Author Archives: Vegan Feminist Network

“Obsessive” Vegans: The Politics of Vegan Ableism

Posted on by

In the bid to become more effective activists, it is important to acknowledge differences in identity and access that characterize the Nonhuman Animal rights movement’s diverse constituency. Although recent publications such as Sunaura Taylor’s Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation have drawn attention to the many compelling intersections between speciesism and ableism, it remains the case that the movement at large is insensitive to the experiences of non-able-bodied persons.

As I explored in a 2015 publication with Disability & Society, both the Nonhuman Animal rights movement and its countermovement engage in ableist frameworks to dismiss the legitimacy of one another’s position. For instance, speciesists regularly refer to liberationists as “crazy,” while liberationists have been known to employ labels of “sick” or “schizophrenic” in retaliation. Since publishing this article, I have noticed that “obsessiveness” is another identity under contention. As with “craziness” and “sickness,” “obsessiveness” becomes a flashpoint for both sides of the animal rights debate, while actual disabled persons are erased in the crossfire.

Problematizing mental illness resonates in an ableist society, and Nonhuman animal rights organizations too willingly adopt resonate frames regardless of the negative consequences for those whose identity is objectified. Vegan Outreach, the Humane Society of the United States, and other professionalized charities frequently chastise vegan liberationists for “obsessing” over animal ingredients in a self-centered effort to achieve “personal purity.” In doing so, they pull on social stigma against self-focused behaviors and anxiety disorders to shame radical contenders into silence, or at least to dismiss them as lesser-than in the movement hierarchy.

While it is unfortunate that Western society stigmatizes disability, it is truly shameful that the Nonhuman Animal rights movement, a movement that purports to represent compassion and justice, should exploit ableism for its gain. When vegans call nonvegans “psycho” for consuming flesh to advance the movement, they trade on ableism. When nonprofits call vegan liberationists “obsessive” for finding fault in reformist approaches to speciesism, they are doing the same.

In other cases, OCD is trivialized in the pursuit of profit in a movement that has been co-opted by corporate interests. Take for instance the vegan makeup company Obsessive Compulsive Cosmetics: “The first step is admitting you have a problem,” says company founder David Klasfeld, “I did and the result is a line obsessively crafted from the finest ingredients possible, to celebrate the driving compulsions of makeup fanatics everywhere.”

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is not simply a qualifier to denote extremism or fanaticism. It is a real medical condition that impacts real people.  While level of severity varies and some individuals are able to live healthfully in an able-bodied world, the International OCD Foundation emphasizes that:

Those tortured with OCD are desperately trying to get away from paralyzing, unending anxiety…

I also wish to emphasize that ableism is a feminist issue. Anxiety disorders disproportionately impact women, a demographic that happens to be most receptive to anti-speciesist messages and dominates the movement’s rank-and-file. This predisposition to anxiety is not a biological happenstance. It is, in large part, a survival strategy that develops in response to strain within a patriarchal social structure.

Thus, vegans would do well to lend solidarity to stigmatized groups in forgoing inconsiderate ableist references to all things determined to be bad (“obsessive” vegans) and trivial (“obsessively” vegan makeup). Ableist claimsmaking is tactically impotent as it is bound to offend and alienate the disabled community that makes up a considerable portion of the Nonhuman Animal rights movement’s constituency.

 

Corey Lee WrennDr. Wrenn is Lecturer of Sociology. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology with Colorado State University in 2016. She received her M.S. in Sociology in 2008 and her B.A. in Political Science in 2005, both from Virginia Tech. She was awarded Exemplary Diversity Scholar, 2016 by the University of Michigan’s National Center for Institutional Diversity. She served as council member with the American Sociological Association’s Animals & Society section (2013-2016) and was elected Chair in 2018. She serves as Book Review Editor to Society & Animals and has contributed to the Human-Animal Studies Images and Cinema blogs for the Animals and Society Institute. She has been published in several peer-reviewed academic journals including the Journal of Gender Studies, Feminist Media Studies, Disability & Society, Food, Culture & Society, and Society & Animals. In July 2013, she founded the Vegan Feminist Network, an academic-activist project engaging intersectional social justice praxis. She is the author of A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory (Palgrave MacMillan 2016).

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

NEJEŠ MÄSO? NIE SI PRAVÝ MUŽ! – ODPOR K VEGÁNSTVU AKO PREJAV PATRIARCHÁTU

Posted on by

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

Prednedávnom mi jeden z čitateľov, Alexander Lawrie, zaslal námet na článok, ktorý som sa ihneď rozhodla využiť. Predstavuje totižto vynikajúci príklad toho, ako mužská nadradenosť a dozor nad vykonávaním rodových rolí vytvárajú prekážky pri presadzovaní záujmov nielen žien, ale aj iných druhov.Ide o príspevok zverejnený v Škótskych novinách. Tieto uverejnili reportáž o žene, ktorá sa stala obeťou šikanovania zo strany obsluhy po tom, ako si v reštaurácii vyžiadala vegánsku verziu pokrmu. Na bločku našla napísané: „Vegánsky zbabelec!“ (Vegan Pussy). Obsluha urážku z bločku doplnila aj o uštipačné poznámky na adresu zákazníčky na facebookovej stránke reštaurácie. Týmto to však nekončí! Noviny, ktoré sa rozhodli o tomto incidente informovať, našli facebookový profil poškodenej a zverejnili ho s kompletnými informáciami (celé meno, profilová fotografia, miesto výkonu práce). Obťažovanie, ktoré nasledovalo, bolo natoľko závažné, že sa noviny napokon rozhodli zmazať komentáre pod príspevkom a stiahnuť fotografiu obete.

Celý prípad zapácha mizogýniou. Keby bol obeťou muž, predpokladám, že by bola reakcia podobná, pravdepodobne by sa k použitým urážkam pridala aj homofóbia. Patriarchát podporuje myšlienky nadvlády nad ostatnými a tým aj konzumáciu mäsa, dokonca ich propaguje ako jeden zo stavebných kameňov mužnosti. Vegánstvo sa častokrát považuje za zženštilé a to nielen preto, že si ho často vyberú práve ženy, ale aj kvôli snahe vegánstva o obhajobu záujmov tých, ktorí sú podrobení útlaku mužov. Vegánstvo bojuje proti patriarchátu.

Nemalo by nás prekvapiť, že podnik, ktorý profituje z nehumánneho vykorisťovania zvierat, využil druhovú diskrimináciu a sexistické urážky na to, aby ponížil ženu. Taktiež by nás nemalo prekvapovať, že médiá (ktoré vo všeobecnosti existujú na ochranu a šírenie záujmov elity) celý stav ešte väčšmi zhoršili. Ale prečo sa do ponižovania zákazníčky zapojila aj čašníčka? (Ktorá po medializácii incidentu dostala výpoveď. Pozn. prekl.)

Ariel Levi vo svojej knihe: Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women in the Rise of Raunch Culture (sorry za druhovú diskrimináciu) vysvetľuje, že za všetko môže stále stúpajúca popularita „post-feminizmu“, ktorý reprezentuje patriarchálnu voľbu ideológie na boj proti útlaku žien. Počas toho, ako ženy súperia o pozornosť mužov, sa samé dostávajú do konfliktov. Vo svete, kde je mužnosť spájaná s prestížou a mocou, častokrát vídame ženy, ktoré inklinujú viac k maskulinite a strácajú záujem o ženské väzby. Deniz Kandiyoti (1988) to označuje za „podplácanie patriarchátu“. Aby sa vyrovnala so svetom, ktorý je nepriateľský k všetkému ženskému, sa čašníčka rozhodla podporiť patriarchálne hodnoty a zosmiešnila zákazníčku, a to všetko pre zachovanie svojej pozície, či tváre medzi kolegami.

Nesmieme však zabúdať ani na to, že aj pre mužov je veľmi náročné byť pod neustálym tlakom spoločnosti a spomínaných „hodnôt mužnosti“. Reklama na americkú firmu „Carnivore Club“ (klub mäsožravcov) je dokonalým príkladom oboch problematík. Snaží sa poukázať na kontrolu v rukách muža, na jeho inteligenciu a nadradenosť (pokiaľ „hrá podľa pravidiel“) a to všetko na úkor ženských hodnôt.


Autor reklamy poukazuje na mnohé stereotypy týkajúce sa vegánstva: je hlavne pre ženy, s mužnosťou nemá nič spoločné, vegánske jedlá sú mdlé a príliš úzkostlivo zdravé.  Mužom, ktorí vstúpia do klubu mäsožravcov, garantuje ochranu ich dominancie, kontrolu nad prírodou a dokonca aj bezchybné fungovanie ich intímnych partií (aj napriek tomu, že konzumácia živočíšnych produktov je častokrát spájaná s kardiovaskulárnymi ochoreniami a diabetom, ktoré vedú k poruchám erekcie).

Propagovanie tejto firmy ako „exkluzívneho klubu“ bolo zámerné. Podnik sa touto cestou snaží naznačiť, že iba jej členovia sú „pravými mužmi“, ktorí vedia, „čo je správne“. Presne ako rebríček najúspešnejších podnikateľov „Fortune 500 CEO“, legislatívne orgány, manažment médií a iné pozície len pre „mužov“, aj „The Carnivore Club“ pozýva mužov, aby sa pridali k elite a zúčastnili sa nadvlády nad zraniteľnými. Bez členských údajov sa nedostanete ani len na ich stránku.  Všimnite si, prosím, aj všetkým dobre známu postavu, „hlúpučkú, nič netušiacu manželku“, ktorá je často využívaná v reklamách a filmoch. Ženy sú skrátka absolútne neschopné uvedomiť si, čo majú ich mentálne nadradení mužskí partneri za lubom.

Toto je toxická maskulinita. Nielen, že sú muži podporovaní v stravovacích návykoch, ktoré im spôsobia choroby, ale aj ženy sú podporované v odmietaní vegánstva na úkor „prežitia“ v anti-feministickej patriarchálnej spoločnosti. Nesmieme zabúdať ani na tých, ktorí prehrali tento boj na plnej čiare. Zvieratá, ktorých útlak je marginalizovaný, ich advokáti sú umlčaní a vystavovaní poníženiu a šikane.

 

Corey Lee WrennDr. Wrenn is Lecturer of Sociology. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology with Colorado State University in 2016. She received her M.S. in Sociology in 2008 and her B.A. in Political Science in 2005, both from Virginia Tech. She was awarded Exemplary Diversity Scholar, 2016 by the University of Michigan’s National Center for Institutional Diversity. She served as council member with the American Sociological Association’s Animals & Society section (2013-2016) and was elected Chair in 2018. She serves as Book Review Editor to Society & Animals and has contributed to the Human-Animal Studies Images and Cinema blogs for the Animals and Society Institute. She has been published in several peer-reviewed academic journals including the Journal of Gender Studies, Feminist Media Studies, Disability & Society, Food, Culture & Society, and Society & Animals. In July 2013, she founded the Vegan Feminist Network, an academic-activist project engaging intersectional social justice praxis. She is the author of A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory (Palgrave MacMillan 2016).

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Gary Yourofsky: Ist der Backlash gerechtfertigt?

Posted on by

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?

 

Corey Lee WrennDr. Wrenn is Lecturer of Sociology. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology with Colorado State University in 2016. She received her M.S. in Sociology in 2008 and her B.A. in Political Science in 2005, both from Virginia Tech. She was awarded Exemplary Diversity Scholar, 2016 by the University of Michigan’s National Center for Institutional Diversity. She served as council member with the American Sociological Association’s Animals & Society section (2013-2016) and was elected Chair in 2018. She serves as Book Review Editor to Society & Animals and has contributed to the Human-Animal Studies Images and Cinema blogs for the Animals and Society Institute. She has been published in several peer-reviewed academic journals including the Journal of Gender Studies, Feminist Media Studies, Disability & Society, Food, Culture & Society, and Society & Animals. In July 2013, she founded the Vegan Feminist Network, an academic-activist project engaging intersectional social justice praxis. She is the author of A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory (Palgrave MacMillan 2016).

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

3 Reasons Why You Should Become a Pro-Intersectional Activist

Posted on by

Art by Emma Fay

By Lilia Trenkova, Co-Founder of Collectively Free

Intersectionality theory was created by Kimberlé Crenshaw and other black feminists in the 1960s and 70s as a form of resistance to the predominantly white (read: racist) feminist movement and the predominantly male (read: sexist) civil rights movement at the time. It introduced the idea that 1. People who experience multiple – layered – forms of oppression (e.g. racism and sexism) face more struggle than people who experience less forms (say who only experience sexism) because 2. These oppressions feed into and support one another with the help of both institutions and social prejudices. So the term “pro-intersectional” means applying and developing this analysis further in order to affirm and empower people who exist in non-dominant (unprivileged) layers of society.

1. Because it’s important to know the truth

Pause and think about a moment when you realized that your whole life you had been lied to about something you believed in deeply. Remember the feeling of confusion, indignation, sadness or anger.

For example, regardless of which country you grew up in, you were likely taught in school that Columbus “discovered” America. You learned it, you repeated it in your quizzes and essays, and unless you were told otherwise by say your parents, you accepted it. Until one day you realized how deeply wrong it was. Columbus didn’t “discover” the continent; he launched its colonization, paving the way for Western Europeans to commit centuries of atrocities against the humans and nonhumans who already inhabited the lands and waters. How messed up is it that you were fed a totally different story?

Or for example, perhaps you realized one day that there were things in your life you had taken for granted but that someone else in your life had never had access to those things. Maybe you were walking on the street one day and suddenly became aware of all the potholes, tall curbs and steps leading into buildings that make it difficult, if not impossible, to navigate for a person using a wheelchair. Or you woke up one morning and figured out that each bacon-egg-and-cheese sandwich requires the bodily harm of three different species of animals… and that they would have much preferred to continue living unharmed.

If you’ve experienced such a bubble-bursting, life-changing realization, you know the mix of feelings that evokes. You can feel scared and confused (“How could I have been lied to about all of this?”) while at the same time feeling exhilarated and inspired (“F*** this, I’m going to do something about it!”) Which brings us to reason #2:

2. Because it’s important to do something about it

If you learn the truth about something and you don’t let anyone know about it, did you really learn it? And more importantly, did anything change?

Whenever you first learn the truth about a social injustice, it’s natural to feel compelled to do something about it, especially if it has to do with your values.  Obviously you’re more likely to do something if it affects you directly; it feels like it’s your duty! But what if the realization you’ve just had has to do with the lives of others and not so directly yours? Well, it’s still important that you do something about it – precisely because you’ll be in a position where you could potentially have leverage.

What you do can come in many forms. It can mean speaking with people: on a small scale with your family and friends or addressing larger groups of people that you have access to (say if you’re a teacher or in a leadership position). It can mean launching an organization or joining one that already exists. It can mean confronting the problem physically via direct action, or non-physically through writing, art, political campaigns or any other means that combines raising awareness with creating a solution.

Regardless of what type of action you choose, it’s important to continue to learn (and unlearn, as the case may be). Just because a realization made you spark into action doesn’t mean you fully grasp the issue yet or how it relates to other issues and the bigger picture. As you learn, you begin to realize for instance that you can no longer speak about economic justice without also talking about race, gender, age, ability or nationality. You begin to realize that what’s happening in, say, Flint, MI, is not isolated from what’s happening at Standing Rock or at Smithfield Foods. And eventually you find out where exactly you fit into this whole big mess…and that’s when it all becomes a full circle and it all makes sense.

 

This video shows animal liberationists who struggle against many different “-isms” in their daily lives. Yet their fight to exist (queers, single mothers, Latinx, indigenous, disabled, Muslims, trans, working class, students, anarchists, black, immigrants, Asians….) is not separate from, nor does it compete with, their fight as activists for nonhumans; it’s not a matter of either/or but rather it’s both/and. For them, viewing social issues in isolation doesn’t work because they can’t stop being queer or disabled, etc. when they speak out for nonhuman animals or for immigration rights, etc.

Could the notion that we must always choose one thing to focus on also be a story you’ve been fed unquestionably?


Learning about and questioning social issues and how they affect one another is an indispensable part of being an activist. The good news? Your learning gears and your action gears are perfectly capable in working together. In fact, each makes the other stronger! Even better is when you do this learning with others around you, which brings us to point #3:

3. Because it’s important to do that something with others

Why is it important to work with others? Because doing activism and learning about social issues can be an emotional (and physical!) rollercoaster, so it helps to share the experience with others who understand what you’re going through. It also helps to know that you won’t be alone and that others in your group will have your back if something happens. Stronger communities mean you gain stronger control over your own life.

Why is it important to work with and listen to others who have different backgrounds from yours? Because social issues too don’t all have the same background – so why should we use cookie-cutter solutions? In other words, not everyone in your community will experience the same struggle in the same way. For example, a queer immigrant from Latin America will experience homophobia in a different way than a queer U.S.-born citizen. A cow at a dairy farm will experience speciesism in a different way than a fox trapped for their fur. So when a community values the distinct perspective within itself is when we can start coming up with solutions that will benefit everyone affected.

Community is both the means and the ends in the fight for social justice – it both leads to action and results from action. Community isn’t just a group of people sharing the same space; it requires action from all members for all members. In a community we all teach and motivate one another, as well as hold one another accountable when we mess up so that we can become not only better activists but better people.

 

Lilia Trenkova was born and raised in Bulgaria during the final years of communism before embarking on the long journey (recently completed) that is U.S. immigration. She holds an MFA in Scenic Design, a BA in Theater and Studio Art, and is a certified permaculture designer. In addition to activism, Lili works as an environmental designer, scenic artist and fabricator. She’s a co-founder of Collectively Free where she gets to combine her organizing and creative skills to fight for justice.

Uh Oh… Your Vegan Panel is All White or Male

Posted on by

A few  years ago, I was considering attending Colorado VegFest 2014 until I read the program and changed my mind. Almost every single presenter appeared to be white and male. I wasn’t the only person to notice this. Several concerned activists raised the issue with the program organizers, and were, to my dismay, met with strong resistance. Because we were critical of the program’s male-centrism, we were curiously accused of being sexist ourselves. Moreover, we were told we were ruining activism “for the animals.”

Because these reactions are so common to feminist critique no matter how politely or compassionately that critique is offered, it is worth exploring why these responses are both inappropriate and oppressive.

Gender Inclusivity is Not Sexist

When feminists ask that more women be included in speaking events, it is not an insinuation that men are not capable of having good ideas and should be barred from participation. It is only asking that women be actively included with the understanding that women have been consciously and unconsciously excluded from participating in the public discourse for centuries.

This is not sexism against men because, under patriarchy (a system of male rule), men cannot be victims of sexism. “Reverse sexism” is a trope designed to protect male privilege and deflect criticism, but it lacks empirical support. The institutions of patriarchy are designed to privilege men, therefore, men cannot be the victims of sexism when women challenge this privilege.

Gender Inclusivity is Not Speciesist

Lamenting “the animals” who are presumably hurt by efforts to improve diversity is another distraction technique.  It takes the blame away from those responsible for the problem (almost always persons protecting their privilege) and puts it on those who are drawing attention to the problem (usually marginalized persons). “Won’t somebody please think of the animals!” rhetoric protects structures of inequality.

Emphasizing the urgency of Nonhuman Animal suffering (“RIGHT NOW!”) eliminates the potential for civil discourse and careful thought, both of which are necessary for effective activism. No time to think, animals are suffering! This trope exploits the torture and death of Nonhuman Animals to maintain privilege and inequality.

Failing to Assume Responsibility is Sexist

Most gatekeepers in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement are unwilling to accept responsibility for institutional discrimination. To a point, this is understandable. Very few persons today are explicitly sexist or racist; most engage in implicit or unconscious prejudice and stereotyping. You do not have to identify as sexist to be sexist. In fact, many people who believe themselves to be champions of women are actively engaged in sexist systems.

The majority of us theoretically support egalitarian ideals, which is good news, of course. Yet, this superficial support also makes challenging the many barriers that remain all the more difficult. Marginalized groups today are harmed by institutional discrimination far more than interpersonal prejudices and discriminations. Even if you personally do not feel you are sexist or racist, that does not mean sexism or racism doesn’t exist.

Sexism and racism are both structural, but most interpret these systems as individual. In this case, VegFest panel organizers were confronted with the presence of sexism and racism and interpreted our feminist critique to mean that they themselves (not the institution they represent) were being labeled sexist and racist. They reacted with more individual-level thinking, reversing the contention by insisting that it was we the complainants who were the truly sexist and racist persons. By this schoolyard logic, any acknowledgement of white male privilege is inherently sexist and racist. But acknowledging gender, race, and difference in representation and opportunity is not bigotry. Such a framework invisibilizes the very real systems that insure that this panel and most panels in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement have a race and gender problem.

Solutions of Responsibility

Blaming the complainants is only one tactic. Blaming the disenfranchised is another popular approach.

Ignoring systems invites a deflection to the most vulnerable. Too uncomfortable to consider that their own biases might somehow be responsible for the lack of diversity, organizers lazily insist that it is simply the case that no women or people of color were available or interested. Again, this response inappropriately individualizes a systemic problem. Institutions wield incredible privilege in normalizing agendas and discourse. They also wield incredible privilege in acting as gatekeepers and setting standards and values for their audiences.

Men and whites (and especially a combination of the two) must take responsibility for sexism and racism in the movement. Even if these persons do not feel they are racist or sexist, they nonetheless benefit from these systems and are thus morally obligated to acknowledge and resist them. Allies should, first, contact organizers and express their disappointment with the lack of diversity. They should, second, withhold their services or patronage until diversity is improved.

In a movement that is 80% female, there is no excuse for an all-male or nearly all-male group of speakers, contributors, or leaders. Race is more complicated. The overwhelming whiteness of the activist pool indicates that many people of color–who also care about other animals and practice veganism–rightfully avoid the movement and either abandon activism or create independent collectives. Those who remain are vulnerable to exploitation, over-extended to fulfill diversity quotas and often used as tokens.

Conclusion

I am of the position that most of these events are wastes of precious few resources. I recognize that creating community is essential to retaining vegans, but conferences and fests are not explicitly “for the animals.” The majority of event goers, I suspect, are not uninitiated persons, but rather persons who are already vegan or vegetarian. These events are predominantly sites of fundraising, career advancement, personal entertainment, and celebrity worship. They are not “about the animals” so much as they are about humans.

Diversity disrupts the historical use of conferences as spaces to engage in and enjoy privilege. If these conferences were truly in the business of spreading vegan ideals, they would embrace diversity rather than accuse women and other disenfranchised groups of being discriminatory themselves simply for requesting representation. A movement that belittles and trivializes the marginalization of human groups will be unwelcoming and ineffective for other animals. If the community believes that conferences matter, then they must become relevant and inclusive.

 

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

Why Can’t the ALF Talk about Sexism?

Posted on by

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 Lecturer of Sociology. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology with Colorado State University in 2016. She received her M.S. in Sociology in 2008 and her B.A. in Political Science in 2005, both from Virginia Tech. She was awarded Exemplary Diversity Scholar, 2016 by the University of Michigan’s National Center for Institutional Diversity. She served as council member with the American Sociological Association’s Animals & Society section (2013-2016) and was elected Chair in 2018. She serves as Book Review Editor to Society & Animals and has contributed to the Human-Animal Studies Images and Cinema blogs for the Animals and Society Institute. She has been published in several peer-reviewed academic journals including the Journal of Gender Studies, Feminist Media Studies, Disability & Society, Food, Culture & Society, and Society & Animals. In July 2013, she founded the Vegan Feminist Network, an academic-activist project engaging intersectional social justice praxis. She is the author of A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory (Palgrave MacMillan 2016).

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.