Privilège masculin, Déraillements de la Discussion et la Politique de la Politesse

Posted on by
Translation by Christophe Hendrickx. See more French translations of critical vegan essays by grassroots activists by visiting his blog, La Pilule Rouge. The original English version of this essay can be found by clicking here.

dawson-leery-is-crying-male-tears

J’ai eu une conversation hier avec un collègue qui soutient la violence et les réformes de bien-être dans la lutte pour les droits des Animaux Non-humains. En tant qu’abolitionniste, je rejette ces tactiques, étant non seulement bancales idéologiquement mais contreproductives. Les débats violence/non-violence et abolition/bien-être ont une longue histoire derrière eux dans le mouvement, et les débats sur leur efficacité n’en finissent pas. De par ma spécialisation dans la théorie du mouvement social développée durant ma vie universitaire, j’ai un avis plutôt forgé sur ce genre de sujets. Mon collègue, cependant, n’est pas universitaire et n’est pas versé dans la science des mouvements sociaux, basant sa position sur le discours dominant (dirigé par les hommes) du mouvement. Au fil de la discussion et vu que je maintenais fermement ma position sur le sujet, mon collègue a fait remarquer qu’il ne pensait plus pouvoir me parler sans être au final accusé de sexisme. C’était peut-être parce que j’utilisais le langage du privilège pour discuter de la domination des organisations welfaristes dans le mouvement, ou peut-être parce que j’ai fait remarquer que les tactiques violentes sont patriarcales et tendent à attirer les hommes. Peu importe la raison, on me pointait du doigt pour avoir communiqué ma position dans le cadre de l’inégalité. Je ne l’ai certainement jamais accusé de sexisme. Cependant, il m’est vite venu à l’esprit que mon collègue n’avait pas formulé cette affirmation suite à une véritable exaspération, mais plutôt comme outil de manipulation visant à faire dérailler la discussion et rétablir la suprématie masculine.

Les hommes tendent à être socialisés à s’attendre à dominer le débat. Ils sont socialisés à croire qu’ils ont raison, que leur opinion importe, et que cette opinion est la plus importante. Ce n’est pas basé sur l’expérience ou sur la connaissance, mais plutôt sur leur statut social privilégié en tant qu’homme. Les femmes, à l’inverse, sont socialisées selon la politique de la politesse. On nous apprend à donner plus d’espace de parole aux hommes, à estimer leurs opinions peu importe leur ridicule ou leur offense, pour apaiser leurs égos, etc.. Des décennies de recherches sociologiques sur la discussion, le langage, et l’espace social concernant les interactions mixtes ont confirmé que les hommes parlent plus, ils occupent plus d’espace, ils dictent la discussion, et leurs opinions sont vues comme plus crédibles et légitimes. Les femmes, au contraire, parlent moins, soutiennent plus, et occupent moins d’espace. Leurs opinions sont également extrêmement dévaluées.

Lorsque les homes se plaignent de ne pas pouvoir dire quoi que ce soit sans être accusés de sexisme, voici ce qu’ils disent réellement :

1. Je suis habitué à avoir le contrôle de la conversation, votre conscience de la politique sexuelle rend cela difficile pour moi d’adopter ce privilège invisible en douceur.

2. Je suis habitué à pouvoir parler de n’importe quel sujet sans qu’on remette en question mon autorité, la possibilité qu’on m’accuse de sexisme interfère avec mon autorité.

3. J’utilise la politique de la politesse pour vous confondre à donner priorité à mes sentiments et intérêts.

4. La théorie féministe est une charade. Le sexisme n’est pas réel, vous utilisez juste cette rhétorique pour gagner le débat.

Cette tactique est une variante de la “tone-policing” (ndt : littéralement “police du ton” : se concentrer sur la manière dont on dit quelque chose, peu importe qu’elle soit vraie ou non). Plutôt que se concentrer sur l’argument développé, un déraillement est créé en invoquant l’égo masculin meurtri, le caractère de la femme, et l’authenticité du féminisme. Les femmes sont détournées d’un sujet sur lequel elles peuvent exprimer leur propre autorité lorsque les hommes exploitent la féminité et font pression sur les femmes pour qu’elles montrent du respect à la structure sociale patriarcale. La validité de mon argument se trouve mise sur le côté, je dois d’abord m’occuper de ses sentiments. Ne pas s’occuper d’abord des sentiments des hommes est un pêché capital dans le patriarcat. Être une femme avec une opinion éclairée semble également être une grande offense.

Enfin, il est extrêmement important de reconnaître que lorsque nous individualisons l’oppression, nous obscurcissons sa nature systémique. Si nous ne pouvons pas débattre d’oppression systémique parce que les gens de privilège donnent priorité à leur inconfort pour ce qui semble être une attaque personnelle, nous ne pourrons pas avoir les discussions importantes nécessaires pour créer une société égalitaire. En faire une question personnelle (“Hey, je ne suis pas sexiste !”; “Hey, tu dis que je suis un raciste ?!”) fait sérieusement dérailler la conversation. Au lieu de remettre en question l’oppression culturelle, les militantes se voient amenées à s’occuper des sentiments de personnes de privilège qui sont habituées à être à l’abri de l’inconfort. Cela devient extrêmement pénible pour les personnes oppressées de devoir se plier en permanence aux sentiments des personnes privilégiées. Faire cela redirige l’attention des oppressés vers les oppresseurs. Cela ferme également le dialogue, interfère avec la pensée critique, et entrave le travail de justice sociale.

 

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.

The Power Of The Vegan Who Remembers Their Roots

Posted on by

"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.

La Política Sexual del Veganismo Moralmente Superior

Posted on by
Translation by María. María is active with Ochodoscuatro Ediciones, a non-profit anti-speciesist book house that is noted for translating Carol Adams’ The Sexual Politics of Meat into Spanish. You can view the original English version of the essay below by clicking here.

Stella McCartney and dog walking on trail

Por Corey Lee Wrenn

La línea de moda vegana de Stella McCartney apareció en un reciente artículo de la revista feminista Bustle en la sección “Moda y belleza”. Al principio, me sentí encantada de que presentasen el veganismo en un espacio feminista, cosa que no suele suceder tan a menudo como debería.

Parece que la autora, también, es consciente de la falta de conexión política entre feminismo y veganismo, pues se encarga de amortiguar a los lectores con una advertencia. Siguiendo una declaración de McCartney que dice que su marca es “la empresa más ética y amorosa de la industria de la moda”, Bustle aclara:

La declaración apunta que ella dijo eso en broma, indicando que no se siente moralmente superior acerca de su postura libre de crueldad, cosa que no siempre es el caso de los activistas por los derechos animales.

Encuentro esa advertencia bastante curiosa, estando en el contexto de la política feminista. Las feministas generalmente ponen resistencia cuando alguien intenta controlarles el tono en que dicen algo y a menudo castigan a las celebridades que se niegan a identificarse a sí mismas como feministas. Pero todo vale cuando hablamos de los derechos de los animales no humanos. En otras palabras, las feministas fomentan con determinación un feminismo fuerte y orgulloso, en un esfuerzo por desestigmatizar el activismo de justicia social, pero pueden darle rápidamente la vuelta y vilipendiar a aquellas que hacen lo mismo en nombre de los otros animales.

Dado que el 80% del movimiento por los derechos de los animales no humanos está formado por mujeres y siendo que el veganismo está extremadamente “feminizado”, es importante reconocer los matices sexistas en la estereotipación de las veganas. Es posible que esa “superioridad moral” asignada a activistas y veganas sea de hecho una forma de vigilancia de género. En otras palabras, estos estereotipos trabajan para avergonzar y silenciar a las mujeres “engreídas” que se atreven a politizarse.

Las feministas deberían mantenerse al margen la ridiculización de la justicia social. Preocuparse por la opresión de las demás no debería ser algo que ocultar o que minimizar. El compromiso para acabar con la injusticia debería ser algo de lo que estar orgullosa. Deberíamos estar celebrando el activismo. Es un trabajo duro, se ganan pocos amigos, es mentalmente agotador y pocas personas están dispuestas a participar. Las feministas no deberían poner añadidos a esa dificultad, cuando podrían ser una fuente importante de apoyo. Esto especialmente cuando la mayor parte de activistas por el veganismo son mujeres y cuando el especismo está íntimamente ligado al patriarcado.

 

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.

Psychological Abuse in Animal Rights Advocacy

Posted on by

Man yelling into bullhorn at a protest

By Pooja Umbra

Since being diagnosed with an auto-immune neurological disorder and a mental illness as a vegan, I have been putting a lot of thought into the kind of vegan advocacy that can be categorized as psychologically abusive. I have myself partaken in this type of advocacy and I write this using my newly-acquired self-awareness and insight into psychological issues.

I’d like to state on record that I am not a mental health professional. I am articulating this as someone who has experienced psychological abuse from my early childhood and as someone who’s learning to tell the difference between emotionally healthy and unhealthy behaviors.

So what exactly is psychological abuse?

Psychological abuse, also referred to as emotional abuse or mental abuse, is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder.

It encompasses a wide range of behaviors such as, verbal aggression/ assault, domination, emotional blackmail, invalidation, gaslighting and blaming, among others.

Emotionally abusive behaviors by activists or any reminders of past emotional trauma can have debilitating consequences for survivors. Using guilt and shame for AR advocacy with the objective of elevating people’s consciousness to the plight of non-human animals may sometimes yield positive results, but it may also at times make survivors of emotional abuse relive the trauma of the past, feed their suicidal ideation, strengthen their ‘inner critic’, deepen their toxic shame, make the management of their illness difficult, or severely hamper their chances of recovery. Much has been written about certain damaging types of animal rights (AR) advocacy that is triggering to victims/survivors of violent crime such as rape. It is not much different for survivors of emotional trauma. Many in the AR movement, regrettably, still don’t see this as something to be rectified because of their anything goes approach to AR advocacy.

Before AR activists scream, ‘Meat is murder’ or tell non-vegans that they’re contributing to the death of shelter animals by purchasing animals from breeders, they need to stop and evaluate what they want to accomplish and why they’re using the kind of emotionally manipulative/ verbally aggressive approach that usually alienates people with mental disabilities and/or those with a history of trauma. Activists are better off using non-abusive approaches that don’t open up the emotional wounds of others. Furthermore, such non-abusive approaches are more likely to help non-human animals. Abusive tactics only serve to make abusers feel good by feeding off of the humiliation of others. It is self-serving and short-sighted. AR activists with able-minded and able-bodied privileges, as allies to non-human animals, need to recognize the imbalance of power between them and those with disabilities, and tailor their advocacy to be more compassionate.

Emotionality is an asset for bringing about lasting social change, but there is a difference between using corrosive tactics like guilt and shame, and encouraging self-reflection and accountability. All humans oppress non-human animals wittingly or unwittingly, to varying degrees. As those belonging to the oppressor group, we need to have more humility in our activism.

 

PoojaPooja Umbra is a multi-lingual vegan feminist from Bangalore who is fluent in four languages and semi-proficient in two others. She is a qualified accountant, though is currently on a break. She currently devotes her time to looking after her twelve and a half year old dog and to self- care.

Veganismo y Políticas de Género

Posted on by

 

Translation by Mariángel Villalobos. You can follow her on Twitter @mvillabe. The original English version of this essay can be found by clicking here.

Por Corey Lee Wrenn

Un lector, Alexander Lawrie me envió esta historia y pensé que sería un ejemplo excelente de la supremacía masculina y la vigilancia de género como una barrera en contra del avance de los intereses de las mujeres y otros animales. Un periódico Escocés reportó que los empleados de un restaurante se burlaron de una mujer la cual solicitó que un artículo del menú se hiciera vegano. Su recibo leía: “Vegan Vegan Vegan Pussy”. El restaurante añadió sal a la herida cuando se burlaron de la mujer en su página de Facebook.

¡Pero no termina ahí! El periódico que cubría la historia encontró la página de Facebook de la mujer e imprimió su foto de perfil junto con su nombre completo y lugar de empleo. El acoso adicional que siguió fue lo suficientemente severo para que el periódico moderara los comentarios y eliminara su foto.

Todo el incidente apesta a misoginia. Si la víctima hubiese sido hombre, esperaría que la reacción hubiese sido similar, aunque probablemente con la adición de la homofobia. Bajo el patriarcado, el dominio sobre otros y del consumo de la carne es altamente masculinizado. El veganismo ha sido feminizado no solo porque es más común que los veganos sean mujeres, sino también porque el veganismo representa los intereses de quienes son subyugados a la opresión masculina. El veganismo lucha contra el patriarcado.

No deberíamos de estar sorprendidos de que una compañía que saca provecho de la explotación de los Animales No Humanos use un insulto especista y sexista para desestimar a la mujer, ni deberíamos estar sorprendidos de que los medios de comunicación (que por lo general existen para proteger y reproducir los intereses de la élite) solo hagan las cosas peores. ¿Pero por qué la mesera actuó de esta manera?

En “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women in the Rise of Raunch Culture” (Disculpen el título especista), Ariel Levy explica que la popularidad del “post-feminismo” en realidad representa una co-optación de una ideología céntrica en la mujer anti-opresión patriarcal. Las mujeres son puestas a competir entre ellas al rivalizar por la aprobación del hombre. En un mundo donde la masculinidad es igualada con prestigio y poder, es común que las mujeres abandonen su feminidad y recurran a la masculinidad. Denis Kandiyoti (1998) le llama a esto negociación patriarcal. Para hacer frente a un mundo que es hostil hacia todo lo femenino, la mesera estaba cuidando sus intereses al apoyar los valores masculinos y al condenar la cena vegana.

Por supuesto, esto significa que los hombres mismos están bajo una enorme presión de conformarse a estos valores masculinos. Este comercial para el “Carnivore Club” (Club Carnívoro) busca reafirmar el control masculino, la inteligencia masculina, y la superioridad masculina de cara a los valores femeninos invasores.

 

Este comercial juega con muchos estereotipos del veganismo: Es para mujeres; es castrante, sin sabor, y fastidiosamente saludable. El unirse al Club Carnívoro promete a los hombres proteger su dominio, su control sobre la naturaleza y hasta su virilidad (aunque consumir productos de Animales no Humanos es vinculado a una letanía de enfermedades que amenazan a la vida, incluyendo problemas cardiovasculares y diabetes, que son unas de las causas principales de la disfunción eréctil).

Carnivore Club Advert

Formular este producto como un “club” es intencional. Los anunciantes esperan usar la masculinidad como un espacio exclusivo para miembros, que están al día. Como los CEOs de Fortune 500, los cuerpos legislativos, los ejecutivos de los medios de comunicación, y otros espacios exclusivos de chicos y su privilegio masculino, el “Carnivore Club” invita a los hombres a que se unan al rango de la élite masculina en su dominio sobre los vulnerables. Verdaderamente, uno no puede siquiera tener acceso a su sitio web sin iniciar sesión como un miembro. Nota también el cuento de la “esposa boba y despistada” tan común utilizado en comerciales, programas y filmes. Las mujeres son demasiado incompetentes para darse cuenta de lo que hacen sus compañeros masculinos de mentalidad superior.

Esto es una masculinidad tóxica. No solo los hombres son motivados a dar rienda suelta a comportamientos nutricionales que les causa enfermedad y muerte, pero las mujeres son también motivadas a que rechacen el veganismo al planear su supervivencia en un patriarcado anti-feminista. Y no nos olvidemos, los más grandes perdedores son los Animales No Humanos cuya opresión es vista como natural y sus defensores son burlados, acosados y silenciados.

 

Corey Lee WrennMs. Wrenn is the founder of Vegan Feminist Network and also operates The Academic Abolitionist Vegan. She is a Lecturer of Sociology with Monmouth University, a part-time Instructor of Sociology and Ph.D. candidate with Colorado State 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. In 2015, she was awarded Exemplary Diversity Scholar 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 (2015, Palgrave Macmillan).

 

Vegans Must Watch Pornography

Posted on by

Content Warning/Not Safe for Work: Some description of violent pornography.

Movie poster for "Hot Girls Wanted." Girl curled up on a hotel bed, wearing only underwear and children's stockings to the knee. She is hiding her face.

I finally had the opportunity (and courage) to watch the new documentary, Hot Girls Wanted. It is about the exploitation of teen girls in America in an industry that is known as “amateur porn” (a form of legal prostitution and sex trafficking). The film follows the short careers of some of these girls (I call them girls consciously because they are just barely out of childhood and it is this immaturity that is specifically exploited), documenting their experiences through their own words. Though the liberal position on pornography is that it is a “live and let live,” “freely chosen,” form of “employment,” the film really forces us to question how we can apply these neutralizing descriptions to what is essentially the highly violent, degrading, poorly paid, and high-risk exploitation of teenagers.

It is a form of employment that hurts, lacks protection, and is devoid of security or benefits. The average career is only a few months, and girls have to pay to play. After paying rent to their pimp (or “agent”) and purchasing lingerie, hair and nails, STD testing, Plan-B emergency contraceptives, trips to the emergency room, etc., there is almost nothing left. What this means is that earning a living in this “industry” is impossible for most (girls and women that is, as men profit considerably). As the girls become “spent” in the industry and the returns dry up, they must resort to increasingly dangerous sex acts to remain in the game.

While the idea of true consent existing in this industry is always suspect, sometimes the girls who “choose” to do particular scenes change their minds once the abuse begins, but they are either too pressured or frightened to say “no.” The power differential between impoverished teenage girls and older male business owners and bosses, while already significant, is amplified considerably when sex, cameras, and contracts are involved.

The film does not contain as much disturbing imagery as does The Price of Pleasure, but it did share a number of scenes “starring” (a euphemism) some of the girls in the documentary, which, for all intents and purposes, appear to depict violent rape and assault. New to me, there is an increasingly popular theme in pornography known as “facial abuse.” In this genre, a teenager’s mouth is penetrated so violently while her head is beaten and yanked about that she will cry and throw up. Sometimes she is forced to eat the vomit on her hands and knees. All the while she is demeaned with misogynistic insults.

There are hundreds of films like this. One such scene included in the film featured a college student who introduced herself as a student majoring in feminist studies so that the male audience could masturbate to the fantasy of raping a woman back into her place and brutalizing her as punishment for advocating for liberation and peace. In addition to being gagged with a forced blow job, she is choked and slammed–screaming–into the floor.

The skyrocketing level of violence in pornography is no accident. As in many “free market” capitalist enterprises, there is a no holds barred race to the bottom, and the vulnerable pay the price.

The parallels between the treatment of vulnerable women in our society and the treatment of other animals cannot be denied. One of the girls in the documentary even points this out herself, explaining that she and others in the industry are treated like “meat.”  This is why vegans must “watch” pornography. We must keep an eye on its influence, its role in society, and its ability to shape human attitudes and behaviors.

In a world where we excuse this type of behavior against women as “normal” and even “natural,” in a world where approximately 80% of men tune into pornography such as that described here on a regular basis, we cannot expect anyone to take seriously the violence against Nonhuman Animals for pleasurable consumption. Veganism can never succeed in a pornified world. Pornography must be on our radar because pornography is the script of oppression. Any vegan worth their weight in salt must take issue with the status of women. At the root of it all is the neoliberal infiltration of society, the capitalist bottom-line. It is a structure that puts all vulnerable, feminized bodies in peril.

 

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.