I'll admit, this is a subject that I have been craving to post for quite some time now. Let me start off by introducing myself, this is my first post, although a true fan of feministing and an avid supporter of all things feminist, my interest and concentration in graduate school is more along the lines of animal rights, sociology of animals and ecofeminism, I have been a feminist probably since high school and an animal rightest since undergrad. It is only within the last few years that I started to really develop an passion in ecofeminism and the relationship between women's rights and animal rights. I write this post, because the more I learn about feminism and animal rights, it is obvious to me that a profound and deep correlation exists between both, although some feminists may argue otherwise.
I write this entry because it is my passion to begin a deeper conversation with feminists [and others] about women's rights, animal rights and the interrelationship between the two. I am vegan and believe that my passion for "rights" in general encompasses all individuals, including those that are non-human or nature for that matter.
So is there a difference between us (women) and them (nonhuman animals)? This leading question is a profound cornerstone in many philosophical and social conversations. As a very proud feminist and vegan, it was always clear to me that there was a distinct connection between both feminism and vegetarianism. Throughout my career as a social activist, it has become increasingly fascinating that there are many feminists who are not vegetarian and vegetarians who are not feminists. In addition, there are many women who are part of the feminist movement, but not part of the animal rights movement and vice versa. Although, some individuals are not simultaneously part of both movements, the objective for both feminism and vegetarianism works to create a society that is equal for all living beings [and the environment], that is not oppressive and exploitative.
Vegetarianism is deeply connected to the Women's Suffrage Movement. This connection illustrates a long desire for social equality for all (Leneman 1997). Many leaders in the Women's Suffragist Movement were vegetarian and advocates for other progressive movements (Leneman 1997) (George 1994). Many women during this era made the connection between the killing of animals for food and the killing for fur. One woman, Maude Arncliffe- Sennett (1913) remarked on an advertisement of a model wearing a fur coat: "these women all seem to me hateful - they represent so much killing!"
Margaret Cousins was a woman heavily involved in the Vegetarian Movement and the Women's Suffrage Movement. When addressing the Vegetarian Society in 1907 she stressed that women should adopt a simple diet of grains/fruits/nuts to reduce the amount of time spent in the kitchen in preparing meat meals (Leneman 1997). Cousins declared that if women switched to a meatless diet they would have more time to think about social problems and use their intellectualism (Leneman 1997).
Women that were activists in the Vegetarian Movement also became advocates for the Anti-Vivisection Movement. Women were identifying the victimization of women and victimization of animals. "It [anti-vivisection movement] taught that if there is this kinship physically between all living creatures, surely responsibility rests upon us to see that these creatures, who have nerves as we have, who are made of the same flesh and blood as we are, who have minds differing from ours not in kind but in degree, should be protected, as far as in our power lies, from ill-treatment, cruelty, and abuse of every kind" (Louise Lind-af-Hageby 1913).
This historical connection is only one example regarding the interrelationship between woman and animals. There are other significant cultural influences that suggest a gendered relationship between these two populations. Carol J. Adams, author of "Sexual Politics of Meat" and "Pornography of Meat" illustrates this example better then I ever could ever explain, her works are a powerful resource to connect this relationship. She discusses that our language is a precursor to exploitation of women and animals.
Adams (1990) suggests a popular example when a woman has been victimized by a man, "I felt like a piece of meat" (Adams 1990: 53). The aforementioned phrase is used frequently by battered women and illustrates that they do not want to be treated in the terrible fashion that animals are treated. Women that are victimized by men experience feelings of exploitation and objectification. Using phrases as the latter indicate that animals are treated poorly and that women do not want to be treated in the same way. In regard to the victimization of women, they express that the killing experience for animals is equitable to the experience of rape or violence against women (Adams 1990).
Finally, the feminist movement and animal rights movement signify the values of equality, justice, and rights. However, I write this piece because it is continuously perplexing to me that these movements do not come together in "mainstream" activism (albeit ecofeminism does this). This "joint movement" could assist in creating an equal society for all oppressed individuals.
The purpose of this entry was a small sample of one my interests, in which I hope to begin a positive conversation about this subject with the feministing community. My questions to the community are: Do you believe that feminists should be vegetarian? Do you think that there is a strong interrelationship between women and animals?
(Please note: if you are interested in the cited works in this entry, I can provide those to you if wanted)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is There a Difference Between Us and Them? The Interrelationship Between Women and Animals.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14344
To add to the venerable Carol Adams, I'd also recommend Diane Beers' "For the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals," a social history of the animal rights movement in the U.S. Beers does not discuss the vegetarian movement, but it and the animal rights movement were closely intertwined. Beers does an exceptional job in emphasizing the ways in which women, many of whom were vegetarian, comprised the bulk of and sustained the animal rights movement in the U.S.
As for your last two questions: I also identify as an ecofeminist, even though I am vegetarian foremost out of spiritual beliefs (Buddhism). To sum up my beliefs quickly, I believe that a culture of violence against any living creature legitimates and promotes a culture of violence against all living creatures, especially women.
I just graduated with my master's degree in history and my dissertation is on the gendered construction of meat and masculinity in the twentieth century U.S. I think many feminist omnivores would be surprised upon discovering the myriad of ways in which meat-eating contributes to and reinforces the same patriarchal attitudes they're fighting to abolish. But in my experiences, it's difficult to get meat-eaters, feminist or not, to look beyond the "but it tastes good" aspect of meat-eating to see the greater feminist, environmental and ethical implications their diets hold. If anyone is interested in reading my dissertation, send me a note and I'll send you a copy of it.
"I think many feminist omnivores would be surprised upon discovering the myriad of ways in which meat-eating contributes to and reinforces the same patriarchal attitudes they're fighting to abolish."
If this is what your dissertation is about, then it does sound like something I'd like to read. I keep reading what you said above without much further explanation. Sounds interesting.
I think people don't see the connection between vegetarianism and feminism because they simply don't see animals as being on the same level as humans and so, don't see them as being as deserving of our efforts as women. And to honest, I don't see animals as being on the same level but I do seem them as deserving a habitat that lets them act in the way their instincts tell them to act.
"As for your last two questions: I also identify as an ecofeminist, even though I am vegetarian foremost out of spiritual beliefs (Buddhism). To sum up my beliefs quickly, I believe that a culture of violence against any living creature legitimates and promotes a culture of violence against all living creatures, especially women."
You realize plants are also living creatures, right?
Creature is a kind of ambiguous phrase, but it's generally understood to refer only to animals. Of course, animals, fungi, plants are all somewhat arbitrary groupings, and we all eat many thousands of animals each day, so such an absolute statement remains problematic anyways.
A more complicated discussion of whether there's an ethical imperative to set aside any organisms as inappropriate for consumption, how to determine which ones, and so forth (for instance, one might distinguish "killing for food" and "scavaging carrion" in their ethical system) is much longer however, and probably much harder.
Feminism has altered predominant perspectives in a wide range of areas within Western society, ranging from culture to law. Feminist activists have campaigned for women's legal rights (rights of contract, property rights, voting rights); for women's right to bodily integrity and autonomy, for abortion rights, and for reproductive rights (including access to contraception and quality prenatal care)
world of warcraft gold
Violence is different from death. What the poster was probably talking about was the inhumane way of treating animals in the meat industry. You can fight for animal rights without resorting to vegetarianism as long as you have your rationale and believe in it.
Equating plants to animals does not make much sense to me because plants have regenerative abilities that animals do not. Leaves and fruits plucked are replaced, wings and breasts are not.
Regeneration has little to do with it. Suffering does. If a man beats a woman over the head, her body will probably regenerate. But will her mind? And either way, she will have suffered. My mom and her partner beat each other up one time, and both of them physically recovered, but the whole thing caused a lot of pain and suffering. That is not somehow more acceptable than chopping off a chicken's wing.
"You can fight for animal rights without resorting to vegetarianism as long as you have your rationale and believe in it."
This is not true at all. Do you believe the same about human rights? You can fight for human rights without "resorting" to respecting the human right to life and freedom "as long as you have your rationale and believe in it"? What a bizarre statement.
i think feminism and veganism in america are so associated with each other because of the extreme cultural significance of meat here. as carol adams showed in "the pornography of meat," advertizing of meat is so sexist and so vile, as is advertizing of women, that it's impossible for feminists not to see the connection. i don't think it's the same in many other cultures, and certainly not this extreme.
many hindus are vegetarian (not my family) and traditional hindus are strict about widows being vegetarian, since they're supposed to give up all pleasures of life. growing up in that culture, it was kinda feministic for me to rebel against vegetarianism. i've realized later that it's not the way to be radical. now i usually never eat meat, milk or fish, though i still love the taste and give in occasionally. so i have a lot of respect for feminists who maintain their veganism.
i don't think it's universally wrong to consume meat, because in many parts of the world, vegetation is scarce, so people have a meat based diet. meat consumption also makes sense for some climatesn and some nutritional reasons, when vegetables aren't adequate. i think humans have always been a part of the food chain so it's not "unnatural" to eat meat either. besides, just as animals have lives, plants have lives and creating a hierarchy between organisms with sensation and plants is just as arbitrary as the hierarchy between humans and animals.
however, what's wrong is the amount of meat we consume, and many people's attitudes about it. western countries, and countries that are westernizing fast are consuming wayyy too much meat and it shows in our health. the concept of factory farming of animals is also wrong to me. meat is not supposed to be cheap, because we aren't supposed it eat it often! then there's the obvious torture of animals in factory farming. hunting for food isn't wrong to me, but for sports it is.
so i support and admire vegan feminists in this context. giving up animal products is a strong and effective political statement. there's no way to defend consumption of factory farmed animal products for feminists who are informed about the issue.
animal research is another thing i'm conflicted about. for sure it's wrong. as we haven't used results from nazi experiments on humans because they were unethical, so it is wrong to not apply the same standard to animals. any experiment that causes pain is absolutely wrong. however, being a medical student, i can see how much knowledge has been obtained from animal experiments that don't cause direct pain. ultimately it doesn't really matter whether the experiment causes pain or not, because the concept of using an animal for our benefit is unethical. switching to strictly human based clinical trials or observational studies should provide different, but equally important knowledge, but animal research is a hard privilege to let go.
"just as animals have lives, plants have lives and creating a hierarchy between organisms with sensation and plants is just as arbitrary as the hierarchy between humans and animals."
I disagree, sensation is an incredibly important factor. We can use the amount of suffering or happiness that results from an action to judge the morality of it. Of course, that would include animal suffering as well, seeing as how they have the capacity to suffer.
"then there's the obvious torture of animals in factory farming. hunting for food isn't wrong to me, but for sports it is."
Even saying "torture" when describing what happens to animals betrays that you yourself don't believe that they're sensations are trivial, or perhaps equivalent to plants.
But another part of this statement bothers me. You don't seem to believe that people are justified in killing animals for sport-- for pleasure -- but they are justified in killing for food. What if they've got access to enough vegetarian food to be healthy and satiated (the situation for most people in the west at least), but they just like the taste of meat? Isn't it then, to a large degree, killing for pleasure?
As someone from a vegetarian family surely you know that meat is no necessity and people consume it for pleasure.
I'm surprised by how many meat eaters will pass judgment on practices involving animals that aren't from their culture. They say that mink farming/bullfighting/hunting/eating cats is wrong or "cruel." Of course none of these people have any interest in wearing fur, seeing a bullfight, or killing and eating an animal themselves (especially one they deem cute), but they do eat meat.
Allowing animals to suffer for the purpose of pleasure, however it manifests, is wrong. Or at least it is to be avoided to whatever degree is possible. Veganism, is the only really ethically consistent position to adopt.
"Veganism, is the only really ethically consistent position to adopt."
This may be true, but we've discussed before on this site that it requires a certain amount of social privilege to be able to live ethically consistent lives. I think it came up in a discussion of "outing" yourself as feminist in job interviews. Anyway, I think that privilege is really, really important to keep in mind.
I've worked with poverty groups in the past, so I know how true this is, but the argument can also be made that the more people adopt vegetarian/vegan lifestyles, the more prices for veggie foods will drop and therefore become more affordable to greater numbers of people. As it is, a four-piece box of Quorn chicken patties costs less than a package of four chicken breasts and is healthier to boot.
It's not just a cost thing though. I'm a vegetarian and I've had this argument with other vegetarians and vegans. It really comes down to education about vegetarianism and veganism and how easy it is for those who are not as privileged (poor, have a family to feed, not a lot of free time to look for these foods or the ability to travel to stores that carry certain vegan options, etc...) So it is not as easy as to just say, "But being a vegan/vegetarian is really cheaper."
Yeah, I don't think it's the cost so much as the effort and time it takes to change a diet. This applies also if someone who grew up on an unhealthy wants to change to a healthy diet. It's not usually healthy to simply and suddenly cut meat out of a diet. I have gradually found out which places have cheaper nuts, seeds, tofu and beans and am still gradually finding out how to use tofu and beans in different ways. I've also gradually found out more about nutrition in foods. Like many people, I grew up usually eating suppers that had a meat, a vegetable, and a carb so my suppers are quite different now.
I also laughed a little at the part about Margaret Cousins. I find raw vegetables pretty boring so they're always cooked with pasta or rice or something.
Social privilege isn't in and of itself an argument against veganism. As veganism becomes more widespread it will be more accessible to disadvantaged communities.
In the mean time, I think it's important to keep in mind that being able to purchase meat relatively cheaply is the consequence of an agricultural industry that systematically exploits poor communities. Itin fact, has more human rights violations, and is one of the most exploitative industries in the U.S. .
Check out this article from human rights watch:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/08/02/meatpackings-human-toll
You make a very good point. I think we should be working toward fixing problems of human exploitation in the meat industry at the structural level- legislation and so forth. I'm just concerned that a focus on the consumer end of things ends up guilt-tripping people in poverty for not being able to go veg right now, because of the way the system is right now. I think maybe I agree with the goals of ecofeminism but not (always) the means.
Where are these vast populations of poor people who are hearing a vegan message, listening to it, processing it, thinking "God, I should really become vegan, but I just can't right now because of my socioeconomic situation," and then feeling guilty about the whole process? This seems like a straw (wo)man to me.
All oppressors should be educated about the negative consequences of their actions. Poor people who eat meat are oppressors. So are rich people who eat meat. Should gays not educate homophobic black people because homophobic black people already have enough to worry about, what with being black and all? Should blacks not educate racist white gay people because racist white gay people already have enough to worry about with the whole gay thing? Just because someone is oppressed in one way doesn't give them an excuse to oppress others in another way, and the same applies to poor people who consume the products of factory farms.
If there were thousands of poor people who were crippled by extreme guilt over to an inability to become vegan I might look at this differently, but I refuse to believe this is an actual phenomenom. The vegan movement still has VERY low visibility in the general culture.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I certainly don't think there's this vast population of poor people feeling guilty over not being vegan out there anywhere. I think that people who are living around or below the poverty line don't have the time, personal energy, etc to do the research necessary to get to that point. I absolutely agree that being poor doesn't mean someone is incapable of processing the concept of veganism. I'm thinking more in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: if you're spending your time and personal energy worrying about whether you're going to lose your job or your house and how you're going to feed your kids at all, you're not going to be able to go the extra several steps to learn how to find organic groceries and how to cover nutritional needs with legumes.
So if someone is in this kind of state, scraping by, and someone comes along and says "hey you, you're an oppressor! You're causing damage to the environment and harm to animals!" and then disappears, expecting people to figure out veganism on their own--this is what I mean by privileged people doing guilt tripping. If vegan groups are doing what you describe, taking their own time and resources to do outreach and education in a way that respects the needs of working class people, then that actually sounds fantastic to me. I wasn't aware that anything like that existed, but if it does I don't see anything wrong with it.
OK, I see where you're coming from. Sorry if I came off as too strident earlier. You're right, class definitely affects the type of opportunities that people have, and it's harder for poor, non-college-educated people to research about alternative lifestyles than it is for rich, college-educated people.
I live in Portland, Oregon, which is sort of a hot bed of vegan activity (so it's not necessarily typical). But here, every year a local organization puts forward something called "Try Vegan Week" where interested people can talk to experts and learn everything they need to know in order to successfully become vegan. Most of the key events are free (or can be free if an individual doesn't have enough money). There are events that specifically address issues like being a vegan on a tight budget, or having convenient vegan food when one has little time to spend on cooking.
Also, the Portland vegan community currently contains LOTS of people with low income levels (although, I admit, not very many with low education levels--more people who have intentionally opted out of the world of competitive careerism because it's inconsistent with their values).
I'm surprised as to why Michael Vick faced legal sanctions from the same government that subsidizes the meat industry. Sure, one animal's suffering is for sport and another for food, but both are treated in brutally inhumane ways.
It's blatant cultural imperialism.
Vick owned all of his dogs. He was also using pit bulls and pit-mixes, a breed specifically developed for dog fighting. In his world, dog fighting is a totally appropriate use of animals. And any defense of this kind varies little from a defense of eating meat.
The only difference was that dog fighting is not culturally condoned.
"Veganism, is the only really ethically consistent position to adopt."
I would disagree with this, or at least I would argue that vegetarianism can be ethically consistent. There are ways of going about being a vegetarian that are inconsistent, but there are animal products that can be made ethically and consumed without causing harm to animals. If I raise and care for my own chickens, and treat them humanely, there isn't a lot of ground to argue that my consuming their eggs is wrong, from a strictly utilitarian standpoint. If you add in some sort of right of a chicken to its eggs then yes, vegetarianism is untenable. But I wouldn't really consider that.
I agree. Animal products can be humanely produced. I was generalizing for someone living in an urban situation or who wasn't producing their own food. But clearly, this is not the case for everyone. And even people living in the city have access to farmer's markets where they can get local, humanely raised eggs.
"I disagree, sensation is an incredibly important factor. We can use the amount of suffering or happiness that results from an action to judge the morality of it. Of course, that would include animal suffering as well, seeing as how they have the capacity to suffer."
yes, but we judge the morality of an action by the amount of suffering we PERCEIVE. so let's say we don't understand how much suffering a group of people - poor/minority/women - go through, then we won't see anything wrong with oppressing them. or let's say that a person isn't outwardly expressing suffering, would we be able to judge their action properly and react appropriately?
what i'm saying is that the difference between the suffering of plants and animals is a matter of our perception. of course there seems to be multiple differences, but it doesn't mean that we won't discover later that plants have other ways of showing "suffering." besides, if suffering is the main issue, is it okay to anesthetize an animal and then kill and eat it? there are a small number of people who are FRUITARIANS - they eat only fruits that don't kill the plant while extracting, so no potatoes, cabbage, greens, wheat, etc. do you think they're at a moral higher ground than vegans? they might even be damaging their own healths for the cause of not killing life.
i think this difference between sentient/non-sentient life forms is a weak theory to defend vegetarianism/veganism. for me a much stronger argument is environmental preservation. this includes eating little meat and fish, and not growing mono-crops to make processed food, that deplete the soil of nutrients. it also supports local foods, as growing genetecially engineered foods in unnatural habitats, or transporting vegetables from far away is very environmentally degrading.
which brings me to your west coast comment - if people have all the necessary vegetarian foods then is it wrong for them to consume meat? not if those vegetables aren't locally grown, so it harms the environment in transportation, but the meat is local. if the deer population in your area is high, and you can hunt a deer to feed your family for days, why would you buy more non-local fruits and veggies instead? you may be supporting evil Monsanto by doing that. now of course in reality many of us don't plan our diets so ethically and then we are in the wrong. i'm guilty of that too.
so again, i believe eating meat is not inherently wrong. herbivores eat plats, carnivores eat meat, and omnivores have evolved to eat both. in some cases it may even be more wrong to eat vegetarian processed foods that damage the environment. eating meat is only wrong in certain contexts, like the current industrialization of meat. i admire people who've made the conscious decision to harm the environment less and not take part in animal torture, but i see no basis for saying meat eating is wrong.
You seem to be making a very anti-realist argument here. Yes, any empirical scientific observations we make about animal nervous systems and behavior vs. plants are biased towards our own experience and existing theories. You seem to be saying that the animals only appear to suffer, and plants do not, but we can't say for sure that they do.
Not that there's anything wrong with being so agnostic when it comes to science, but with a theory of animal suffering so consistent, committing to it doesn't seem like such a gamble. I prefer to err on the side of empathy for animals. To just say we don't know while indulging in the products of their extremely likely suffering reveals an extremely acute bias-- you'll act in the way that's most convenient for you.
As for plants, more of them die in the production of a omnivore diet than a vegetarian one. as for them feeling pain-- I doubt it. They have no nervous system so whatever they "feel" would be profoundly different from anything we could feel. Also, it wouldn't make any evolutionary sense for plants to evolve a pain response. Pain is an acute signal that tells an animal to move or act in response to tissue damage.
As for placing environmental concerns above those of suffering, should that only extend to animals? Surely overpopulation is a culprit in environmental destruction. Should we therefor cut down on the population by suspending aid to nations in famine (we could also save carbon on the shipping!)?
famines are often the result of worsening climate change. no we don't need to stop sending aid to these countries, we need to make sure they don't need aid. and that involves not wasting so much ourselves. stopping overpopulation shouldn't focus on just overpopulated third world countries, because they use much much less resources than wester countries. why don't we stop the car and plastic product overpopulation in america first?
you choose to err on the side of empathy for animals? did i imply i'm not empathetic to animals? i'm just saying the difference between living things that feel pain and those that don't should not be the basis for veganism or vegetarianism.
i have a career in the sciences myself, so i'm not foreign to what science has concluded about organisms with CNS. that's why i asked whether it would be okay to anesthetize animals and then kill them. from an ethical standpoint i think relying on this sensient hierarchy is fallible.
i think i'm being more of a realist than you, since i'm moving away from this sensient/non argument that meat eaters easily argue against.
just as animals have lives, plants have lives and creating a hierarchy between organisms with sensation and plants is just as arbitrary as the hierarchy between humans and animals
But from an ethical perspective, it is important to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient beings, if you take suffering to be an ethical issue. In most discussions of vegetarianism in philosophy and applied ethics contexts, this distinction is thought to be the most relevant one. As far as we can tell, plants are not conscious in any way or capable of feeling pleasure and pain. They do not actively try to avoid danger and death, and display a fearful reaction or a response to pain. But most animals definitely do display these responses, and so their consciousness and ability to suffer is the relevant issue here.
plants are only non-sentient as we perceive them. and so for me making this distinction is as based on perception as is the distinction that some people make between humans and animals.
But the point is we have no evidence that plants are conscious and experience pleasure and pain, which is not the case with animals. And the claim that they might be sentient but we have no way of knowing it, since they don't respond to stimulus the way animals do, is a slippery slope. Rocks could also be sentient but unable to communicate with us, for that matter. What we do know is that animals have nervous systems that allow them to feel pain and, in some cases, be conscious of their surroundings and engage in goal-oriented behavior (like trying to avoid being killed), and that is something an ethical person has to take seriously, even if it just leads to objecting to inhumane farming and slaughtering practices but not to adopting a full-on vegetarianism.
it's not a slippery slope for me because i'm not defending veganism on the basis of animals feel pain and plants don't. i don't even believe it's inherently wrong to eat meat.
yes we could eventually argue that rocks have sense or something, which is why i don't base my arguments on animals feeling pain. have you never killed insects of any kind? if you haven't had to deal with roaches, then what do you think people should do about that? live with them? do you think it's wrong to kill lice, because i've heard of that argument. insects have a CNS too.
humans, like all other organisms will do what's necessary for survival. but where meat eating is not a matter of survival, and especially when over eating is bad for our survival, we need to stop eating meat, or at least reduce it.
I think you've misunderstood my point.
If your claim is that differentiating animals from plants is completely arbitrary so therefore there's no basis for vegegarianism or veganism, then there's a huge problem, because there are good reasons to draw a line between plants and animals. But I'm not sure how you got out of that the idea that we shouldn't kill insects. Insects don't appear to be sentient beings, and my comment was in reference to sentient beings.
I think the reason that feminism and the animal rights movement haven't merged is that they are not aware that their interests overlap, and because they tend to fight against each other's interests. For example, PETA's campaigning is notorious for its blatant sexism and objectification of women. Terrifyingly ironic considering they are fighting against objectification of an equally disturbing nature.
Peta may be the most popular animal rights org, but there are many that do not promote animal rights or vegetarianism on the backs of women. To name just a quick few: Feminists for Animal Rights, Compassion Over Killing and Mercy for Animals.
I completely agree.
But, I did laugh when I read the Margaret Cousins part. I spend way more time cooking as a vegan now than I did as an omnivore.
I enjoy it, though, so it's all good.
I agree that this is a really interesting topic that has a lot of nuances. I'm not at all sure where I stand on it, either. I personally am vegetarian but not vegan-I eat milk, cheese, and eggs. I made this decision at age three, so no one is entirely certain what my reasoning was.
Now as an adult, I've maintained my vegetarianism mostly out of habit and personal taste, and it's always just felt like an added bonus that I can claim I don't contribute (as much, anyway) to harming animals. Not the most flattering thing to admit about myself, but it's the truth.
I can get very upset about how animals are treated, whether they're being kept as a food source or as pets. I do believe that animals need to have their rights protected by laws. I also see the connection to feminist issues with sexist advertising and with things like the connection between animal abuse and (human) family abuse. These ideas are compelling and very important to me.
BUT--I can also see vegetarianism, and especially veganism, as something that is not universally available. It costs money to get your protein from non-meat sources, and I struggle to get my own nutritional needs met even with dairy and eggs in the mix. Many people who work minimum wage don't have the resources, in terms of money and of time for self-education and food preparation, to go vegan. These same people--working class and/or people of color--already feel marginalized from feminism for reasons of history, culture, etc. If vegetarianism gets tied inextricably into what it means to be a feminist, then we run the risk of making feminism an exclusive upper-class white women's club (more than it already is).
Right now, at the end of the day, preventing this kind of exclusion is more important to me than helping animals. I would like to do both, but if I'm forced to choose I'll pick people over animals every time. I understand that this kind of hierarchical ranking has a bad history, but in this instance I'm not sure how to get around it. I still feel that people are more important.
It costs less to get protein from plants, and you don't need as much protein as everyone seems to make it out to be. Weight for weight seitan has more protein than a steak would, and beans are as dirt cheap as food can be. I am unemployed right now and have very little money coming it, I can't even afford rent right now, but I get all my nutrients and eat extremely well for a fraction of the cost of an omnivorous diet. Likewise, ever hear of Food Not Bombs? Its an organization that basically gives out free food, food they grow themselves or that is donated by stores and farmers alike, its just more sustainable and far more affordable to give out plant food than it is to include eggs milk and meat.
"ever hear of Food Not Bombs?"
That was part of my point above. No, many people have not heard of these things and are not educated on veganism or vegetarianism. Now, imagine living in Section 8 housing with three kids and working three jobs. The easiest/cheapest food sources in these neighborhoods are not vegan-friendly at all. How are you going to lecture someone in this situation who barely has time to shop for food about what they buy when really they hardly have any options, money or knowledge about what you're talking about? This is my MAIN problem with vegans and vegetarians (even though I'm one of them). We don't recognize our privilege in this.
So because most poor people lack knowledge about how to successfully become vegan, we should continue to keep them in the dark, or we risk becoming oppressive? Huh?
This argument almost seems patronizing to poor people. "Sorry, you can't handle this information about veganism, it's only for people in the top three income brackets."
Besides, where do you see all these vegans going to housing projects and stridently lecturing the people who live there?
The fact of the matter is a lot of poor people make bad, unhealthy dietary decisions, and it's largely because they're denied educational opportunities through unequal schooling systems, lower social capital, etc. Of course, advertising for junk food and meat always somehow finds a way of reaching every person, in every income bracket.
I think plenty of poor people would be either indifferent or happy to learn about cheap, healthy, convenient sources of food near where they live that are also ethically produced. And these sources exist.
I understand how you could come to the conclusion that some of us here are talking down to poor people, and it's a very real concern. This isn't my intended meaning, which I explained in a reply to your comment above. But you're right that there's a fine line between thinking about other people's needs and deciding their needs for them, and I'll work to keep that in mind as I continue thinking about this topic.
One of the biggest parallels between the movements is the issue of biological determinism.
Women are often viewed as being more "animalistic" then men. We've all heard the stereotypes about women being more hormonal, instinctual and emotional then men, who are by default supposedly more rational.
But the primary consequence of a deterministic position is the supposed "purpose" of women's bodies. They are suppose to look sexually available and attractive. We see countless examples in pop-culture of judgment being passed over women's bodies, as if they we're public property up for discussion.
Fatphobia is largely the product of the belief that a woman has some how wronged the public by not conforming to a certain look.
Pro-lifers will argue that women shouldn't have a choice about pregnancies because women's bodies and uterus's are "for" having children. Until recently a married women couldn't be raped because as a wife, her body was "for" her husband.
When it comes to animals a classic argument is that animals are here "for" us to eat or use as we see fit.
In both cases, biological determinism is used to justify the negation of the interests of either animals or women. The suffering of animals is discounted as being trivial in the production of meat, eggs, dairy, fur, ect. Women's suffering and interests are discounted as being inferior to those of men.
At the heart of sexism, lies biological determinism. If a feminist wants to do away with this as it applies to people, she or he is left with little ground to keep it around to justify the abuse of animals.
Thanks for presenting the biological determinism argument- I think a lot of us really appreciate having the dots connected fairly explicitly.
I'm still not entirely sure I buy the argument, though. What you're saying is based on the idea that men = women = animals, and a lot of people (myself included) believe that men = women, but that animals can still be legitimately placed lower on the hierarchy. I think you can believe that biological determinism hurts women (and I do) without believing that no one should ever eat animals- I don't see a strong enough dissonance there.
Now if you do believe that men = women = animals, then yeah, the argument makes perfect sense. But a lot of people don't.
I don't think there's any dissonance here at all. It's entirely possible to recognize that animals do not exist simply to satisfy our palates while at the same time still placing them "lower on the hierarchy." Just because we sit at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we have the right to eat everything below us.
"Just because we sit at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we have the right to eat everything below us."
I've been staring at this sentence for several minutes thinking "but... then what the hell DOES it mean that we sit at the top of the food chain?" But I think I understand now... you mean just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD, right? From an ethical perspective, not necessarily from a biological or evolutionary perspective.
i'm arguing some abstract points here, so hopefully it's not too annoying or convoluted.
i don't like the "top of the food chain" image in an ethical discussion. i know it's convenient to use in biology. but carnivores after death provide nutrients to the soil, which creates the vegetation that sustains herbivores, and so on. it's really more of a cycle that needs to be in balance. we humans are also a part of the cycle, but we're continuously putting it out of balance, not just by excessive meat eating, but many other ways of environmental exploitations. in that way, eating very little meat is a part of being an ecofeminist, and being vegan is even more of a political statement.
to say that "Just because we sit at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we have the right to eat everything below us," is very paternalistic, don't you think? you're reinforcing a biological hierarchy, which is often the attitude of sexist/racist people. it's like you're doing the "lower" beings a favor by not eating them. but if you think about the food chain as a cycle, then you're actually doing yourself a favor by not destroying the balance. humans, animals and plants are equal contributors in the food cycle. it's also why i don't think eating meat is inherently wrong.
I don't believe men=women. I believe that men and women deserve equal consideration of their interests and needs. In many areas men and women have the same interests: self-determination, freedom from abuse are two that come to mind. Some ways the needs will differ, for example, men don't have an interest in a right to have an abortion. But granting that right to a women doesn't mean that she's being treated preferentially.
As for animals, there is no principled reason not to give them equal consideration. However, their needs and interests will be much simpler than those of a human.
I was using shorthand to imply that men and women have/deserve social and legal equality, not to mean that they are exactly alike. Sorry if that was unclear.
Yes, I think that feminism and vegetarianism/veganism can, in fact, be interrelated. My personal reasons have been a little different from what you've stated, though.
When I was young and lived with my parents, we would not have meat everyday - pasta w red sauce and a salad was a meal at least twice a week. In college I was vegetarian for about 2 years and since then I've been an "opportunistic omnivore" - living on Ramen, peanut butter, and canned soup in grad school - and now am a "mindful omnivore".
My viewpoint with meat and feminism is something recent for me and actually based on resource consumption rather than the animal his/her self.
I see feminism as challenging the privilege and sense of entitlement that society grants some people. As a feminist, I have difficulty feeling that *I* am entitled to consume the vast amount of resources required in industrial meat production.
The majority of my protein consumption are beans and locally produced eggs, and soon I'll have my own pet chickens. I don't buy milk because I never use it before it turns, but I do purchase cheese and yogurt from specific sources. Occasionally I'll cook meat, but only from local farms (most are non-certified organic) and almost never beef, one of the most intensive meats out there.
While writing this last paragraph, I realized I would probably be entirely vegetarian at this point if I weren't working my boyfriend off his previous school diet of fast food and freezer pizza which provided him with meat during at least one meal each day. Because of this, we have meat about every 3-4 days, but in small amounts: a pork chop shared between us, a few strips of bacon each, a chicken breast cooked up and tossed in with the pasta.
The thing with "mindful" omnivore or even vegetarian is that its still exploiting an animal's life and forcing them to live the life we've decided for them for one's own pleasure, labels like free range and organic may make one feel better but the animal still dies, is still killed when they can no longer provide eggs or milk, overall its interests mean nothing, and precious resources are still wasted. Their suffering matters but their lives and self interest does not in that mind frame.
I find that I hit a wall whenever I attempt to assign higher-order needs to most animals (a tasteless example would be the infamous footage of the founder of PETA playing classical music and otherwise creating a "pleasant environment" for a turkey, as though these things were especially pleasurable to the bird) I'm wary of saying that I've made a decision for my cats and my dogs as to how they want to live. Perhaps if they could enunciate the way that they feel, they would tell me that they would rather I had not raised them as family the way I have, and let them be... something else. But I seriously doubt it. They enjoy their lifestyle.
I'll refer again to the "ethical vegetarianism" I alluded to earlier. If one does enough research (and most don't, unfortunately) one can find farms that treat their animals well. This is where I can't make the leap you have - the animals aren't being harmed and aren't callously being subjected to discomfort. To say they're being "exploited" carries, to my ears, an implicit teleological assertion of a "proper" way for them to live in their "natural" state. This same teleology is often used to justify hunting and meat-eating.
In itself I don't see a significant ethical difference between the life of a wild cow and the life of a domesticated cow at a humane farm. I would think in many cases, the latter would be more comfortable. Perhaps there is a problem with using products from an animal that will eventually be slaughtered, I'll give you that. But I don't doubt that there are farms that don't slaughter their livestock. It's certainly not inconceivable.
isn't the whole idea of having pets using animals for your own pleasure? in this case, the pleasure is having company, or having a friend.
many pets are rescued but their homelessness is a result of human practices. neutering your pets is considered good practice because it prevents strays, but aren't you also making you pet's reproductive decisions for them?
or you could say that having pets is a symbiotic relationship - where the animal gets all basic needs met, maybe reproduction, and humans get company. in that way it's not that different from humanely domisticated animals that are killed later for food. the difference is that having pets is culturally sanctioned. perhaps the "entrapped" image of pets is more apparent when you see pet birds that are caged, or animals in zoos.
I think I'm vegetarian for environmental (and financial and personal preference) reasons more than animal rights reasons though the treatment of animals in factory farming is definitely part of it. I remember that the first post on ecofeminism mentioned the environment as well as animals but not much as been written about the environment in following posts. If anyone has anything to write about the environment and feminism I'd be interested. I saw almost nothing about all this at the library when I looked.
Check the ecofeminism bibliography. There are lots of books listed there that connect feminism with the environment.
Thank you for writing something for the other side of the debate. All of those posts about why animals don't deserve to be incorporated into feminism were wearing me OUT
I think there is certainly some overlap between animal rights and feminism, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they strive for the same things, necessarily. When you write "the objective for both feminism and vegetarianism works to create a society that is equal for all living beings [and the environment], that is not oppressive and exploitative." it strikes me as a little bit of a generalization.
Can the two movements be consistent with one another? Certainly they can. But it is dissonant to equate humans with animals with respect to rights.
The animal liberation movement (most of it anyway) are fighting for the most basic of first-order negative liberties - the right not to be harmed or killed, the right to comfort, etc. The feminist movement, on the other hand, has a far broader agenda. Those first-order negative liberties are joined by second- and third-order liberties, concerning freedom and choice and expression. The goals of animal liberation fit nicely into feminism but the goals of feminism, when applied to animal liberation, become almost comically dissonant. To paraphrase Singer, nobody should be arguing for a pig's right to vote.
Oppressed humans can suffer in far more ways than animals can. Therefore I feel as though if I were given a choice I would choose to focus strictly on feminist goals. Thankfully, there's no reason why there ought to be a choice.
Another minor point I wanted to bring up was the use of the term "piece of meat" with regard to sexual assault, which is something I'm a little bit leery of. It's just that sex and eating are often drawn together, both are seen as "achieving sustenance", having needs met. The phrase "peice of meat", to me, implies that the victim is being used and thrown away like food. But rape is more about power than sustenance. I don't know anyone who regards eating meat as the wielding of power over another living being. Hunting is a better analogue. Is the usage of the phrase meant to convey that one is seen as less than a person? I can understand that, it's just the wording of it confuses me. When I was victimized I did not feel as though the acts were done out of sexual desire.
thanks for bringing up the "piece of meat" comment. although it is a common metaphor to describe the treatment of women's bodies, it is not always pertinent. i also didn't feel like a "piece of meat" when i was molested, i felt violated.
"piece of meat" to me is already food, and i don't think people's treatment of food is similar to sexual assault. people's torture of animals is closer to the general violence against oppressed people. sexual assault has as a component the use of sex which makes it different. sometimes it does have sexual attraction as a component, but it can't happen without the assailant thinking he/she is entitled to gratification, which throws victim blaming out the window. people do rape animals, but that's different from eating.
of course it's oppression, biological determinism, and the privilege to assault that connects all these things. but for me it was important to explain the "pice of meat" comment as a side note.
Mankind didn't fight our way to the top of the evolutionary food chain just to resort of eating plants.
Animals eat other animals. It's nature.
/thread
Seriously? That is your argument?
Hahahaha...ha.
I really didn't think there was anyone that still argued that. I guess I was wrong. The stupid-- it burns!
The assertion that it is a human's prerogative to eat animals for sustenance is a widely held conviction. And most underpin the legitimacy of this conviction with appeals to 'nature', our position within it, and the observable actions of other animals.
While this argument isn't especially persuasive it is assuredly prevalent. I'd get used to it if you want the burning to stop. :)
why is this argument not persuasive? the way Asterixx wrote it s/he didn't go into any explanation, so it's rather silly.
but what's your counterargument to the argument that humans are a part of the food chain, and have evolved to eat both plants and animals? it is natural for all creatures to eat whatever is available and can be processed by their bodies.
that's not an argument against vegetarianism/veganism though. because along the same lines of evolution, humans have evolved to have a consscience, so we can make decisions that are above and beyond survival. hence, it's wrong to eat animals in certain contexts, especialyl if we have other food options for adequate survival.
I would imagine that the counter-argument to this from an ecofeminist perspective is the one about biological determinism. See Salad's comment, above.
I would discourage teleological thinking in general! We shouldn't be looking to the way we evolved for guidance into how we should live - that's biology as destiny, and that's what patriarchy has forced on women for time immemorial. The only difference is, it's not God who's telling you what's proper, it's random chance played out through our ancestry. Not much of a trade up, if you ask me :) There is no grand, singular purpose to life written in our bodies that must be fulfilled. Just because you have the parts for reproduction does not mean you ought to reproduce. Just because you have incisors, does not mean you ought to be chewing meat every day. We are greater than these parts of us.
i already said that above:
"that's not an argument against vegetarianism/veganism though. because along the same lines of evolution, humans have evolved to have a consscience, so we can make decisions that are above and beyond survival. hence, it's wrong to eat animals in certain contexts, especially if we have other food options for adequate survival."
"Mankind didn't fight our way to the top of the evolutionary food chain just to resort of eating plants."
What do you think of the argument that men didn't fight their way to the top of the social hierarchy just to resort to giving up male privilege?
I'm not saying the situations are the same or even similar. I'm just saying the arguments employ the same kind of intellectual laziness and can be equally as frustrating when addressed to people who have actual thoughts behind their opinions.
What exactly have you done in your lifetime to fight your way to the top of the food chain? I'd be interested to hear.
I have a very honest, open-minded question, and I hope you forgive me for my ignorance. What I know of ecofeminism is limited to my exposure to it in my Gender Studies classes. It really intrigues me, but it has never been something I have practiced.
I was definitely not raised a vegetarian--my midwestern family eats meat on a regular basis. I attempted it once when I was in high school, but without the support of my family I didn't last too long. I also have nutritional issues--I have been considered anemic off and on since puberty, and my body has trouble digesting soy and certain vegetables, including beans, and my doctor thinks some of this may be related to my crippling migraines. Right now what I'm trying to do is to be an "occassional" vegetarian--avoid meat several days a week, but eat normally the other days. I am making an effort to eat organic/free range meat.
My question is this: is eating meat COMPLETELY incompatible with feminism? I know some of you said in this thread that veganism is the only ethical way to eat, but I'm not sure if I agree. I do definitely feel a connection with animals, and have since I was younger, but I can't seem to shake the habit of eating meat. Reading these threads has made me feel guilty for this, but I'm not quite sure what to do. I guess you could accuse of me of trying to excuse my habits. Honestly, I am having trouble making the connection between "feminism" and "must be vegan." I see the intersectionality between feminism and animal rights for sure, and think both movements have a lot to say to each other. Anyone have any suggestions for me on this? I'm pretty sure I've read every post on the subject here at feministing (including the "get the animals out of our movement" threads) and haven't yet found anything that I completely agree with.
There's no single feminism, so there's no actual answer to "is eating meat COMPLETELY incompatible with feminism?"
The longer answer is: you can't be a vegetarian or a vegan anyways, since everyone eats animals in enormous quantities (many thousands per day, at a minimum). The distinction between animals and plants is pretty arbitrary (and animals and fungi even more so, since we're more closely related to fungi than plants). Most of us draw a fairly arbitrary circle of "closeness to ourselves" on what's unethical to eat, and where we draw that circle is pretty arbitrary; I personally probably wouldn't eat a human or an ape (though that might be a moral failing on my part - while I think we'd all (or mostly all) agree that killing humans for food is very likely to be morally unacceptable (assuming one favours an absolute morality - tricky), ritual funeral cannibalism isn't "obviously wrong" so far as I can see, for instance).
Of course, a lot of the discussion centres around treatment of farmed animals, which is necessarily problematic and anthrocentric - I can make a half-assed guess as to what constitutes cruelty to a chicken, but I can't for an apple tree, or a button mushroom - and probably not even for animals that aren't chordats (I can't begin to empathise with a Jellyfish, for instance, if that idea's even meaningful).
"you can't be a vegetarian or a vegan anyways, since everyone eats animals in enormous quantities (many thousands per day, at a minimum)."
Please explain this. I'm not sure what you're sayinh.
I don't understand that statement either. Are you talking about microbes (bacteria, protozoa etc.) because those aren't animals
scratch that, I forgot there are microscopic animals
I specifically had nematodes in mind, but there are no doubt many other examples one could find.
It sounds like that where you draw the circle for what's acceptable to eat is pretty arbitrary, but for most vegans it's not. Most vegans won't intentionally eat anything that is likely to have experienced pain through a tortuous farming process or a violent death. This is because they think it's wrong to inflict extreme suffering on another being for trivial reasons of taste.
Comparitive biology provides a lot of evidence as to what animals probably experience pain. This category includes chordates, arthopods, and mollusks, aka all the animals that people intentionally eat. Questions of whether jellyfish or sponges experience pain are irrelevant to this since people don't eat them anyway. Similarly, the nematodes point is a nonsequitor as they probably don't experience pain and besides there's nothing we can do to stop consuming them anyway.
I find strange that anyone could seriously compare a person accidently absorbing a microscopic worm into their body with a person paying someone else to cage a chicken for that animal's entire life in a space so small that the chicken can't even turn its body around and then eating the dead body of the chicken for fun after it has been violently killed.
Do you have links to any literature on the nervous complexity of invertebrates? The way I learned their biology years ago left me with the impression that their range of sensation could only be fairly limited - pressure and heat, perhaps, but pain as we commonly understand it would require something more sophisticated than the ganglion structure we commonly see in mollusks and the like. But if there's been research I haven't seen I'm eager to read it.
Well, you sort of caught me with my pants down. . .the pain capacity of invertebrates isn't exactly a field of expertise for me. I mainly am bothered when people try to minimize the suffering of farm animals by comparing them to plants, or nematodes, or whatever.
That said, from what I understand, I somewhat simplified the issue in my earlier post. Although there is a clear scientific consensus that chordates/vertebrates experience pain, the scientific evidence is more mixed for invertebrates. Here's a vegan resource which sums up some different scholarly sources (with more links), indicating that arthopods such as lobsters and prawns feel pain:
http://veganbits.com/pain-and-suffering-the-lobster-revisted/
In the interest of a complete education, here's the opposite view. A Canadian governmental committee produced this document summarizing research, indicating that most invertabrates, except possibly cephalopods (octopus, squids) do NOT feel pain. The article includes endnotes to scientific books and journals: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/
Com-e/lega-e/witn-e/shelly-e.htm
Sorry, I couldn't be of more assistance on this, as I mentioned earlier my main interest in activism is concerning vertebrates (actually my MAIN interest is concerning humans, but that's another thread. . .)
Of course it's no problem. Thanks for the links, I will take a look at them.
To use an old, perhaps inappropriate chestnut - this horse is not dead, and I must get my shots in.
I would disagree with you strongly over the arbitrariness of distinctions between plants and animals - A very simple and effective pass/fail test for moral agency under utilitarianism is the presence of what we could reasonably define as a complex nervous system. Basically what it comes down to is a distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates, the former claiming agency, the latter not claiming agency. It is morally questionable to cut the head off of a chicken - it is not morally questionable to use lysol spray, or exterminate a termite colony.
This is more or less the paradigm that Peter Singer settled upon, and he's often described as the father of modern utilitarian ethics, at least where Animal Lib is concerned. I think it's pretty consistent, but even mainstream Animal Lib types tend to have problems with it (you see a lot of activism against the consumption of lobsters, for instance), which suggests to me that their passion comes from anthropomorphism and sentimentality as much as reason, but it's a solid ethic nonetheless.
Good post, although I would make one further point. While it's possible that invertebrates shouldn't be assigned moral agency, Singer probably isn't the best person to allude to in claiming this. Singer himself doesn't eat the meat of invertebrates, and in the book Animal Liberation he explained that he DOES find the potential suffering of invertebrates morally problematic. He explains that the scientific evidence on the consciousness (or lack thereof) of invertebrates is mixed, but that it's better to air on the side of inclusiveness when considering interests, in less there's a good reason not to. And eating lobster every week because you like how it tastes would not be a good enough reason, in Singer's view (although killing insects in an environmentally sustainable way when they threaten human agriculture or architecture likely could be justified).
Sorry, one more point. :P
Cephalopods (squid, octopus) are invertebrates, but they also have a central nervous system, one which is complex as that of some fish. These creatures also display the ability to modify their behavior through learning. You seem well read so I'm guessing you already knew this. . .
But anyway, a lot of people don't realize when they eat calamari that it came from an animal with a large, sophisticated brain.
I certainly don't think vegetarianism/veganism is or should be a requisite part of feminism. I consider myself feminist, but I enjoy eating meat and don't lose sleep over it.
I agree that vegetarianism shouldn't necessarily be a requisite part of feminism, but not losing sleep over it is a really weak argument for this. Lots of people spend all day benefiting from the patriarchy and don't lose any sleep over it, and we wouldn't want them to use that as an argument to ignore women's rights. I think that those of us who don't currently see a strong connection between animal rights and women's rights have an obligation to do deeper thinking than this.
My first thought is that since animals kill and eat other animals, and humans are animals, that 100% vegetarianism for all is too extreme...I think the poster that got into "the degree of suffering" for the animal is a key...from that the question arises about degree of suffering for the planet...so commercial farms, slaughterhouses,puppy mills not conducive to that...but free range chickens, a quick hunt-thing where you use the whole animal-the old Indian way....I think this are variable options.
I do agree that there is a connection between womens and animal rights...but also a connection to "earth" rights and respect commitment to mother earth, the elements, the use of female power in these areas...Kali (not proofread)