Gary Yourofsky: Ist der Backlash gerechtfertigt?

Screencap from video showing Yourofsky explaining himself

Translation by The Vactory. The original English version of the following essay can be found by clicking here.

Trigger-Warnung: Dieser Artikel ist eine Antwort auf ein von Gary Yourofsky hochgeladenes Video. Er enthält Zitate von Yourofsky, die auf Gewalt, sexuellen Missbrauch und Vergewaltigung Bezug nehmen. Das Video enthält ableistische Sprache und behauptet, dass jede Person, die zum Tod verurteilt wurde, auch schuldig ist. (#FreeLeonardPeltier! #FreeMumia!) Des Weiteren enthält es ein unglaubliches Ausmaß an Machogehabe, aggressive, explizite und teilweise verstörende Sprache, welche für einige Leute triggernd sein kann.

„Nach 18 Jahren Prozess ist das Urteil endlich da!“, verkündete Gary Yourofsky kürzlich in den sozialen Medien. „Bezüglich meiner Befürwortung von Vergewaltigung wurde ich in allen Punkten für UNSCHULDIG befunden!“

Diese Aussage nimmt Bezug auf die Gegenstimmen seines berüchtigten Zitats:

Jede Frau, die sich in Pelz hüllt, sollte eine so grausame Vergewaltigung ertragen, dass sie fürs Leben gezeichnet ist.

Die „Bezeugung“ (in Form eines 28-minütigen Videos) geht bis ins kleinste Detail darauf ein, wieso er sich so ungerecht behandelt fühlt.

Es ist aber keine echte Verhandlung. Yourofsky hat sich selbst zum „Richter“ ernannt (daher auch seine Unschuld) und schließt seine Aussage damit ab sich zu bedanken: „Vegane Liebe an alle meine Unterstützer, welche sich geweigert haben diese psychotischen und diffamierenden Lügen über mich zu glauben. Und an all die Organisationen und Leute die mich angegriffen haben und behaupten, ich würde Vergewaltigung befürworten: Ich fordere euch hiermit heraus, den Level meiner Anti-Haltung zu überbieten. Los, traut euch.“ Er wartet einen kurzen Augenblick, um dann auf eine aggressive Art fortzufahren: „Was? Ja, dachte ich es mir doch. Ich gewinne, wie immer! Schachmatt! Ihr verliert!! Fickt euch!“

Yourofsky bemüht sich in dem Video sehr stark darum, darzustellen wie sehr er Vergewaltiger verabscheut: „Dass sollte jedem Vergewaltiger widerfahren, auch wenn er eine Frau im Pelzmantel vergewaltigt (falls das jemals vorkommen sollte).“

Laut „Women Organized Against Rape” wird jede vierte Frau und jeder sechste Mann vor Erfüllung seines achtzehnten Lebensjahres Opfer einer Vergewaltigung. Wenn man bedenkt, wie normalisiert das Tragen von Pelz in unserer Gesellschaft ist, ist die Chance relativ hoch, dass jemand der Pelz trägt vergewaltigt wird.

Er fährt fort:

Sein Penis und seine Hoden sollten mit einem Nagelhautentferner langsam versengt werden, und dann sollten ihm zwei Spieße in die Augenhöhlen gestoßen werden. Danach würde man ihn in einen anderen Raum zerren. Da angekommen sollte man seinen Penis und seine Hoden in Durchfall und Erbrochenes eintauchen. Um sein Leben zu retten würde man ihm dann die Option anbieten dies zu essen. Und wenn er es dann tatsächlich isst, würde ich eine Waffe ziehen, sie ihm zwischen die Augen drücken und sagen „Das war nur ein Scherz“.

Andernorts sagt er: „Tausende von Leuten, hauptsächlich Veganer, haben mich seit 1997 beschuldigt, Vergewaltigung gutzuheißen“ und dass er seit 18 Jahren ununterbrochen mit Falschaussagen schikaniert wird. Aus seinen Aussagen wird klar, dass er Vergewaltiger nicht mag. Doch sagt er auch, dass er das berüchtigte Zitat so niemals geäußert hat?

Yourofsky

„Ich rufe alle meine Anhänger auf, die Lügner und Betrüger zu verurteilen die behaupten, dass ich Vergewaltigung befürworte, weil ich es jemandem gewünscht habe. Ich wiederhole: Weil ich es Männern und Frauen gewünscht habe, die Vergewaltigung und Mord unterstützen indem sie sich in Pelzmäntel hüllen.“ Weiter sagt er, dass es niemanden gibt (einschließlich Vergewaltigungsopfern),  der Vergewaltigung so sehr verurteilt wie er.

Man kann mit Sicherheit behaupten, dass jemand der*die eine Vergewaltigung überlebt hat, dieser Aussage widersprechen würde. Doch schaut man sich an, was er eigentlich sagt, sieht man, dass er nicht den eigentlichen Akt der Vergewaltigung befürwortet. Er wünscht es lediglich den Leuten, die es, wie er findet, verdient haben oder „böse“ sind.

Auch wenn es ein Unterschied ist, ob man sagt„Ich wünschte, diese Person würde vergewaltigt“, oder leibhaftig jemanden vergewaltigt, so ist es doch merkwürdig, dass Yourofsky die Konsequenzen von Sprache nicht versteht, geschweige denn die Konsequenzen, wenn ein Mann darüber redet eine Frau zu vergewaltigen (auch wenn es „nur Worte“ sind). Dass er, wenn er Vergewaltigung als Methode zur Bestrafung benutzt (auch wenn es „nur Worte“ sind) zur kollektiven Rape Culture beiträgt und dies auch Tiere wie z.B. Milchkühe betrifft, welche wiederholt, gewaltsam geschwängert werden (sprich: vergewaltigt), und das nur für ein Produkt. Dass er nicht versteht, dass wenn ein aggressiv klingender Mann von seinen Vergewaltigungsfantasien erzählt, dies für Vergewaltigungsopfer unglaublich triggernd sein kann. Daher ist es befremdlich, dass er nicht versteht wie all dies Gegenwind auslösen oder rechtfertigen könnte.

„WÜNSCHEN“

Er wünscht bösen Menschen böse Dinge. Und auch wenn dies Vergewaltiger, Kinderschänder und Täter*innen häuslicher Gewalt einschließt, so ist in seinen Augen niemand gewalttätiger als diejenigen, welche die Tierindustrie unterstützen.

„VORSCHLAGEN“

„Niemand widerspricht meiner Position bezüglich Gewalt, sie stimmen nur nicht mit mir überein, zu wessen Gunsten Gewalt einzusetzen sei.”

„HOFFEN“

„Aus meinem tiefsten Innersten hoffe ich, dass Unterdrückung, Folter und jeder Mord zu jedem gefühllosen Menschen zehnfach zurückkehrt.“

„SOLLTE“

„Jede Frau, die sich in Pelz hüllt, sollte eine so grausame Vergewaltigung erleben, dass sie fürs Leben gezeichnet ist.“ Was Vergewaltigung angeht, so ist es das, was den Leuten (er bezieht auch Männer mit ein), die die Pelzindustrie unterstützen widerfahren sollte.

Das ist der Grund, weswegen Leute ihn beschuldigen, Vergewaltigung gut zu heißen, doch er sieht das einfach nicht.

So fragt er sich: Wieso konzentrieren sich die Leute auf seine Worte, wenn Tiere als Essen angesehen werden und täglich ermordet, gefoltert und in vielen Fällen gewaltsam geschwängert (sprich: vergewaltigt) werden? Dies würde nicht passieren, wenn niemand diese Industrie finanziell unterstützen würde. Dies sollte seiner Meinung nach der Fokus sein, und nicht etwas, das er gesagt hat.

In diesem Punkt hat er Recht. Unsere Gesellschaft ist sozial so stark konditioniert, dass wir mit dem Glauben aufgezogen wurden, die Gewalt an gewissen Tieren sei in Ordnung. Einer Konditionierung, die sagt, dass bestimmte Tiere nur dafür da sind von uns gegessen zu werden und als Kleidung zu dienen. Die Tierindustrie bemüht sich sehr, diese Dissoziation zu unterstützen, indem sie die Wahrheit über die Zustände in den Tierfabriken verschleiert und Bilder von glücklichen Tieren auf ihre Packungen druckt, um den Eindruck zu erwecken, das Tier sei glücklich unser Essen zu sein.

Wenn wir dann die Fleischpackungen sehen, ist das Aussehen so weit von dem eines lebenden Tieres entfernt, dass wir den Ursprung leicht ignorieren oder sogar vergessen können. Die Tierindustrie hat solche Panik davor, dass ihre Konsumenten die Wahrheit erfahren, dass sie den Staat veranlasst haben, Gesetze zu verhängen die es illegal machen auf ihre Grausamkeit aufmerksam zu machen.  Außerdem, wie soll man denn sonst zu genügend Protein und Kalzium kommen? Wir werden erzogen in dem Glauben, dass wir nicht stark und gesund sein können, wenn wir keine Tiere essen. Doch das ist eine der vielen Mythen, die von der Tierindustrie aufrechterhalten werden.

Es ist auch so, dass es eine enorme Dissoziation gibt bei dem Thema Vergewaltigung und Speziesismus, und dass viele Anti-Vergewaltigungs-Aktivist*innen und Feminist*innen die Verbindung zwischen Milchkühen und der kollektiven Rape Culture nicht machen. Sie wissen nicht, dass eine Kuh wiederholt gewaltsam geschwängert (sprich: vergewaltigt) werden muss, damit sie kontinuierlich Milch gibt, und ihr ihre Babys immer und immer wieder weggenommen werden. Für die Industrie ist ihr Baby nur Fleisch. Dies geschieht so oft, bis sie emotional und physisch so heruntergewirtschaftet ist, dass sie keine Kälber mehr produzieren kann (und entsprechend auch keine Milch) so dass sie geschlachtet wird. Uns wird beigebracht, dass es keinen Grund zur Sorge gibt, da Kühe und andere „Nutztiere“ gefühllose, lieblose Kreaturen sind, die ihre Umgebung nicht bewusst wahrnehmen und mit ihr interagieren können. Auch dies ist eine der Mythen.

In diesen Punkten hat er absolut Recht. Doch Yourofsky gibt sich weiterhin irritiert darüber, warum die Leute solchen Anstoß an seinen Statements nehmen, anstatt die Aufmerksamkeit auf diese sehr viel schlimmere Sachlage zu richten. Doch nur weil etwas noch schlimmer ist, heißt das nicht dass das weniger Schlimme keine Konsequenzen hat. Man könnte sagen „Oh, ich hoffe du wirst erschossen und stirbst einen langsamen, qualvollen Tod.“ Währenddessen kommt es in einem anderen Teil der Welt zu einem Genozid. Ja, Letzteres ist durchaus schlimmer, doch die Aussage hat trotzdem Konsequenzen.

Man muss einräumen, dass Yourofsky seine Aussage teils konkretisiert und klarstellt, dass er nur den Menschen Gewalt wünscht, die direkt oder indirekt in die Nutztierindustrie involviert sind. Er geht davon aus, dass wenn Menschen das Ausmaß von Gewalt erleiden müssten, das den Tieren widerfährt, sie sich vielleicht nicht weiter an der Gewalt beteiligen würden. Allerdings konkretisiert er das nur manchmal. Und wenn er es tut, müssen die Zuhörer*innen erstmal an seinen Eingangs-Statements vorbei, die voll sind mit Wünschen, Hoffen und Befürworten von Gewalt gegen sie, bis sie zum eigentlich Punkt durchkommen. Zu anderen Gelegenheiten ergeht Yourofsky sich einfach nur in anschaulichen Tiraden darüber, was seiner Meinung nach mit Leuten passieren sollte, die bösartig sind

Tatsächlich arbeitet es nur gegen das Anliegen der Tierbefreiung, sich verbal für Gewalt gegen eine Person auszusprechen, die nicht vegan ist. Es ist außerdem äußert heuchlerisch, da man, sofern man nicht vegan geboren wurde, auch einmal zu der Gewalt an den Tieren beigetragen hat. Und selbst als Veganer*in kann man es nicht komplett umgehen, da bei der Ernte von Gemüse, Früchten und Getreide Insekten und Mäuse getötet werden. Wenn unsere Häuser gebaut werden, schaden wir den Tieren die dort lebten. Viele Veganer*innen benötigen Medikamente, die an Tieren getestet wurden.

Lasst uns daran arbeiten dieses System zu ändern, das es beinahe verunmöglicht Tieren nicht zu schaden. Es ist leider nach wie vor so, dass niemand vollständig unschuldig ist.

Als Aktivist*innen müssen wir uns immer vor Augen halten, dass es einen Unterschied gibt welche Aussage sich gut anfühlt und kathartisch ist, und welche eine effektive Taktik oder ein gutes Argument ist. Das wir überlegen, was wir in unserem Tagebuch schreiben oder einer privaten Unterhaltung sagen, und was wir mit dem Rest der Welt teilen, vor allem mit denjenigen, die sich uns anschließen sollen. Die Tiere brauchen so viele Menschen auf ihrer Seite wie möglich, denn nur so kann das Ziel der Tierbefreiung erreicht werden.

Gary Yourofsky hat mittlerweile ein neues Video herausgebracht, mit dem Titel „Palästinenser, Schwarze und andere Heuchler“ in dem er beklagt, dass ihn Leute in der Gemeinschaft „unfairerweise“ bezichtigen, rassistische Äußerungen zu machen.
Hmm, warum wohl?

 


Michele Kaplan ist eine queere (genauer: bisexuelle), geek-proud, intersektionelle Aktivistin auf Rädern (sprich: motorisierter Rollstuhl) und sie strebt danach, eine Balance zwischen Aktivismus, Kreativität und Selbstfürsorge finden, während dem sie die Welt zu verändern versucht.
whyveganism.com

Why Can’t the ALF Talk about Sexism?

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and other direct action collectives have a rocky track record with women in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement.

In celebrating violent masculinity, the language and imagery of the ALF is repellent to women and antagonistic to femininity. In my research, I have noted that direct action collectives regularly denounce nonviolent civil resistance (what they sometimes misconstrue as pacifism), framing it as weakness and complacency. Consider a 2012 conference presentation in which ALF founder Steve Best aggressively lectures a room of female attendees, furious at the feminization of the Nonhuman Animal rights movement and demanding that activists literally take up arms against speciesists. The now defunct project Negotiation is Over published regular criticisms of vegan baking as outreach.

Nonviolent civil resistance of all kinds, but especially baking, is, of course, feminized. The proposed alternative–taking up arms–is explicitly masculinized. As a male-dominated organization, the ALF’s adamant rejection of women’s tactics is blatantly sexist.

In Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror, vegan feminist Lee Hall also describes parallels between masculinity and ALF operations. Vandalism, arson, and threats to researchers and their families are understood to be “front line” activism. This activism earns men prestige and honor in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement. This is real activism, activism for the “brave” and “courageous.” In practice, it is most adopted by male teens and 20 somethings who have absorbed the patriarchal culture of glorified violence, anger, and domination.

ALF actions are as much a performance of maleness as they are tactics of nonhuman liberation. Activists who do not engage in direct action are labeled “cowards” to humiliate men by feminizing them and intimidate women by shaming their femininity.

 ALF Supporters Group Newsletter

In a misogynistic society, there are serious consequences for women and girls when a social justice movement aggravates gender stereotypes. There are consequences for the entire movement and Nonhuman Animals, too. Although peaceful vegan activism surely played a part as well, it was specifically ALF’s violence that would prompt agricultural elites to pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in the 1990s (see Muzzling a Movement 2010). This act would essentially criminalize any action that interferes with speciesist enterprise, violent or not. Equally problematic, young men are made vulnerable to serious fines and jail sentences when this kind of activism is valorized.

Women, of course, are not completely absent in direct action, but even the most masculinized of spaces will sometimes attract female participants who understand that association with patriarchy can grant them some male privilege, albeit with considerable limitations and always at the expense of other women. In ALF literature, the role of women tends to be one of sidekick and adoring fan. In Love and Liberation: An Animal Liberation Front Story (Piraeus Books LLC 2012), the female lead is portrayed as smitten by the male lead’s prowess, prompting her to follow him into combat. This is a classic masculine trope whereby men’s violent bravery is rewarded by an objectified woman. As a trophy or prize, the woman’s character is subservient to and dependent upon the man’s story.

ALF

Other ALF publications are more straightforward in their sexual objectification of women. Liberator, for instance, has been criticized for its sexist themes. The illustration below featuring a female protester with large breasts fit into a tight shirt with no bra is a case in point.

The Liberator

The comic creator Matt Miner responded to feminist criticism in a now deleted “Open Letter to the Open Letter Author on Women in Comics.” His tone was dismissive and aggressive:

[ . . . ] you’ll notice that the art does not focus on her breasts, she’s fully clothed, the piece does not sexualise her in any way.

In your “open letter” you state other inflammatory nonsense that I find particularly offensive, attacks on my qualifications to write this series and there’s even a misguided attempt of associating me with the sexist animal killers of PETA, but clearly you’ve not done the slightest bit of research before unleashing so I’ll just laugh that bit of irony off.

When another feminist questioned the implications of his comic on his Facebook page, Miner responded with a rudimentary appeal to reverse sexism in describing the criticism as “offensive.”

ALF and sexism

As this essay has outlined, there are three roles that women play in direct action claimsmaking, all of which are sexist: the feminizing factor, the prize for male activists, and the eye candy. Aggressive deflection of feminist criticism is generally engaged in favor of putting “nonhumans first,” but the ALF’s protection of sexism is not for the protection of Nonhuman Animals. It is merely unchecked violent masculinity masked as social justice. Violent masculinity “for the animals” “by any means necessary” provides a rationale for reinforcing privilege and hurting others.

Oppression cannot be dismantled with more oppression and a brazen refusal to self-reflect. In the Nonhuman Animal rights movement, sexism does not seem to exist unless it is acknowledged, validated, and legitimated by men. While it is true that men have more symbolic power in a patriarchal society, women are not obligated to take men’s sexist interpretations of the social world as reality.

 


Corey Lee WrennDr. Wrenn is the founder of Vegan Feminist Network. She is a Lecturer of Sociology and Director of Gender Studies with a New Jersey liberal arts college, council member with the Animals & Society Section of the American Sociological Association, and an advisory board member with the International Network for Social Studies on Vegetarianism and Veganism with the University of Vienna. She was awarded Exemplary Diversity Scholar 2016 by the University of Michigan’s National Center for Institutional Diversity. She is the author of A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory.

whyveganism.com

The Woman as Sexy Dying Animal Trope

Women crouch in filthy cages, dressed in rags, looking around in fear; promo image for "The Herd"

Too frequently in anti-speciesism advocacy, women become stand-ins for Nonhuman Animals suffering from extreme human violence and degradation. It is not by chance that women predominate in these roles. Women are selected (or self-select) because it culturally “makes sense” to audiences that sexualized violence will be aimed at women. If men, a relatively privileged group, were to substitute the vulnerable and suffering Nonhuman Animals, it just wouldn’t compute.

Women are regularly subject to violence and degradation, so they become the “natural” choice when staffing campaigns. Women in the audience, too, are familiar with the normalcy of misogyny, and perhaps social movements hope to trigger them into supporting the cause by tapping into their fears and traumas. Such a tactic begs the question as to how aggravating inequality for women could reduce inequality for other animals.

Consider the vegan advocacy film, The Herd. Status quo misogyny predominates, and there is arguably nothing that sets this film apart from standard sexist and violent horror movies except the good intentions of the filmmakers. The script is exactly the same: young, thin, white women, naked or nearly naked, are sexually brutalized for the titillation of the audience.

I ask activists to consider how replicating violent, misogynistic media could, logistically, disrupt oppressive thinking about other vulnerable demographics. Further, I believe it is ethically problematic to contribute to a culture of woman-hating in a world where actual violence against actual women continues to happen so frequently that it can only be described as normal. Images have power, and these images should be used responsibly in service of social justice. It is both unwise and immoral to capitalize on sexism to advance anti-speciesism.

In the video linked below, I have compiled a number of images to illustrate the woman as sexy dying animal trope. This is a pattern that extends across a number of organizations, notably PETA, but also LUSH Cosmetics, 269life, and others. Consider what it means when activists instinctively position women as representatives of speciesist violence. Consider also the privilege afforded to men who are less frequently used, but also the dangers in positioning them as abusers in protest scenarios. In a society where violence against women is still not taken seriously, it is unclear how movement audiences could be expected to take violence against animals seriously through misogynist imagery of this kind.

 

 

ARationalApproachtoAnimalRights

You can read more about gender politics in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


Corey Lee WrennDr. Wrenn is the founder of Vegan Feminist Network. She is a Lecturer of Sociology and Director of Gender Studies with Monmouth University, council member with the Animals & Society Section of the American Sociological Association, and an advisory board member with the International Network for Social Studies on Vegetarianism and Veganism with the University of Vienna. She was awarded Exemplary Diversity Scholar 2016 by the University of Michigan’s National Center for Institutional Diversity. She is the author of A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory.

whyveganism.com

Love, Sex, and the Animal Liberation Front

Man in ski mask kisses woman in black hoodie
Image from Animal Freedom Fighters Unite Facebook group

More so than other factions of the Nonhuman Animal rights movement, the “liberation” or “direct action” faction (frequently associated with the Animal Liberation Front) often engages symbolism of human-to-human love, intimacy, and sex in its activist narrative.

Consider Love and Liberation: An Animal Liberation Front Story, a romance novel following a young female activist who falls in love with another direct action activist, the two of them bonding over illegal actions in the name of anti-speciesism.

Cover of Love and Liberation

Consider also the direct action comic, The Liberator, male-created with a male and female protagonist. The female-bodied hero, however, tends to be drawn for the male-gaze, large breasted and sometimes bra-less.

Liberator

More than other factions of the movement, the direct action faction relies on narratives of heroism, machismo, and domination. As with any hero’s tale, the “girl as reward” must be present. In a previous essay, I note the “Liam Neeson effect,” whereby Nonhuman Animals are feminized and their plight exploited as a plot device to excuse hypermasculine vigilantism and violence. “Direct action” activism hopes to attract members and new recruits by creating an opportunity for boys and men to prove their manhood and become real life superheros. Steve Best, a leader of the ALF faction, has stated that it will be the media coverage of this type of activism which will motivate and inspire viewers to take up arms, so to speak. Love and sex must be part of this opportunity, as becoming a “man” necessitates power over the feminine.

Relatedly, ALF activists also frequently pose with Nonhuman Animals as loving and thankful. Most of these survivors are undoubtedly relieved, but we must keep in mind that media is not created by accident, and images are carefully chosen to convey a particular message. I see in this thankful animal trope the same patriarchal or paternalist concept: man as liberator and benevolent leader, woman and animal as grateful and dependent. Savior narratives, well meaning though they may be, are inherently disempowering to the marginalized (this is a major concern in ally politics).

ALF member in ski mask cradling small monkey

Social movements consciously strategize in their media representations, using particular codes that the audience will be expected to accurately and favorably interpret. The ALF and other direct action collectives bank on our cultural literacy with misogyny and patriarchy in order for these scripts and codes to make sense. I question as to whether or not this hypermasculine script will translate for an anti-oppression future if we’re still speaking the same language of domination.

 


Corey Lee WrennDr. Wrenn is the founder of Vegan Feminist Network. She is a Lecturer of Sociology and Director of Gender Studies with Monmouth University, council member with the Animals & Society Section of the American Sociological Association, and an advisory board member with the International Network for Social Studies on Vegetarianism and Veganism with the University of Vienna. She was awarded Exemplary Diversity Scholar 2016 by the University of Michigan’s National Center for Institutional Diversity. She is the author of A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory.

whyveganism.com

The Power Of The Vegan Who Remembers Their Roots

"Remembering Our Speciesist Roots" Girl smiling as she eats a barbecue rib, her face is covered in sauce

By Michele Kaplan

CONTENT WARNING: This article contains a couple of sentences (quotes from others) that reference misogyny, homophobia, and ableism.

NOT SAFE FOR WORK: Some violent language in said quotes.

Author’s Note: The following is in no way an attack on Direct Action Everywhere, but rather a discussion inspired by one of their graphics. I chose to use a DxE graphic because it’s the graphic that sparked this conversation on Facebook and thus inspired this article. I am not suggesting that the comments that were made, represent DxE as an organization, as you can’t control who comments on a public post. I wanted to write this article because variations of the comments that were made in reaction to this graphic, are comments that I’ve heard for years within the Animal Rights Movement and I wanted to speak on that.

“Walter [the hunter who is also a dentist] says he killed Cecil [the lion] because he didn’t know his name… Let’s hope Walter knows his patients’ names.”

Question: When you read that, what thoughts pop into your head?

For some animal rights activists (at least going by the comments on the internet), the response is one of anger. But not just anger. A kind of vindictive anger.

“A heartless piece of work…”
“He’s a f**king idiot!”
“Calling him a human is going too far.”
“Could we crowdfund to have the doctor dropped off somewhere in Africa, stripped naked and then hunted like an animal?”
“He’s a f**king, coward, tool who sucked someone’s dick to stay out of jail? The question is who’s whore is he?”

I could go on, but you get the gist. Now, putting aside for a moment that some of these comments are incredibly ignorant and some just disturbing, I would like to look at the overall vindictive and angry nature of the comments.

Question: How many of us within the Animal Rights movement were born vegan?

Smiling Baby

Not many. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the majority of us participated in the killing and consumption of animals, at some point in our lives. While we may not have gone hunting (though I am sure some of us did), does it really matter if we directly or indirectly killed an animal?

The end result is the same. An animal who did not want to die is dead. So, if we too once participated in the death of animals, then it begs the question:

Question: As vegans, do we forget our speciesist roots?

I know when I heard about someone harming an animal, I would get really upset. But not just upset. Angry. “What a jerk!” I would say. And when I would make this comment on social media, it would get plenty of likes and support.

But one day, I stopped and pondered if I was being hypocritical to get mad and vindictive simply because a person hasn’t unlearned speciesism at the same rate/pace that I have?

This is not to say that it is wrong to feel angry. Anger (when used constructively) can inspire us to further fight for what is right. What can get in our way, is when it becomes vindictive. It can lead us to think things like “What kind of person does this sort of thing?!” instead of realizing “Oh, right. That was me.”

And once I realized this, and thus let go of the hypocritical and vindictive anger, it made room for empathy. As a result, I was having a much easier time communicating, connecting and reaching people who weren’t vegan.

Sleeping pig on couch

“Walter says he killed Cecil because he didn’t know his name… Let’s hope Walter knows his patients’ names.” read the graphic posted on Facebook. “His reasoning makes no sense.” I thought at first “What about the dog he passes by on the street but doesn’t know the name of?”

But instead of just chalking it up to Walter being senseless and unintelligent, I stopped and remembered my roots. And that’s when it occurred to me (and I left the following comment) : “I think what he (possibly) meant was that he never thought that an animal such as a lion would have a name / life / purpose etc. Which is no different than the people who eat pigs [and other animals] because they just viewed the animal as a means to their pleasure and never stopped to think / was not raised to think that animals have lives and hearts and emotions [and] aren’t just there for our consumption.”

Empathy is power. It’s great that we fight for the liberation of animals, my fellow vegans but always remember your roots.

 

This essay originally appeared on Rebelwheels’ Soapbox on May 17, 2015.


me in wheelchairMichele Kaplan is a queer (read: bisexual), geek-proud, intersectional activist on wheels (read: motorized wheelchair), who tries to strike a balance between activism, creativity and self care, while trying to change the world.

There are NO Cults in the Animal Rights Movement!! So, What about Yourofsky?

By: Dr. C. Michele Martindill

Trigger Warning: Discusses the violent rhetoric of Gary Yourofsky, which many have described as racist, ableist, and sexist. Comments from Yourofsky supporters included in this essay also engage heterosexism. Finally, this essay analyzes the formation of cults and may be upsetting to those who have been personally impacted by cult exploitation.

Yourofsky

 

Someone with years of experience in the animal rights movement raised an intriguing question when she asked a straightforward question: Why can’t we get all of the leaders within the animal rights movement into a room to work out their differences and find a way to do what’s best for the animals? What a question!! YES, great idea! The movement does need to find a common definition for animal rights and a comprehensive path for activism. After all, there is much confusion over what to call the movement: Veganism? Animal rights? Animal Liberation? Vegan Abolitionist? OR How about Movement for Animal Rights, Veganism, Environmentalism, Liberation and Abolition (MARVELA!!)? Once the leaders settle on a name for the movement they can sit down and plot movement strategies: Diets? Boycotts? Direct action? Marches? Information tables? Facebook pages? Passionate speeches? Shopping for vegan products? Good. Now the movement has a name and some immediate goals. Nice day dream so far, eh? All that’s left is deciding on the scope of the movement: Is the movement about social justice for all, the environment or just for the animals? Uh oh. The dream is getting fuzzy. Will the movement encompass ending the oppression and exploitation of humans, too? Zap!  Lightning bolt End of daydream! The realization dawns that the movement leaders gathered in a room to build a more coherent movement are all upper class-abled-cis gendered-white men—men like Gary Yourofsky. Nooooo!

Just when the movement needs to decenter and dismantle the white man dominated leadership in order to center previously marginalized groups, it would be a step in the wrong direction to even invite Gary Yourofsky to a planning session for a movement that could potentially impact so many lives. Recent essays have documented the problematic nature of Yourofsky’s views and the unquestioning loyalty of his followers. Some attribute his rise to prominence in the movement to hero worship on the part of followers. A few portray him as a fascist dictator, and others declare Yourofsky a cult leader. So, which is it? Using social psychology to examine how the cult leaders become established and the attraction of cults for followers will help to reveal a major problem within the animal rights movement—the notion that if we just silence one vocal, hate-filled leader the problem of disunity and oppression of marginalized groups in the movement will be solved.

Hero worship of a cult leader may end, but we will still be living in a social world grounded in patriarchy, a social world in which every interaction is man-centered or becomes man-centered the second a man notices women trying to make their voices heard. In addition, there are women in the movement who wear this institutionalized man-centered ideology either with pride or sometimes unknowingly—a patriarchal ideology that installs men as the leaders and women as the followers. The strategy of pitting women against women, those who support patriarchal leadership against those who challenge it, is not uncommon. A real danger in the movement is feeling that other women are the ones perpetuating oppression and exploitation of the women who dare to speak up, to question authority. It is important to keep in mind that all women are the victims here, victims of manipulation, and historical or institutionalized patterns of social organization.

Furthermore, the self-serving bias, a social psychological process through which people preserve their self-esteem by asserting the belief that only others participate in questionable behaviors or interactions, tells us no one is immune to joining a cult. Anyone—you, me, or the most dedicated social justice activist—can become or may already be a cult member, but continue to deny it because we fear looking bad to others. We’re not the problem; it’s everyone else. It is theorized that women are more likely than men to be cult members, possibly because they are more accustomed to living their lives under the authority of men in leadership roles and showing deference to men. More research needs to be done with regard to how gender, race, social class and ableism relate to cult membership. If the animal rights movement is to become inclusive of members of marginalized groups, then it is imperative to ask how the predominantly upper class white abled leadership and membership of cults in the animal rights movement contributes to classism, racism, ableism and ultimately exclusion.

Would we know a cult if we saw it? What are the distinguishing features of cults? Cults are distinct from organized groups that focus on activities, one-time events or volunteerism. Cults are comprised of a strong, authoritarian leader and a group of dedicated, loyal followers. Certain social psychological processes have been identified to help explain how cults are formed. Cults can be focused on religion, promises of future wealth or enlightenment to the capital-T Truth, and political causes such as animal rights or veganism. There is nothing particularly different about people who join cults. People who join cults may have recently gone through some life challenge such as a divorce or a death in the family. They might also be inexperienced in social interactions or disillusioned with the status quo, e.g. those who are concerned about the oppression and exploitation of other animals. The common denominator is that potential followers are vulnerable in the sense that they want answers, solutions or some way of coping with perceived problems. A cult promises not only answers, but camaraderie (Langone, 2013).

Several young women in blue dresses flank a raised throne with an older man who resembles jesus with a wooden cross behind him

One thing to keep in mind about cult members is that contrary to popular belief, they do not suffer from low self-esteem any more or less than the general population, nor are they recruited based on having low self-esteem. Persons with psychological problems would most likely be considered a liability by cults and not capable of carrying out the work of the cult—defending the leader, bringing in money or recruiting duties (Rhoads, n.d.). The core question centers on how cults keep members in line and actively involved. It is not simply the power of the message delivered by the cult leader that puts a cult in motion.

Researchers have identified countless tactics used to motivate cult members and prevent their questions about the integrity of cult leadership. The “hot-seat technique” is one of the best known strategies. It involves putting the new member center stage in front of the group to confess their misdeeds or impure thoughts, and then having the leader and membership berate them in an effort to shatter their self-confidence and self-esteem. The idea is to keep members doubting their capabilities, and in constant need of the support of the cult leader and other cult members. A big group hug of some kind usually follows the hot-seat or center stage treatment, assuring the cult member all is well IF they follow the party line.

Lego man wearing a shirt with the word "you" crossed out while he flips the middle fingerSeveral examples of the hot-seat strategy from Facebook interactions and YouTube videos have Yourofsky spewing misogynistic, sexist, racist, ableist and other oppressive speeches aimed at supporters as well as those who might be swayed to become supporters. This strategy serves to set the rules of the cult, to impress listeners through dynamic, charismatic speech, and to force followers to consider their own actions and confess how they were once oppressors of other animals. The following comment by Yourofsky illustrates the point:

The latest lie being spread about me is that I’m a racist because I said Palestinians were crazy. But if I distrust or hate all humans and the way we behave, I am a misanthrope NOT a racist! Yet, my misanthropy causes no actual harm contrary to the human rights hypocrites who actively support violent exploitation AND murder every time they sit down to a meal.

In this introduction to Yourofsky’s latest YouTube video, “Palestinians, Blacks and Other Hypocrites,” Yourofsky uses ableist and racist language to defend himself against charges of racism, something that might seem likely to turn away followers, but actually establishes him as someone willing to insult and degrade humans—someone who appears brave and a formidable leader. Note the response of an enamored follower:

I thought the whole idea of being a vegan was for animal liberation. Why are we even talking about human rights, when so many animals continue to die every second of every year.
If you want to be a human rights activists, the door is open, exit veganism now.
I’ll agree with Gary on this. I’m glad he said it. At least he’s no hypocrite.
Can’t you see, we are the problem. Humans create their problems and then expect everyone to sympathize. Take responsibility for your actions.
On the other hand, animals, do not create problems nor do they expect any sympathy.
I defended Gary’s stance and I would do it again. Go join a human rights group and let us true vegans clean up your dirty work. And stay out of the way.

Support is offered for the leader’s ideology and followed with a confession that “…we are the problem. Humans create their problems…”. “True vegans” should either get with the plan or “go join a human rights group,” as if that would be the worst form of rejection by the cult.

The rules are clear: There is no room for human rights activists among Yourofsky’s followers, and his response to the above Facebook comment dishes up approval for those who agree and lets everyone know what constitutes sanity and logical thinking:

THANK YOU FOR THINKING LOGICALLY! YOU ARE SANE & COGNIZANT my friend (Yourofsky, 2015).

Racism comes more into play with the next comment from Yourofsky:

Malcolm X once said: “You cannot be anti slavery and pro slavemaster.” Animals are the victims/slaves. Humans are the victimizers/slavemasters.. I side with the slaves and will no longer defend humans who scream about their mistreatment when they dish it out to the animals.

The tokenism and appropriation of a quote from a leader in the Civil Rights Movement is blatant and allows Yourofsky to portray the simple good vs. evil mythology that grounds so many religions. He does so by ignoring hundreds of years of human slavery and claiming all humans are “slavemasters.” One follower touts the revelations of Yourofsky as the “new paradigm”; however, Yourofsky is well aware of those who would challenge this new paradigm:

… except my enemies come from WITHIN the vegan movement. vegans have been trying to silence me for more than a decade. and they’re gonna win soon because I am worn out and burnt out.

Prophecy!! One of the great trademarks of a cult leader—the ability to predict the future! Most impressive. We also gain a clearer picture of THE enemy: vegans!! A form of call and response, a preaching style in which the minister speaks and the congregation answers with an affirmation, follows throughout this Facebook discussion thread. Comments supportive of Yourofsky net words of praise from the leader, and negative comments are met with admonishments to watch his video again or to go away (polite terminology). The vast majority of responses from followers are reinforcing Yourofsky’s views, including his racism:

I’m rapidly becoming disliked by most people I know….because I 100% share your attitude, morals and beliefs. I’d rather be a fuc***g loner, than a murdering hypocrite! The name calling and personal attacks are becoming the norm, and I couldn’t give a shite! OUR WORDS ARE RIGHTEOUS, THE TRUTH, SPOKEN WITH COMPASSION AND MORAL. For every murderer I see shovelling in a fork full of suffering…they’ll get my harsh words for afters, couldn’t give a flying shit what colour or where they’re from! My life focuses on the devastation humans cause…so FU** HUMAN RIGHTS!!

Another writes:

If they ever win by silencing you, I’ll carry your cross for you. You have plenty of support Gary.
Never forget that!

Homosexuals are another frequent target for cult members:

Yeah or the homosexuals who want “their rights” and respect, but cannot do the same for all of nonhuman animals that end up on their plates every time of every day. They want to get what they themselves don’t want to do. I used to fight so much for the homosexuals rights until I saw that when it came to what I cared about ( nonhuman animals ) they were not willing to support my cause in any way. So sad that they’re so selfish.

And then one person dares to question Yourofsky on his claims of success in making the world go vegan:

I agree about the hypocrisy of fighting for human rights while hurting animals but I don’t think hating people helps them see what they’re doing.

Yourofsky responds:

The Real Gary Yourofsky how can you say that when I have converted between 100,000 to one million with MY ATTITUDE/STYLE and the lovey dovey BS pacifists haven’t done shit? stop believing in fairytales like love conquers hate.

Yes, a part of cult leadership is laying claim to vast numbers of unverifiable conversions or some other accomplishment as proof that their strategies are effective and to motivate followers. Given Yourofsky’s focus on making all of Israel vegan, it is possible Yourofsky is referring to a survey that suggests vegans in Israel number 10% of the population or about 700,000 people, giving the country one of the largest per capita vegan populations in the world, but questions grounded in critical thought about this number are absent from the discussion. A 2001 report from the Israeli Ministry of Health shows “7.2% of the men and 9.8% of the women identified themselves as vegetarians” (Neiman, 2014). These numbers indicate Israel had a strong vegetarian population well before Yourofsky started his campaign for veganism in Israel. Also, while a recent report by Israeli media confirms that Yourofsky’s video from a Georgia Tech appearance in the summer of 2010, “The Best Speech You Will Ever Hear” (Yourofsky, The Best Speech You Will Ever Hear, 2010), has been seen “by at least 396,000 people…(with Hebrew subtitles) (Darom, 2102), there is no way of knowing if all of the viewers were in Israel or if they immediately made the decision to be vegan.

Just as Yourofsky brags about his successes, he also proclaims extreme humility in an effort to show followers he is just like them, someone they can identify with and emulate:

“I’m not a politician. I’m not a salesperson. I don’t ask for donations. I don’t want donations. I want people’s minds. I want people to be kind for the animals (Yourofsky, Gary Yourofsky speaks to 450 students at Ben Gurion University, n.d.).

Setting aside Yourofsky’s comment that he wants people’s minds, his occupational profile fits that of many cult leaders who were writers, salespersons and carnival workers prior to leading their cults. Most notably, Yourofsky worked as a paid spokesperson or lecturer for PeTA between 2002 and 2005. The common thread is that these jobs all involve persuasion, a key skill requirement for someone trying to sell others on a particular dogma (Sagarin, n.d.). Any denial of political activity—using power to effect change—or working to sell people on his ideas is a direct contradiction of what he does every single time he takes the stage to speak. His denials are, however, a persuasive rhetorical technique, an attempt to show he has nothing to gain on a personal level. Nothing, except the notoriety that guarantees his voice will be heard over the voices from marginalized groups!

Internet culture brings with it new opportunities for cult formation and their sustained activities. Their work is often measured by the number of memes or YouTube videos they produce and disseminate, as well as the number of ‘likes’ these products receive on websites such as Facebook. There is also an unrelenting willingness of supporters to defend leaders, including Facebook page owners and moderators, no matter what they might publish. Public objections are frequently deleted and those who question authority are banned from the site. Still, the following general definition of cults remains the same for all types of cults:

• The leader is best classified as an authoritarian; simply put, it is the leader’s way or the highway
• The beliefs of a cult are different from the mainstream and often narrowly focused; they have the potential to be dangerous or even false; a cult often suggests that nothing matters except focusing on gaining converts
• Demanding changes in lifestyle for followers, e.g. a demand to cut off communication with family members who don’t show proper support
• Cults emphasize recruitment, soliciting money or other needed resources, and finding opportunities to make the cult’s videos or products available to the public
• Cults have distinctive ways of getting all members on the same page, of getting them to think the same way
• Insiders in cults are clearly distinguished from outsiders, sometimes with the use of insider language or symbols; outsiders are often attacked, and they are abused psychologically or physically (Nassim, 2013)

A friend once observed that the best way to handle cult leaders and the claims-making of cult members is to ignore them, to stop feeding their egos. Cults are more than the manifestations of any leader’s ego. Cults have to be seen in relation to the patriarchal institutions and oppressions of our social world. They do not exist in isolation of sexism, racism, ageism, ableism, classism or speciesism. It requires critical thought and questioning of cults in order to dismantle them or at least defuse their incessant attacks on those outside of the cult. Every time someone outside of the cult hedges their criticism of the cult they inadvertently support it. Yourofsky’s misogyny is often criticized, but the criticism is mitigated when it is promptly followed with praise, e.g. “But he does do a lot of good for the animals.”

Gary Yourofsky

Critical thinking involves revealing contradictions in interactions or public discourse, e.g. how can cult leaders claim to not care what people think about them, but then try to defend themselves from criticism? Critical thinking aims to expose relations of power and to challenge oppression. When it comes to an examination of the hate speech and the promotion of violence by Yourofsky here are a few questions grounded in critical thinking that must be asked:

1. Who or what group benefits from using violence—threats, bullying and verbal abuse—against humans as way to end violence against other animals? What is gained from threatening violence or violent acts? Psychological dominance? Financial power? Publicity?
2. Through what social processes have cults become a normalized part of the animal rights movement, normalized to the point that their role in promoting oppressions is rarely challenged?
3. Many movement members who are not involved with any cult insist they could never be cult members, following the pattern of the self-serving bias. To what extent is it an example of the self-serving bias that so many movement members try to excuse the problematic actions of cults by saying, “Well, at least they’re doing it for the animals”?
4. Whose voices are silenced by cults? How are they silenced? How do cults socially reproduce or reify existing structures of racism, sexism, ableism, classism, ageism and speciesism?
5. To what extent do members of animal rights movement cults lose their psychological autonomy? Especially the women who follow a man centered leadership?

An important point to consider in trying to end the influence of cults within the animal rights movement is that they are a reflection of our patriarchal social order. Without patriarchy and the acceptance of sexism and misogyny throughout society, cults would have a difficult time forming, much less gaining momentum. It may be frustrating to think about how cults make the animal rights movement look to the outside world, and to encounter the lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations vocalized by cult members; however, ending the influence of cults depends on identifying and challenging them with critically grounded questions. The demand made by cults to focus only on the animals does indeed sound noble and even desirable, but it is also a way of deflecting criticism by presenting a worthy goal, AND it is a way of isolating the membership from the pervasive oppressions of the social world. Cult followers are repeatedly told that there is no point in addressing racism or sexism, for instance, and that veganism is all that matters. Any plans for an inclusive animal rights movement, one that addresses social justice, will depend on a clear message that focuses on how speciesism cannot be eliminated by turning our backs on human oppressions.

 

References

Darom, N. (2102, September 6). Is vegan superstar Gary Yourofsky an animal savior or a mad militant? Retrieved from HAARETZ: http://tinyurl.com/q2hdmkw

Langone, P. M. (2013). Who Joins Cults and Why? Retrieved from ICSA International Cultic Studies Association: http://csj.org/studyindex/studycult/cultqa4.htm

Nassim, A. (2013, September 2). Online Cults. Retrieved from Internet Ascent: http://internetascent.blogspot.com/2013/09/online-cults.html

Neiman, R. (2014, February 6). What Israeli Vegans Eat – And Why. Retrieved from Israel 21c: http://www.israel21c.org/israel-in-pictures/what-israeli-vegans-eat-and-why/

Rhoads, P. K. (n.d.). Cults: Questions and Answers. Retrieved from Working Psychology: http://www.workingpsychology.com/cult.html

Sagarin, D. (n.d.). Cult Influence Tactics. Retrieved from Working Psychology: http://www.workingpsychology.com/cultdef.html

Yourofsky, G. (2010). The Best Speech You Will Ever Hear. Retrieved from YouTube: http://tinyurl.com/mkpoon4

Yourofsky, G. (2015, May 17). The Real Gary Yourofsky’s Photos. Retrieved from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/therealgaryyourofsky/photos/pb.772568189464273.-2207520000.1432180346./822615614459530/?type=1&theater

Yourofsky, G. (n.d.). Gary Yourofsky speaks to 450 students at Ben Gurion University. Retrieved from YouTube: http://tinyurl.com/m2qwhrg

 

Michele Spino MartindillDr. Martindill earned her Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Missouri and taught there in the Sociology Department, the Peace Studies Program and the Women’s and Gender Studies Department. Her areas of emphasis include political sociology, organizations and work, and social inequalities. Dr. Martindill’s dissertation focuses on the no-kill shelter social movement and is based on ethnographic research conducted during several years of working in an animal shelter. She is vegan, a feminist and is currently interested in the stories women tell through their needlework, including crochet, counted cross stitch and quilting. It is important to note that Dr. Martindill consistently uses her academic title in order to inspire women and members of other marginalized groups to pursue their dreams no matter what challenges those dreams may entail, and certainly one of her goals is to see more women in academia.