How Farmers are Making Dairies Sexy for Men’s Health

Posted on September 22, 2015 by Vegan Feminist Network

Macra na Feirme, a farmer’s association in Ireland, is creating a pornographic calendar to raise awareness about mental health problems and suicide in the farming community, particularly that of young men.

This project is gendered, as pornography predominantly involves the display of women’s bodies, while farming is masculinized. Women are the objects on display, while men are the subjects of concern.

Advertisement for Macra; A pair of legs and the top of a skirt is visible, a woman is sitting on a bail of hay in high heels

Calendar sales will go to the mental health non-profit Walk In My Shoes

What is interesting is that the campaign seeks to challenge unrealistic masculine gender roles (which discourage boys and men with depression from seeking help or admitting weakness), and yet those same roles are protected by framing the campaign in clear scripts of patriarchal dominance.

Importantly, the centering of men’s experiences also makes invisible the multitude of research that shows clear correlations between the sexual objectification of women and women’s higher rates of depression, anxiety, and self-harm, as well as lower rates of self image and self efficacy.

But more is going on in these images–we’re also seeing the romanticization and sexualization of speciesism. In one image, the Rose of Kilkenny (Ireland’s version of Miss America), poses seductively with a milking device. An instrument of torture for the Nonhuman Animals involved, but a very naturalized symbol of power, domination, and the pleasurable consumption of the female body for humans who interpret the image.

What’s also made invisible is the relationship between mental health and participation in systemic violence against the vulnerable. Yes, the campaign seeks to bring attention to the emotional challenges associated with farming, but no connection is being made to the relationship between hurting others and the hurt one experiences themselves. Slaughterhouse workers, for instance, are seriously psychologically impacted by the killing and butchering they must engage. Dairy workers, too, are paying a psychological price for their participation. This isn’t just about “farming” in general, this is about speciesist practices in particular. Speciesism hurts us all: Nonhuman Animals in particular, male farmers as a consequence, and women who are objectified and hurt in a society where the exploitation of feminized vulnerable groups is normalized.

Indeed, I find it interesting that, for women who want to participate in a social movement, the “go to” response is so often to get naked or make pornography. It is a powerful statement about the gender hierarchy in our society and the limited and often disempowering choices available to women. Ultimately, it speaks to a considerable limitation on our social justice imagination.

Thank you to our Hungarian contributor Eszter Kalóczkai for bringing attention to this story.

Dr. 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 September 1, 2015 by Vegan Feminist Network

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.

Pooja 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.

Practicing Healing and Self-Care

Posted on May 11, 2015 by Vegan Feminist Network

We Are Not Advocacy Robots

At the 2015 Sistah Vegan conference, Dr. Breeze Harper featured an amazing talk on self-care by Jessica Rowshandel, LMSW (the conference recordings are available for purchase on Dr. Harper’s website). What I enjoyed about the talk was that it offered a few clear suggestions (most notably, the importance of friendship and community), but it was also realistic about the barriers many social justice activists face in practicing self-care. Self-care really can be a luxury for some, and sometimes, we just can’t afford to engage it (financially, time-wise, ability-wise, etc.).

Sometimes it’s more than physical or material barriers that prevent us from prioritizing the self. Sometimes, it can be a matter of female identity or our current position in the activist journey. Women are socialized to be givers, to be selfless, to expect abusive behavior, and to be objects for the resources of others. This feminine identity, then, can really get us into some tough spots in our activism, especially when the activist space is patriarchal, as the Nonhuman Animal rights movement is.

But also, the typical activist, I think, experiences an identifiable growth cycle. We learn about injustice, we get angry, and we stay in a rage. We get involved in the movement, we build connections with others, and we learn that social movements are highly contentious spaces with lots and lots of in-fighting and abusive behavior (particularly by men). We rage some more. And then, as the years pass, either we drop out or we start to adopt a sort of activist wisdom. We learn that the schisms and abuse are normal parts of collective behavior, just as they are normal parts of the outside world we wish to change. That doesn’t make it okay, it simply means that we need to prepare for this inevitability. Women and especially empathetic people are going to very sensitive to this constant negativity (and these are the very types of people attracted to the movement). At some point, we have to make changes in how we choose to expend our energy in order for our activism to be sustainable and in order to remain healthy.

For those of you who have pre-existing issues with depression, anxiety, and abuse (if you are female-identified, statistically, this probably includes you, my dear reader), the added stress and vulnerability created by our activism can really become a huge burden. There are a lot of things in this world that we cannot control, but activism is one thing that we can. And while many of us do not want to cut out activism from our life (especially because it can be extremely rewarding to give back through pro-social behavior and because our activist networks can be a positive addition to our lives), we need to recognize that there must be boundaries.

Woman at her desk raising a hammer to her laptop

Photo from The Frisky

Finding boundaries and having the mental strength to reinforce those boundaries is something that I’ve really been working with. I have to stay out of vegan groups, because I know that internet spaces invite vitriol and aggressive behavior. I have to disable comments on my blogs, because, again, the anonymity of the internet and my female identity makes my online activity a beacon for vitriol and aggressive behavior. I have to reevaluate how I will spend my time blogging: will I use the space to vent my frustration on yet another abusive person or corrupt organization? Sometimes that is necessary. But it’s also important to start engaging positive contributions.

As the summer begins to settle in this year, I’m finding myself emerging from a very gloomy winter and spring, wondering what I can do to heal from these past few months. I’m trying to find my grounding after the death of my best friend, the death of my dog, the brutal academic job market, the poverty of graduate school, revising my book, finishing my dissertation, being apart from my partner for many months, a very toxic family situation, and waves of harassment from anti-feminists, neo-nazis, and sexist or racist vegans. I mean, woah. That’s enough to bring anyone down. It’s time to come up for air. With so little out of my hands, it is prudent to ask myself: what exactly can I control?

It’s really important for us to recognize that we are humans. We are not advocacy robots: we have feelings and weaknesses. We get run down, we get tired, we get our feelings hurt, and we find it hard to trust. Doing what we do is hard work. Let’s be honest about the reality of activism. It’s totally okay to acknowledge that sometimes it becomes too much to take.

My plan for Vegan Feminist Network this upcoming summer is a little bit in the air. I’m spending the next three months in Ireland with my partner, and I hope to stay off the internet as much as possible. I want to reconnect with him, cook healthy vegan food, squeeze in some hiking and a 5k, explore the pubs, and just allow myself to live (though I couldn’t help but pack some vegan leaflets!). Again, self-care can often be expensive. I have the privilege of taking the summer off because I am an online instructor, and we were fortunate enough to “afford” (i.e. go broke on purchasing) an expensive plane ticket (which is several months salary for many graduate students like myself). Some people might have financial security, but no loved ones to spend time with. Some people have families depending on them, and time is just not available. I know everyone has barriers, but we need to do what we can with what little we have to nourish our mental health.

African American woman of size Jessamyn Stanley demonstrates a complex yoga stretch.

Jessamyn Stanley; Photo from Jessamynstanley.com

I have discovered that yoga is one of those concrete ways that we can actually do something to repair ourselves from the damages of patriarchy and toxic activism. And it’s inclusive. There are variations of yoga for all body types and ranges of ability. In activist spaces, so often we focus on the mental emancipation through critical theory, learning, reading, and studying. Yoga is the other half of that–it helps us regain awareness and control over our bodies. Much like veganism, yoga is feminist praxis. For someone like me that has suffered with anxiety for my entire life, I have found that it is an amazing reward to my battered self to just take some time on the mat to stretch and breathe.

And you don’t need any expensive equipment–just comfy clothes and bare feet. I finally splurged on a mat, but it’s not necessary for yoga, just a nicety. For those who cannot afford yoga classes (like me!) or who are geographically isolated (like me!), yoga is freely available online (and allows you to practice from the peace and privacy of your own home). I have found Yoga with Adriene to be an amazing gift. Particularly helpful is her 23 minute “Yoga for a Broken Heart,” which is a gentle, beginner’s level session that will relax and soothe. See also the Instagram and Tumbler of Jessamyn Stanley, who combats the white- and thin-centricism of yoga practice in the West with body-positive curvy yoga. Or, Chelsea Jackson, who integrates critical thinking in her yoga practice for Black-identified persons facing trauma. “I see yoga as a tool to dismantle structural oppression,” she says. “It can help us interrogate systems that are constantly putting us in boxes or marginalizing us.”

Chelsea Jackson; Photo from Yoga Journal

Finally, if you are fortunate enough to have a companion animal in your family, give them a snuggle. Research shows that interacting with them can lower blood pressure and ease anxiety.

If all else fails…flip to a random page and prepare as directed (with appropriate modifications for my gluten-intolerant and diabetic friends!). I have heard many say that cooking and baking is a calming experience. And cupcakes are happiness, no doubt about it.

I agree with Jessica Rowshandel in the acknowledgement that self-care will differ for every individual, and sometimes it’s hard for us to really take it seriously and work it into our schedule. Most of us lack the space, money, freedom, or motivation necessary to take time for ourselves. I don’t have all the answers, but I do want to start a dialogue. Some of you reading this might be new on your activist journey and just want to saturate yourself in negativity and fight through it all, but I have a feeling you will reach a point where you must acknowledge that boundaries are necessary. When you reach that point, I hope your remember this post and revisit it. I may revisit this post as well, as I may have new ideas or experiences to share. In the meantime, you may want to take a peek at this step-by-step self-care guide presented by one of my favorite Black feminist blogs, For Harriet.

Take care and be well my friends.

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

A Feminist Critique of “Service” Dogs

Posted on March 13, 2015 by Vegan Feminist Network

When visiting Ireland last year, I regularly noticed charity pots on the counters of chip shops and pubs asking for donations for Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind. Oftentimes I’d have to avert my eyes and uncomfortably avoid volunteers collecting donations in the mall. I didn’t want to have the difficult discussion with these well-meaning folks about why I didn’t find it ethical to donate to their cause. It is not an easy topic because society rightfully sees aid for disability as an important social service. Any effort towards that value is seen as sacrosanct, and criticizing any of those efforts makes you appear hateful or ableist. This is compounded by the inability for most to think critically about the human relationship with dogs and other companion animals. People with disabilities want to live independently and in relative comfort. Service dogs can provide this. And people love dogs, and dogs “love” to serve people. It seems like a win-win.

Before I continue, I want to clarify that I live with a hearing and balance disability that is known to be progressive. At this point in my life I am independent and live a relatively “normal” life, but this was not always the case and there is also the possibility that I will be nearly or fully deaf later in life. My disability adviser suggested that I learn sign language in preparation. During “attacks,” I cannot drive or walk properly and must lay still for hours at a time. I point this out only because there is a tendency to attack the identity of the messenger in an effort to distract from the theory. I do not currently need a service animal, though at one time I may have benefited from one and in the future I surely may as well. I want to fully recognize that persons living with severe disabilities can and do gain from a working relationship with a service animal. However, I do not think this relationship is one where the interests of all parties are seriously considered. The institution of domestication also makes consent impossible. It is an unequal relationship built on power and domination. Just because I can benefit from the “services” of someone in a less powerful position who suffers from this exploitation, is it ethical to take advantage just because I can?

The ideology of human supremacy weighs very heavy in the mix. It is difficult to think about our relationship with our companion animals as one of “domination,” but this is inherently the case. Service animals are, for the most part, purpose bred animals who are rigorously trained since puppyhood for one purpose and for one purpose only: to serve their masters. Many dogs live rather lonely lives: they are kenneled for long periods of time and they are denied free expression. People are even discouraged from showing attention and affection to service dogs because they are “working.” It is important for us to recognize that sexually exploiting vulnerable persons to produce offspring so that the offspring can be trained to be servants for life is a relationship of oppression.

While it is unfortunate that some of us live with disabilities that make life more difficult for us, it should not follow that we have a green card to oppress those below us. Even those with disabilities can still wield considerable social privilege. Consider studies of disabled men and women which find that large percentages men had purchased a woman’s body (and many of those who had not had at least considered it). Meanwhile, practically no disabled women in the studies had purchased bodies for sex. Women do not wield the same power as men, and are thus not in the same position to purchase the bodies of others for pleasurable consumption. Furthermore, the singular focus on disability can obscure the injustices experienced by others in the equation. This is why an intersectional framework is so important. Women victimized by prostitution are extremely disadvantaged, with large portions of them entering “sex work” as a result of sex trafficking, pimping, poverty, drug addiction, and severe childhood trauma.

Just as we should question the demonstration of oppression when prostituted women’s bodies are purchased so that disabled men can have sex with them, we should question the purchasing and using of Nonhuman Animal’s bodies and labor for human benefit. This is an institution of inequality. Some are hurt so that others with more power can benefit. Can women sometimes benefit from prostitution as well? Can dogs sometimes benefit from service work? In some ways and in some cases, perhaps they can. However, we should not get lost in musings of “humane” treatment and fringe benefits, as doing so ultimately masks the presence of systemic inequality.

Can we conceive of consent-based relationships in disability services?

Importantly, there are alternatives. I speak to an industry that constantly churns out expensive new canine products for human consumption, and this industry should not be supported. Few humans are financially privileged enough to afford these “products” anyway, and disabled persons are more likely to be living in poverty due to structural inequalities. Consenting and waged humans are viable alternatives, and ideally, their services should be covered by insurance and government assistance (although it should also be acknowledged that poor women of color are disproportionately located within care work and this work is poorly compensated). Community-based volunteers, family, and friends are also alternatives. Technology is regularly providing new tools to support independence. Unfortunately, having a human assistant constantly present is not always possible, and technology has its limitations. In those cases, a canine servant seems unavoidable. Another consideration is that some service dogs are adopted, and thus avoid a cruel death in a “shelter” when they begin their new “career.” If the choice is between death and servitude, which is preferable? And what of “invisible” disabilities like depression and anxiety that can be alleviated by bonding with other animals? In these cases, dogs, cats, horses, etc. are being “used” but are granted much more liberty. There are no simple solutions, of course. What is important is to remain critical of relationships of domination and to be wary of arguments that rationalize domination based on natural history, biological differences, or humane use.

From a reader:

As a former animal shelter worker, I know that the “rejects” from service programs are not always re-homed and do end up in shelters. As a sociologist, I wonder why society is so quick to claim that a dog solves every problem from being lonely to depression to blindness to hearing the door chime. The mantra of give someone with a disability a dog and then they can be independent is deeply woven into our culture. We’re quick to deliver the service dog and then back away from the situation so the human can be independent, as if independence is the most important thing in the world. Why do people avoid asking the most obvious question of all: Why don’t humans help humans instead of enslaving dogs or other animals to help humans in need?

Not only do I see dogs being used as way for humans to avoid interacting with each other, I see humans unwilling to consider why we are so quick to shove a dog at a social problem, as if dogs can cure social ills. It’s one thing to want and have a dog as a companion, but it’s something else altogether to use a dog in ways that exploit a dog’s nature and being for human gain, especially when humans are perfectly capable of helping each other with companionship, therapy, running errands and developing technology that will solve many of the problems faced by those with disabilities.

Is it possible that service dogs leave someone with disabilities more socially isolated than they were before getting the dog? What happens when the hoopla of receiving the dog and the training associated with having the dog are over? We know that when a service dog is on duty humans are not supposed to approach the dog or the human, that we are not supposed to do or say anything to distract the dog from the work at hand. The service dog also sends a strong message that the human with the dog values independence, and as such, it is easy for others see a need to honor that independence by just walking way and not initiating friendly contact.

It’s time to question the use of service dogs and other animals in ways that are not ableist, but that give serious consideration to the fate of the dogs.

“Sexism is Nuts” says company that enslaves animals, children, and uses disableism in slogans

Posted on March 31, 2014 by Vegan Feminist Network

Feminists were in a fury over a new Australian Snickers ad that makes a mockery of street harassment and gender equality. For some time now, Snickers’ commercials have been based on people acting really strange or belligerent because they are hungry. Once fed a Snickers bar, they are satiated and return to normal. In this Australian commercial, construction workers are acting out of sorts from hunger. We know this because they are yelling egalitarian slogans at female passerby that sound straight from the mouth of feminist Ryan Gosling.

Hey Girl: Gender is a social construct but everyone likes to cuddle

Feminist men: It’s funny because it would supposedly never happen.

In the commercial, we see that most women are afraid at first (and this is supposed to be funny), because we have been conditioned our entire lives to expect and to fear strange men yelling at us. However, the women in the commercial appear to be pleased and amused when they realize they are hearing pro-feminist calls. Lisa Wade at Sociological Images describes the cruelty of playing on these gender scripts:

And then the commercial ends and it’s all yanked back in the most disgusting way. It ends by claiming that pro-feminist men are clearly unnatural. Men don’t respect women — at least, not this kind of man — they’re just so hungry they can’t think straight.

Wade finishes her piece by declaring that she would never be buying Snickers again. But I’d like to know what feminist would be eating them in the first place.

Today Cadbury jumped on the bandwagon with an ad for their Boost bars that reads: “We at #BOOSTNUTS believe that men with real nuts proudly respect women whether they’re hungry or not. #Sexism is Nuts.” Then MissRepresentation retweeted it. Now I’m really confused.

So far as I am aware, both Mars (who makes Snickers) and Cadbury source their chocolate from child slaves in Africa. Their chocolate also contains dairy products from enslaved and tortured cows who are eventually killed. Cadbury suppliers rip the newborns from their mothers, throw them in the back of a corpse-laden truck, and blast them in the face before feeding them to dogs. The calf pictured managed to survive a bullet to the head and struggled his way across the bodies of his family members to the corner before he was finished off. Additionally, Mars has been testing their products on animals for years–so they can tout the healthy properties of their chocolate. It appears Cadbury was purchased by Kraft Foods, which likely conducts animal testing as well. So, really, as a feminist against the oppression of others, I would never, ever purchase from Mars or Cadbury, and I’m really quite disgusted that large feminist collectives would promote either.

Male calves are considered “by products” of the dairy industry and meet brutal deaths. Cadbury was under fire for shooting calves in the head. Though this image is disturbing, this calf’s torture and death is considerably less brutal than that of most male calves (who enter the veal industry).

These are capitalist enterprises–sexist or not sexist–they are out to profit by exploiting the vulnerable. Nice try Cadbury, but aside from being a slave industry, you also managed to maintain cis-normativity in presuming real men must possess “real nuts.” And using “nuts” as a pejorative is also disableist! “Sexism is nuts” reads like “People who are sexist are bad people, just like mentally ill people.” Fair-traded vegan chocolate for me, please.

Vegan Feminist Network

Critical essays and resources for vegan women and their allies

Category Archives: Disability