focused agenda -- PETA cannot be all things to all people and still fulfill its mission." Not even sure what that means. In the context of this discussion is it meant to imply that PETA cannot be non-sexist and still perform its mission?
Other statements: "Animal rights fell off the feminist agenda years ago" ... Know a lot of feminists who disagree and eco-feminism seems fairly active to me. And 'Many feminists actively support the oppression, use and abuse of non-humans every single day'. Sorry is there some sort of survey I have missed? Or Alex's comment: "feminists who ignore the issue of nonhuman animal oppression because they don't like PETA". Is there a justified correlation here? Do we know about feminists who are only critiquing PETA but who show no interest in other AR groups or AR at all?
Well, maybe so. But this whole purist thing ... If someone wears a leather belt, what, they can't make a comment about women being oppressed? At what stage does lack of purity in one's own lifestyle abrogate you from outrage?
We should allow for levels of grey. Some people ('some', yup, and no survey here either, but ...) may well eat a steak every now and then but be horrified by the demolition of elephants for their tusks, or whales for, well, who knows what ... the cuisine of Japanese tables maybe. It seems a tough call to censure those who see a difference between the consumption of a farmed domestic animal that numbers in the millions and the exploitation and possible extinction of another 'wild' species with a rapidly diminishing and not easily replenished population. Is it morally problematic? Yup. Are animals suffering outrageously in both cases? Yup. But can I see the difference? Well ... yeah, I can.
I think it is important to allow people some scope for contradiction because this is a fluid topic and people move towards and adopt causes for different reasons. 'Humans have voices'. We do indeed. Let's understand that those voices are manifold, and that outrage against suffering and exploitation should never be proscriptively allowed for those who are 'morally righteous'. Who gives that nod of approval anyway? There are women in other cultures, traditional meat eating cultures, who are vocal in their their opposition to the patriarchy of their culture that turns a blind eye to the rape and murder of women for offences such as being seen in the company of an un-married man. Is anyone here really suggesting that such women should stop eating meat before they can voice their dissent?
I hope not. And if you can harrumph and go, well, yes, in that case ... then maybe you can see that a forum like this allows an exchange of ideas that reveal, ever so slightly, a world where people can be differing levels of sensitive to the suffering and exploitation of others. Animal abuse and misogyny are deep seated consumptions which both require education to combat. Be nice if they helped each other out, sure. But some can only fight one battle at a time.