I love meat. I don't really care about healthy living. Short story shorter, I'm not an ecofeminist. The point of this article is that just because I am not an ecofeminist, doesn't mean I'm not a feminist. It's been rehashed several times on this website that not all feminists are created equal. I am pro-choice, sex-positive (let's not snarl about this term, I don't like it either but I don't have an alternative), and several other things, but I am not an ecofeminist.
Why am I telling you this?
Because of the following comment:
"There are deep connections between feminism, an ethic of care, and animal rights. For me, those connections are so significant that I cannot imagine any feminist still willing to support the exploitative practices of factory farming and industrial agriculture. The culture surrounding meat consumption is entirely masculinist, to the degree that vegetarianism or veganism is viewed by many in the mainstream as "effete" or feminine. As a male, I am expected to consume large amounts of charred meat products and be able to wield grilling tools. There are more forces at work here to tarnish the reputation of vegans or vegetarians than PETA. I hold every self-proclaimed feminist accountable to the ethic of care. If it does not extend to animals and the choice to consume their "products," then the feminist care we expect to be extended to ourselves from other dominative forces suffers a contradiction."
There may be SOME connections between feminism and animal rights - one would expect a feminist to be somewhat compassionate, after all we care about SOMETHING, there's a good chance we care about something else too. Deep is going a little too far, though. As a city dweller that cannot drive I have no access to local farmers selling half a cow's worth of meat, thereby avoiding "exploitative practices of factory farming and industrial agriculture." (Because there are farms that don't torture animals, etc).
I'm not enthused by animal rights but that doesn't mean I don't think they should exist. I'm just not the champion of them. My main concern is sexism, such as the sexism rampant in PETA's advertising. That is really the only time I get close to animal rights. Saying that I'm a shitty feminist because I don't care about animal rights or because I eat meat is complete and utter bullshit. Essentially that is what your comment did. You give me a cheap, available alternative to patriarchal meat consumption and I will gladly eat it (I want it to be real meat, by the way, not that nasty soy shit (personal views, not hating on vegans or vegetarians!). Don't tie it to feminism, though. Just because aspects of meat culture is sexist doesn't mean eating meat makes you sexist. It's not that it can't intersect; it's not that it doesn't intersect. It's just that I am personally concerned with other aspects of feminism - it doesn't mean I'm less of a feminist, though.
In the end, I really agree with the comment to another article discussing this: "Does it really matter, why draw lines? On one hand we talk about how all this -isms intersect and should intersect in a progressive society, and on the other we're distancing ourselves from people we essentially agree with."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Further delving into Feminism and Animal Rights .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14163
Holy crap, not again....
*facepalms*
LOL my thoughts EXACTLY!!!
I'm so exhausted by that other thread, I don't think I can tackle this one.
Any other 'eco-feminists' want to give it a shot?
I think you are completely misreading that and other comments. No intersectional, animal rights feminist called other non-intersectional feminists crappy feminists. And I'm saying this from the point of view of a non-intersectional, non-eco feminist.
Part of that comment, with emphasis:
For me, those connections are so significant that I cannot imagine any feminist still willing to support the exploitative practices of factory farming and industrial agriculture.
That person was only explaining their own feminism. I just can't figure out why people are so offended by non-mainstream versions of feminism.
Seriously?
"I hold every self-proclaimed feminist accountable to the ethic of care. If it does not extend to animals and the choice to consume their "products," then the feminist care we expect to be extended to ourselves from other dominative forces suffers a contradiction."
That is precisely stating that the writer thinks that feminists who do not care about animal rights are undermining feminism.
"Does it really matter, why draw lines? On one hand we talk about how all this -isms intersect and should intersect in a progressive society, and on the other we're distancing ourselves from people we essentially agree with."
If you agree with this, then why are you continuing these accusations of "you called me a bad feminist!" and so on and so forth...
If this was actually about not letting disagreements be a distraction, and not about trying to get people to agree with your side of the disagreement, shouldn't you have let it drop?
Just because aspects of meat culture is sexist doesn't mean eating meat makes you sexist.
No one said that.
I know! I feel like I am being attacked for caring about both animal rights and feminism, but no one is actually bothering to read what I wrote.
I'll just re-hash some of my ideas here for the 9,999,999,999th time:
1. Eating meat in and of itself is not a sexist act, though there are clear links between the way that meat is marketed, produced, and consumed in the United States and sexism.
2. Just because we don't agree doesn't make one of us good feminists and the other bad. Chances are we are both and neither.
3. I have a hard time understanding feminists who constantly feel the need to justify their meat-eating because it makes me wonder if the lady doth protest too much.
4. I don't eat meat, you do. Does that means we can't have a civil conversation in which we disagree? No. Does that mean you are going to convert me back to eating meat? Absolutely not. Does that mean that I hope to convince you not to eat it? Maybe, but I would never force my ethics on you.
5. Feminists come in all shapes, sizes, orientations, colors, etc. Sometimes that means we will disagree. Sometimes these disagreements will be about fundamental issues like the definition of feminism. So what? What's the point of having a discussion if everyone already agrees with you.
6. Lastly, the question that I have asked repeatedly on this site. Why are meat-eaters so threatened by the fact that I choose not to?
This is just for starters, I have many more bullet points to add to my list, but I shall stop for now.
I actually agree with your points, 1-5, anyhow.
On the sixth point, let me explain: none of us, at least from my perspective, feel threatened that you choose not to. Our concern has nothing to do with what you eat *this is not to say we're not concerned about you*. What we ARE concerned about is the methods in which animal rights are promoted, sometimes at the expense of women's rights.
As well, I think we fundamentally disagree on the meanings of a lot of terms within feminism. This is to be expected. When we try to define a term, in no way are we saying you're wrong for your definition of the term, but rather, questioning why you believe in such.
Lastly, I saw a lot of accusations about meat-eaters and those who do not share viewpoints with animal rights feminists as being ignorant of your beliefs. Perhaps consider that we have read and researched your beliefs, but wholehearted disagree with it.
In the end, the offense, at least I can say from the perspective of those who share my paradigm, is that a lot of non-meat eaters are casting aside anything we have to say with the attidude of "oh, you're not compassionate enough, or haven't read enough, or just are too damned blinded by patriarchy to know the difference." That's what we're offended by. Not threatened, offended.
Forgive me if this makes no sense. I've been up for 24 hours and have another five to go.
Whoa! Before anyone jumps all over me, I meant "offense" to mean why some of us are offended, and not as in you all did something wrong and we're the judge of it.
My impression is the feeling some vegetarians and vegans have that others find their lifestyle threatening is from the blogosphere in general. It's sometimes also from people in real life. It's that not eating meat is talked about as being classist or too much to expect from the average person. It feels like people think vegetarians are going to try to convince them not to eat meat. Conversations around meat tend to be very similar from one blog to another. Classism is brought up and then the animals rights AND human rights issues surrounding meat and other food aren't really talked about.
Anyway, improving animals rights WOULD often improve conditions for humans. Factory farming is not good for the community it's in. It affects the water and air of the surrounding area. Working in a beef factory is possibly the most dangerous job in America. The rate of injuries is high and it is often immigrants who have these jobs. Additionally, the move to factory farming has taken away livelihoods from families with small farms who had control over their farms. Whether any of these issues are gendered, I'm not sure.
2. Just because we don't agree doesn't make one of us good feminists and the other bad. Chances are we are both and neither.
Yes, thank you.
"You give me a cheap, available alternative to patriarchal meat consumption and I will gladly eat it (I want it to be real meat, by the way, not that nasty soy shit (personal views, not hating on vegans or vegetarians!)."
Are you asking for real meat that is cheap but ethical? I'm not sure what you mean by "patriarchal meat consumption" or what kind of alternative you're asking for. There are only so many kinds of meat and as others have said it's the society that makes meat eating sexist in a way, not the actual eating of meat. I'm not sure it's possible to have meat be both cheap and ethical. Some eggs cost more than others sometimes because their production is more ethical.
I think it is unfortunate that a post that attempted to actually explain ecofeminism was completely ignored by the people supposedly interested in this topic so that they could write about how wrong the other side is without ever having to learn or understand the other side.
My first link attempt totally failed:
http://community.feministing.com/2009/06/ecofeminism-or-the-intersecion.html
Yes, thank you!!!!
What grounds do you have to say that it was "completely ignored" beyond the shortage of comments from the opposition?
Personally, I read the post and utilized the thought-provoking opportunity to learn more about other feminists' perspective, but I didn't comment myself.
But when the fabled opposition is characterized as a "shitstorm" that hasn't "blow in yet" it isn't exactly an invitation for a constructive dialogue.
"But when the fabled opposition is characterized as a "shitstorm" that hasn't "blow in yet" it isn't exactly an invitation for a constructive dialogue."
So you are dismissing an entire post because of one comment on the post?
Let's be clear: not commenting on a post IS NOT a dismissal of said post, issue or discussion. I just wrote how I took a long thoughtful look at the issues the post brought up, which is pretty much the opposite of dismissing it. Does that mean you, me or anyone else here dismisses any post they don't comment on? Of course not.
You have made a lot of good points on this issue, but the idea that the dearth of opposition on the eco-feminist thread amounts to a dismissal is not one of them.
Look, I was thrilled by the eco-feminist post, especially after the PETA thread overheated. I'm sympathetic with the great majority of eco-feminism, and I am happy it is part of the greater feminist umbrella in the same what that many branches I am not a part of are (separatist feminism, for example). I wouldn't presume to define the personal feminisms of any of the branches for them.
I think a lot of this debate stems from little more than a argumentative misalignment: feminists that do not see animal rights as inherent to feminism are sensitive that animal rights will be forcibly defined into their feminism, while feminists that do see animal rights as inherent to feminism are sensitive to the fact that animal rights will be forcibly defined out of their feminism.
Consequently, for two days we've been arguing two different points. Its true, sometimes these personal feminisms are in conflict, and we have to find common ground between them within a broader feminism.
Sorry for the 'shitstorm' comment, I was just assuming the thread would turn out like these do. But I was obviously wrong-- why would any of these anti-'ecofeminists' (what should I call them?) want to engage in debate directly instead of issuing these posts over and over and waiting for US to come to them?
Yeah, I'm in a bad mood.
I don't think anti-"ecofeminists" is the right word, especially since many people don't really understand what ecofeminism is. While I am neither a vegetarian nor an ecofeminist, I understand and admire the way both groups stand up for what they believe in. Not all "meat-eaters" take offense to vegetarians or use the "I like meat so I'm going to eat it" excuse, the same way that not all vegetarians (or ecofeminists) look down on and try to convert meat-eaters. Maybe people just don't understand your viewpoint, the same way you seem to not understand theirs.
There is no cohesive group opposing 'us'-- in fact, there is no cohesive us. And I seem to understand the opposing view point perfectly well-- "keep your animal rights out of my feminism!"
the animal rights movement and feminism are two different things, but I think they appeal to a root ethical system.
The ethicist Peter Singer wrote the canonized text of the animal rights movement, Animal Liberation. In it he compares the plight of animals to struggles of other civil rights movements and claims like racism and sexism, there's something called "speciesism." This sounds fairly silly at first and is widely misinterpreted, but it's a simple concept.
Speciesism in the practice of ignoring or discounting the interests of animals based solely on the fact that they are not human. Animal interests are much simpler then human interests and often fall in line with animal's instinctual behavior (ie a chicken has an interest in being free to roam, stretch her wings, scratch and establish a pecking order in her flock).
To compare this to sexism is essentially the discounting of women's interests (interests in being able to vote, have bodily autonomy ect.) for no other reason then women are not men. Just as feminism acknowledges that women's interests are not always that of men's (an interest in controlling when one is pregnant for example), the animal rights position never claims that animals need to be treated as though they have the same interests as humans.
The problem with animal agriculture is that it continuously violates the interests of animals and causes immense amounts of suffering. As a utilitarian, Singer advocates an ethical position which strives to reduce suffering. Why we don't consider animal suffering of any concern is predicated on the species-ist belief that only human suffering matters.
Punchbuggy - as I said about ten hours ago, I am on it. Still
formulating a succint (although given the length, I am not sure if
that's an appropriate word) response. I'll get it to you by 1 a.m.
Tuesday morning, I promise.
And to be sure - please understand that, more than anything, I respect
that you're putting your money where your mouth is (in fact, I even
found one of the posters' post touching), in terms of practice, as
well as belief. Our differences, then, are found in that we come from
two very different perspectives, and in the end, I am really not so
sure focusng so much on our differences is really helping our cause.
Maybe, just maybe we're attempting to apply feminist theory within
feminism toward feminist activism, and as a result, rather than just
looking at things from a theoretical perspective, we're arguing over
priority and division of labor.
Let me ask: in terms of animal welfare, what do you see are some
priorities and issues we ought to take on, as a movement?
It seems animal welfare is taking after pornography discussions here on Feministing - we'll always get people from both camps arguing to their deaths about it.
Is it because we all feel that passionately about the issues and aren't willing to give even just an inch, or is it because we each feel attacked?
"or is it because we each feel attacked?"
Yes.
Maybe I'm just disappointed to see the "stop including animal rights in my feminism" meme (which I partially subscribe) getting too much of a voice in the community posts, but I'm a little uncomfortable with this post because it really isn't bringing up anything that hasn't been discussed in the last three community posts about animal welfare/feminism and their comments. Too many posts on this topic from this perspective may create a false impression of orthodoxy which does a disservice to the animal rights activists on this forum. Since a lot of defensiveness has been stirred up in the community on both sides, we need to be careful to stay very measured here.
What we shouldn't be doing is making meat eaters or non-meat eaters feel marginalized within feminism. We're a big enough movement that we should be able to respect our differences within it.
*the first parenthetical should read "to which I partially subscribe"
All right ...I am about to go to bed, but here's a question: what the hell started all this anyhow? One day, I just found myself in a discussion about it and the next thing you know, it's gotten to this.
I suggest a community post about our favorite foods, instead! Wr can all recipes!
I'll just leave this here...
Just wanted to point this out:
"My main concern is sexism, such as the sexism rampant in PETA's advertising. That is really the only time I get close to animal rights."
Animal rights movement has a serious problem with sexism.
Author freely admits that looking at a PETA ad is about all the effort she's put into understanding the perspective of animal rights.
But we shouldn't be so superficial when it comes to meat.
"Just because aspects of meat culture is sexist doesn't mean eating meat makes you sexist."
Every vegetarian out there has heard the "I like meat and there's nothing wrong with that!" rant-- multiple times -- and always from someone who demanded that we respect their cultural practice without giving two shits about understanding ours. Who openly admits they know next to nothing about animal rights and intend to keep it that way.
Seriously, pick up Animal Liberation from the library and read the first two chapters. There's no gross pictures or overly emotional appeals, but there is a reasoned, calm philosophical discussion about what rights are, what constitutes oppression and injustice and what we mean when we talk about equality.
YES!!
I am so sick of almost every single time I tell someone I'm a vegetarian they look at me as if I've just said I communicate with aliens from the planet Zargon or something. Then they declare (as if I've just offended them by just BEING a vegetarian) "Well I love meat and eat it all the time!" Okay, good for you. I wasn't trying to "convert" you or change your mind. But most people just seem to assume that I'm going to launch into a tirade about meat is horrible and they're horrible people just because I'm a vegetarian. So in order to cut me off at the pass they declare their love of eating as much meat as humanly possible. Me being a vegetarian is not an attack on you!
Maybe YOU don't do it, but I often see vegetarians make sarcastic remarks about what I'm eating, like "I can hear your lunch screaming" and so. A lot of vegetarians have this unbearably annoying holier-than-thou attitude. I believe there's a lot of prejudice agains vegetarians held by meat-eaters, but there are also lots of vegetarians who act like religious fundamentalists.
What's your point exactly? A lot of meat eater spew sanctimonious crap too. I can't tell you the number of times I have been made fun of, insulted, and reduced to tears. Some people are just assholes, on both sides. Learn to deal with it and be mature and thoughtful enough to not lump all people who employ a different value system than you together.
What's your point exactly? A lot of meat eater spew sanctimonious crap too. I can't tell you the number of times I have been made fun of, insulted, and reduced to tears. Some people are just assholes, on both sides. Learn to deal with it and be mature and thoughtful enough to not lump all people who employ a different value system than you together.
Or read 'Ecofeminism' by Vandana Shiva and Maria Mies.
"Just wanted to point this out:
'My main concern is sexism, such as the sexism rampant in PETA's advertising. That is really the only time I get close to animal rights.'
Animal rights movement has a serious problem with sexism.
Author freely admits that looking at a PETA ad is about all the effort she's put into understanding the perspective of animal rights."
THANK YOU! YES!
I haven't read all the comments posted on this issue (in this thread or others) so excuse me if I'm rehashing something that has already been exhausted. I, too, am not one to "push my beliefs" on those who eat meat, but I will say that even if you don't give a shit about animals, there are human consequences on the factory farming industry. Being aware of shitty labor conditions is a part of my feminism. And while I, too, shop at stores that employ women making ridiculously low wages, I respect and attempt to put my money where my mouth is. And just as there are non-feminists involved in anti-sweatshop campaigns, I'm not willing to devalue their cause just because I don't like the messenger. I'm so bored with endless "i love meat so there" statements by those who are preemptively defensive about their eating preferences. Cool, fine, eat meat, but quit acting like you're put out by those who include animal rights in their politics. Just as I buy shoes that may not be sweatshop-free, I'm sure as hell not gonna argue that there isn't anything wrong with that.
Surprisingly, I'm not sure anyone made this point before. It's very true though. Thank you for bringing it up
Am I the only one who would love to see the editors of feministing give their thoughts on these issues?
The only thing I ever remember seeing about animal rights on here was a post celebrating a female bullfighter. BLECH
I think that all discussions regarding PETA need to more broadly acknowledge the overwhelming complexities and diversity of the 'animal rights movement'. There is a vast amount of causes, ambitions, beliefs, and people within this movement and it's unfair to dismiss them all simply because some have offended you. (For example, right now, the Toronto Humane Society and the Ontario SPCA are embroiled in a battle regarding the shelter's intense policies on adoption and euthanasia-- both sides obviously care about the animals, but they have extremely different perspectives).
I am interested in fighting to ensure that animals cease to be treated as as simply utterly disposable commodities for human pleasure (I live near a highway; you can see the pig trucks rolling by every day... the animals are transported for days in appalling conditions to be slaughtered. It really makes one reconsider the bacon). However, in my opinion, the movement must remain rationally grounded, and cease picking battles based on 'cuteness' or sensationalism.
Both feminism and animal movements are based in challenging standard cultural assumptions. It would be nice to see this acknowledged, and... as an ecofeminist, it would be nice to see our viewpoints (and our food sources) treated with respect rather than contempt.
This comment has been deleted.
I know that I am not allowed to make personal attacks, but I really want to. Instead I will see what happens when I report this as offensive.
Brava for showing restraint and doing the mature thing.
Given that not eating meat is likely to get one branded as a weirdo, and that forcefully expressing unpopular opinions can lead to being socially ostracized, it is hardly surprising that many vegetarians deliberately refrain from trying to force their ideas down the throats of meat-eaters. Nonetheless, those who are vegetarian for ethical reasons ipso facto believe that eating meat is immoral. There is thus a constant tension between the vegetarian's ethical convictions and the desire to be socially considerate and inoffensive. I imagine it's a bit like being an abolitionist living among slave-owning friends and family in the antebellum South. As for meat-eaters, they correctly perceive that the vegetarianism of even the most polite and self-effacing vegetarian is a severe reproach to their habits. Simply to say quietly at a dinner party, "No, thanks, I don't eat meat" is in fact to call out every meat-eater in the room and accuse them of immorality.
This doesn't mean that the ethical vegetarian has no respect in general for the meat-eater as a person. Indeed, the vegetarian may even recognize that a particular meat-eater, who, say, volunteers at a shelter for the homeless or simply works hard to support their family, may be in some ways more ethical than she is. Still, when it comes to eating meat, there is an irreconcilable difference and it won't do to say "Live and let live." After all, the meat-eater won't live and let live with cows, pigs, deer, and any number of our fellow creatures.