Love, Sex, and the Animal Liberation Front

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Vegan Feminist Network

Image from Animal Freedom Fighters Unite Facebook group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 is a member of the Research Advisory Council of The Vegan Society. She has contributed to the Human-Animal Studies Images and Cinema blogs for the Animals and Society Institute and has been published in several peer-reviewed academic journals including the Journal of Gender Studies, Environmental Values, 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.

Three Reasons Why Veganism Needs Diversity

Posted on April 5, 2016 by Vegan Feminist Network

Diversity matters in the vegan movement for three reasons.

First, social movement research indicates that a diversity of representatives will be more likely to resonate with a diverse audience, and a diverse audience is needed for social change.

Second, a diversity in leadership provides role models, which attracts and nurtures a diverse activist pool. Social psychological research supports that marginalized people find a sense of agency and belonging when they see people like them doing important work.

Third, a white-centric/male-centric movement relies on the very same hierarchies of power that facilitate speciesism. As Audre Lorde famously stated, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

Here is my challenge to you. Try going an entire week without citing, referencing, or promoting a male leader or a male-led project. Replace them with women/of color doing similar work. Highlight diversity instead of spotlighting privilege.

Then, expand your practice. Make it a habit to promote diversity in Nonhuman Animal rights spaces instead of defaulting to the status quo of men, all day, every day. Double-down on your anti-speciesism politics by maintaining an intersectional lens.

Dr. Wrenn is Lecturer of Sociology and past Director of Gender Studies (2016-2018) with Monmouth University. 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).

Feminism, Veganism, and Vaginal Beer

Posted on April 1, 2016 by Vegan Feminist Network

Editor’s Note: Despite the publication date of this essay, this is not an April Fool’s Day joke, and we encourage you to actually view the campaign linked below. In a porn culture, the consumption of women’s body parts is normalized and fetishized. Shocking as it may seem, products and projects like this one are the predictable result.

Here we go, as if the daily reminders of women’s bodies as objects through the media are not enough, consumer culture has concocted yet another way of degrading women. As of last week an IndieGogo campaign has been created to fund the first vaginal beer. The pitch is that they will use a Czech model’s lactic acid bacteria from her vagina and implement it into a beer. Their long-term plan is to expand the line to involve other women in the production of this beer.

Before getting too deeply into this topic, it is important to point out that not all women have vaginas and that men can also have vaginas, so the pairing of the words “woman” and “vagina is problematic. Although as a cisgender person myself, I cannot accurately critique this from a transgender perspective. Therefore, the light referencing of this issue is not meant to undermine, but rather it is the recognition on my part that it would be disingenuous of me to deeply dissect this project through such a lens.

To start off, the campaign video for project is riddled with sexist language and makes no effort to hide the high levels of objectification being used to appeal to a straight male audience. In the first ten seconds of the video the viewer is presented with the words, “Imagine a woman of you dreams, your object of desire.” The first words of this video flat out refer to women as an object of desire. The hook of this campaign’s video starts off strong with these words, which are accompanied by a sketch of the behind of a naked woman. The first couple seconds presents us with the reality that referring to women as an object in a patriarchal society can be done in such a casual manner without any pressure on the speaker to defend such a statement. Even more so, this statement is intended to drive profit.

This campaign is not unusual in that sexualized women’s bodies are used to sell everything, especially consumptive products. The term consumptive product here is used in the literal meaning of “things that can be ingested into the body”. It is not new information that these sexualized tactics are used to sell an array of animal products such as hamburgers and steaks in commercials and other forms of media. Although, this campaign takes it even farther by creating a product that literally allows men to drink particular female bodies. This is the actual bottling of vaginal secretions to be sold, so that men can ingest “the essence of femininity and women’s instincts”. Not to mention that there is an intentional use of beer to be the subject of this product, being that beer is a notoriously male-marketed alcoholic beverage.

The creators of this project also make sure that they sexualize women, while also shaming them. They explain that the drink does not taste or smell like a vagina. Through doing this it can be understood that women’s bodies are only profitable as long as they are represented in this particular fantasy framework of desire. The natural functions of a vagina are not desirable; in fact, they are something to be disgusted by. Therefore, any arguments that women are being honored in this product should pay attention to this distinction of the smell and taste by the creators while unpacking the true intentions of this product. A true honoring of women would recognize the diversity of women and a true honoring of vaginas would entail an honest representation of the functions of a vagina, beyond a representation deeply entrenched in sexualization and commodification.

Even more so, the language used to describe what a consumer will supposedly get from this beer provides an overbearing amount of gender norms. The video describes flavoring the beer with female essence, femininity, and instincts. The use of these terms reduces women to the idea that they inherently encapsulate these terms (so inherently that the origins can be traced, extracted, and sold). This ignores the fact that gender is a social construction; the biological female essence or instinct does not exist. Furthermore, as stated before, not everyone with a vagina is a woman and to have such a strong link in this product between these two words is harmful towards those who are transgender. Of the terms used to describe the ingredients of this beverage, the term femininity is particularly oppressive. This term is rooted in a burden on everyone who appears to be a woman to interact with the world in a particular way, regardless of whether they identify as women or their actual personalities. This way of characterizing women is not inherent or natural; it is a way in which society restricts women. One cannot scientifically bottle up femininity or women’s instincts in a bottle, but you sure can put your sexist social constructions into a bottle and start a crowdfunding campaign!

This project further frames the need for an intersection between animal rights and feminism. In this example it is clear that the female human-animal body has been reduced to an object to be ingested into the bodies of others for pleasure. This has been a constant in plight of non-human farm animals. In both cases there is a sense of entitlement of those in a position of power towards the bodies of these persons and what these bodies produce are subject to commodification. The reduction of a person to a product that is purchased and enjoyed so fleetingly is a reflection of the level of worth that person is assumed to have in society. Here specieism and feminism intertwine in the need to recognize that the bodies of persons are not to be objectified and commercialized, but to be respected as individuals with autonomy. The only way this can be achieved is through recognizing that the oppression of marginalized groups is not mutually exclusive, but that they are intertwined and reproduce each other.

Alexus is an animal rights activist, who is in a constant state of trying to unlearn indoctrinated forms of injustice. She spends the majority of her days reading to get her degree in Environmental Policy, she is also a writer for the EPIB Trail (an environmental justice newsletter), and on the weekends she waitresses at a vegan café.

Vegan Feminist Work Removed from Ecorazzi; Author Ousted

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Vegan Feminist Network

It is no accident that mainstream vegan spaces are androcentric, and the contributions of women are so invisibilized. There are a number of disadvantages women face to having their anti-speciesist expertise and experience acknowledged, one of them being the overt exclusion or silencing of women.

In late March, 2016, a young woman writing for Ecorazzi published an essay on vegan feminism, imploring the feminist movement to acknowledge the thriving anti-speciesism intersectionality community we’ve been working so hard to build. The article was written by a feminist for feminists; its intended audience was not the Nonhuman Animal rights movement. It nonetheless solicited the attention of vegan men who, while not a part of the dialogue, insisted on eliminating that which promotes vegan feminists and their achievements (to the effect of recentering men’s achievements). At the request of a high-profile male theorist who has described her writing as “speciesist garbage,” her work was removed.

When Vegan Feminist Network made a public statement on the incident, an Ecorazzi staff member responded:

The author’s name is Lauren McGrath, and she’s not about to let this go without a fight. In an interview with Vegan Feminist Network, she explained:

This was a public attempt to embarrass and gut me, by both a tired academic and a writing team who I considered my friends. The best part is that they can’t do that- I’m too determined, I’m too passionate, and I fully intend to make the most of this situation.

So how did this happen? As Ecorazzi explains in the aforementioned comment (which was originally published on Vegan Feminist Network’s Facebook page), Ecorazzi has been shifting to a fully Francionist abolitionist approach in its topic coverage. Importantly, this policy appears to necessitate the exclusion of other writers, some of whose advocacy ethics are nonetheless in considerable alignment with “The Abolitionist Approach.”

An Ecorazzi job posting on Vegan Job Board, for instance, seeks a salaried writer who will demonstrate, “A strong understanding of the principles of The Abolitionist Approach by Gary Francione.” The job description insists, “All editorial content will have a strong focus on animal rights and the Abolitionist approach by Gary Francione.” Says McGrath, “When I was hired, I didn’t realize how aggressively Ecorazzi was going to push Francione’s work.” And this misunderstanding might be expected given that, “The piece I wrote, that got me ousted, was in fact reviewed by all the Ecorazzi staff with zero disagreement or problems.” In other words, it was not until the unofficial “editor-in-chief,” presumably not on staff with Ecorazzi, decided that the piece was not in line with the principles of “The Abolitionist Approach” that McGrath’s work was erased.

After two or three days of no response to McGrath’s voicemails and emails, it was settled via text message that her employment was no longer needed. She was subsequently locked out of the Ecorazzi webpage.

In my opinion, McGrath’s contributions to anti-speciesism advocacy are invaluable. Veganism needs more women like her working to build connections to like-minded movements. Unfortunately, she was punished for doing so. Because her experience with marginalization is so common, it only leads me to conclude that the Nonhuman Animal rights movement as an institution, despite its pretenses, ferociously stigmatizes and derides feminism.

What will become of Lauren McGrath after this? I worry for her. She explains, “I’ve had my income, the very thing that sustains my home, puts food on my table, and pays off my bills, yanked out from under me, and that sucks. That’s really, really hard right now, and I’m doing what I can to keep afloat…” Because poverty is feminized, fewer women have access to the secure employment or thousands (even millions) of dollars in wealth that so many of the patriarchs of our movement do, those who use their power to push around those they perceive to be weaker than them. McGrath unknowingly found herself in an impossible position, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t try.

Despite the ethical qualms she faced as an Ecorazzi author and her ultimate erasure, McGrath remains hopeful. As we closed our interview, she insisted, “I’m determined and eager to continue my career nonetheless, perhaps that this has just fueled my passion.”

McGrath isn’t the only victim–this is a systematic attack on women’s contributions, and very often, it is racialized. Recall that Sarah K. Woodcock, Korean-American and feminist founder of The Advocacy of Veganism Society was removed from not one, but two conferences at the behest of white male gatekeepers. I think it no coincidence that she also takes a strong feminist and anti-racist position in her advocacy approach. To be clear, while Vegan Feminist Network fully supports McGrath and the loss of her job is a serious injustice, the disproportionate amount of support and attention her case is garnering does warrant an acknowledgement of how Woodcock’s race may also be working against her (or, rather, how McGrath’s race may be working for her). Stinging from the repeated microaggressions and outright discriminations she has faced, Woodcock questions: “Does oppression only matter when it happens to white people? Does sexism only matter when it happens to white women?”

We need accountability. We must push back against blatant discrimination and woman-hating. So long as the movement remains male-focused and violent in its strategy, the Nonhuman Animal rights movement will remain marginalized, mocked, and misunderstood. I reject this oppressive behavior. What about you?

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.

When Social Justice Ignores Marginalized Vegans

Posted on March 29, 2016 by Vegan Feminist Network

Shunned pony image from viral AmazonUK commercial.

By Lauren McGrath

Along with defending animal exploitation, asking repetitive questions, and constantly derailing arguments, a favorite pastime of non-vegans as of late seems to be their use of the Social Justice moniker in order to justify their non-veganism. Instead of attacking systems that exploit human and non-human animals alike, the warriors of the almighty keyboard are far more interested in using poor campaigns to justify the torture and murder of innocent non-human animals. They are more than happy to speak over the voices of marginalized members of society who choose to lead an ethical lifestyle in order to assert that no, they are the most ethical of all because they are acting as true allies. Or… something like that. Either way, imagine the energy these blue-in-the-face talkers could be expending on helping to make veganism mainstream and accessible? It’s an interesting combination of trying to play The Ultimate Ally and simple bacon obsession, and there’s no way around this.

Let’s get an uncomfortable truth out of the way; there are certainly vegan organizations who take part in all sorts of bullshittery. From the rampant sexism of PETA to DxE’s constant struggles with racist members, (links for both back to Ecorazzi pieces) the animal rights community does not always act in the best interest of all species. Unfortunately, this is a widespread phenomenon that all activist movements must face and deal with in the same ways. Singling animal rights out, however, is unfair. It’s singled out because of cultural norms of violence and a societal obsession with meat consumption, undoubtedly. Veganism is such an easy target because society at large has created such mountainous misconceptions about it as a social movement. Every time an article critiquing veganism from a non-vegan is released, the author seems to expect vegans from marginalized backgrounds to take the attack lying down.

Last week, I wrote about former vegan Mickey Z.’s anti vegan tirade, and his blatant erasure of non-white, non-male, and poor vegans. “I’m sure plenty of you are itching to assure me that none of your friends behave like this. (None, you claim!) Hey, I personally know some amazing humans who happen to follow a plant-based lifestyle but sorry, that doesn’t alter the overall reality,” he wrote, using a brush to paint one of the most broad takedown attempts I’ve ever seen. “As someone who was immersed in the inner circle of veganism for two decades, I can speak from vast personal experience. So please spare me and everyone else the “not all vegans” defense.”

It’s the #notallvegans bullshit that really sets me off. The “out” vegan movement is diversifying at a rapid rate, with oppressed groups carving out their own spaces. Many of these groups have been at work for years publishing essays in regards to critical theory an animal rights, applying it both to the animal rights movement, and larger societal systems. Believe it or not, vegans can examine the world while also being reflective!

In terms of feminist theory, feminism with a focus on animal rights has existed for decades now. With theorists and strategists such as Corey Lee Wrenn’s The Vegan Feminist Network, Carol J. Adams, and organized efforts such as Collectively Free that highlights grassroots feminist-vegan movement and thought, one must be willfully ignorant in order to not know how powerful vegan feminism is. Many feminists object to feminism and veganism being used in the same breath. They claim that our discussion about the female reproductive system and how it is exploited is taking part in biological essentialism. In truth, it’s the animal agriculture industry that has worked so very hard to gender the animals that they exploit. I would love to speak in more gender neutral terms when discussing the rape of dairy cows or fixation on chicken’s ovums. Unfortunately, farmer’s obsessions with feminizing “their girls” makes veganism a feminist issue whether we’re attaching gender to individual animals or not.

Everyday Feminism recently published an article called “4 Ways Mainstream Animal Rights Movements are Oppressive.” What I found the most disturbing about the article is that it rushes past minority, non-male and queer led movements without really celebrating or giving credit to the hard work they are doing. Author Mahealani Joy lists ways that the “mainstream” movement (defined in the article as groups such as PETA) is oppressive without examining veganism itself. Critique of the mainstream movement is so incredibly important, but it was a huge failure to simply name drop three grassroots movements that are inclusive as a means of “covering all the bases”. “The thing is, those people and the work they are doing is not what most people think of when they think of veganism, vegetarianism, and animal rights,” writes Joy. It’s because of commentary that focuses so strongly on PETA above all else that this problem exists to begin with, and Joy is participating in the silencing of progressive vegan movements by speaking over inclusive vegan movements. To their credit, the piece does highlight that as vegans, less focus needs to be put on aligning ourselves with large organizations and doing more work from the bottom up to prevent misconceptions from taking on lives of their own.

Friends, I’ll take one for the team here. I’ll be the one who says “not all vegans,” because it is so very true. Non-white, non-male, and poor vegans have been thrown under the bus for far too long and used as props and tools for anti-vegans to continue to mislead members of the social justice community. It’s time we stand together as a movement to move past the lies that are told about us.

Click here to visit the author’s website.

Fifty Shades of Chicken

Posted on February 29, 2016 by Vegan Feminist Network

TRIGGER WARNING: Contains graphic descriptions of rape and violence against women and other animals.

NOT SAFE FOR WORK: Contains graphic sexual language and disturbing images of violated animals.

Vegan feminists argue that oppression is intersectional. In particular, the ways in which women are exploited and harmed are very similar to the ways in which other animals are. A shining example of this intersection is found in Fifty Shades of Chicken, a cookbook that parodies Fifty Shades of Grey (a best selling novel which glamorizes submissive sexuality and violence against women). Fifty Shades of Chicken, a book “for chicken lovers everywhere,” takes this disturbing subject matter to another level of degradation.

Throughout the book, a chicken’s body is used to replace that of a woman, and she is referred to as “Chicken” or “Miss Hen.” The choice of “chicken” was not accidental. Chickens eaten by humans are almost always female. The body parts of chickens (breasts, legs, thighs) are often applied to that of human women, and human women are often called “birds,” “chicks,” “chickens,” or “hens.”

The cookbook features several images of a muscled, shirtless man dominating a chicken’s corpse with weapons, kitchen utensils, and binding (twine). In one image he is shown sodomizing her with an upright roasting device. In others, he is shown penetrating her with a baster and shoving cream into her bottom with his fingers. Most of the photographs of the finished “product” show the bird’s body splayed and ravaged. She is posed pornographically to mimic a defiled human woman.

Man in an apron firmly places a chicken's corpse onto a funnel

The chef known as “Blades” sodomizes “Miss Hen” with the “erect member” of a vertical roaster.

The recipe titles are also disturbing:

“Popped-Cherry Pullet”
“Extra-Virgin Chicken”
“Please Don’t Stop Chicken”
“Jerked Around Chicken”
“Mustard Spanked Chicken”
“Cream-Slicked Chick”
“Chile-Lashed Fricassee”
“Skewered Chicken”
“Steamy White Meat”
“Bacon Bound Wings”
“Dripping Thighs”
“Thighs Spread Wide”
“Chicken Thighs Stirred Up and Fried Hard”
“Red Cheeks”
“Pound Me Tender”

And my favorite:

“Hog-Tied and Porked Chicken”

It is a regular smorgasbord of entangled oppression, violence, sexism, and speciesism.

These recipes are inextricably representative of rape culture. Sexualized violence is presented as normative, the female body is objectified as a passive recipient of male desire and aggression, and the obligatory obsession with virginity and female purity is highlighted.

Chapter Two, “Chicken Parts and Bits,” literally reenacts the fragmentation of the female body into consumable pieces which are wholly divorced from the person they once belonged to. This objectification erases personhood and makes exploitative consumption all the more palatable.

The recipe instructions also entail graphic violence, domination, and control:

Much pleasure and satisfaction is to be had from tying up your bird. Not only does it show your chicken who’s boss, but a tight binding ensures the chicken cooks exactly how you want it–evenly, moist, and tender. It also closes off the chicken’s cavity, so the juices swelling within can’t spill out, at least not until you’re ready for them. (p. 34)

Using large, strong kitchen shears and a confident hand, forcefully cut the backbone out of the chicken; first cut along one side of the backbone, then cut along the other side until it releases, then pull it out. Gently spread the bird open, pressing down on the breast to flatten it (see Learning the Ropes). Massage the flesh with 1 1/2 teaspoon of salt. (p. 116)

Position the chicken’s nether parts over the vertical roaster’s erect member and thrust the bird down. Tuck her wing tips up behind her wings, behind her body. Tie her legs together with a piece of butcher’s twine or cooking bands […] (p. 120)

It reads like a manual for serial killing.

Several gruesome pornographic narratives were included to preface the recipes and work the reader up into a hot bother for the pleasurable consumption awaiting them. Take this example from “Backdoor Beer-Can Chicken”:

‘Hush,’ he says. He smile and holds up a beer can.

‘Yes, baby, have a drink, I’m sure you need it.’

‘Oh, no, this is not for me, Chicken.’ He quirks his mouth into a wicked smile.

Holy f***…Will it? How?

I gasp as he fills me with its astonishing girth. The feeling of fullness is overpowering.

He rests me on the grill and I can feel the entire world start to engorge. Desire explodes in my cavity like a hand grenade. (p. 137)

Or this story from “Flattered Breasts”:

Suddenly he seizes me and lays me out on the counter, claiming me hungrily. His fingers pull me taut, the palms of his hands grinding my soft white meat into the hard granite, trapping me. I feel him. His stomach growls, and my mind spins as I acknowledge his craving for me.

‘Why must you always challenge me?’ he murmurs breathlessly.

‘Because I can.’ My pulse throbs painfully.

He grabs a fistful of kosher salt.

‘I’m going to season you now.’

‘Yes.’ My voice is low and heated.

He reaches for a rolling pin, then hesitates, looking at me.

‘Yes, please, Chef,’ I moan.

The first blow of the rolling pin jolts me but leaves behind a delicious warm feeling.

‘I. Will. Make. You. Mine.’ he says between blows. (p. 62)

These narratives often present the chicken’s corpse as a willing accomplice. This is quite telling, given that she was beheaded and drained of blood days before she arrived in this man’s kitchen under saran wrap. This narrative of willingness is ubiquitous in rape cases and pornography. Even girls and women who are drugged or unconscious are frequently considered “willing.” It is therefore not surprising that a decapitated corpse, in the case of Miss Hen, is depicted as consenting.

As with other females, Miss Hen’s sexuality is strictly controlled and meant only for male entitlement. The relationship of domination that makes consent an impossibility, privileges men, and leaves women and Nonhuman Animals in a position of subservience is obscured. Instead, this chicken is “free-range,” implying that she has a choice in the matter.

What is worse, these actions are supposedly done out of “love” and for her pleasure. It is not enough that women and Nonhuman Animals submit to male superiority, they must also be seen as enjoying their subjugation. If the consumer was made aware of the immense suffering that lies beneath the surface of pornography, prostitution, exotic dancing, dairy, “meat,” “leather,” zoos, horse racing etc., the pleasure of that consumption would be challenged. Previously unexamined oppression would come to light. What a buzz kill.

This book takes the male fantasy of ultimate control over a humiliated, submissive woman to its full fruition. Men cannot legally coerce women into obliging sex slaves through force and fear. They cannot legally fragment women into their body parts, strip them of their identity and self-efficacy, or pulverize and consume their bodies for sexual gratification (though more men than we like to admit do). However, men can have the next best thing–they can humiliate, torture, dismember, and objectify a female Nonhuman Animal for pleasure. He can molest her, sodomize her, rape her, bind her, break her, “pork” her, and “slick” her with cream to the point of physical arousal and salivation.

Whether the victim is human or nonhuman, the script is the same. Control over the vulnerable is sexualized; domination and power is hot stuff. And it’s completely legal, with full support from a patriarchal society.

He continues to fondle my liver with his fingertips until I can’t stand it.

He gently places my quivering offal into a skillet where some softened onions are waiting for me. Holy f****** s***…we’re cooking in the middle of a party? Everyone’s mingling and chatting, but I am not paying attention. He stirs my insides with a deft wooden spoon, around and around [ . . . ] (p. 103)

As traumatizing as this book is on its own, what is perhaps most upsetting is the complete lack of criticism from the general public. The book racks up rave reviews by Amazon users who are beside themselves with laughter, folks who can’t get over just how darn clever this book is. Violence against women and Nonhuman Animals is often trivialized, masked by humor, downplayed, and made more or less invisible…but surely, the triggering offensiveness of this book could not be ignored? Not so. At the time of this writing, Fifty Shades of Chicken enjoys a whopping 5 out of 5 stars on Amazon.

The message could not be clearer:

Women=Nonhuman Animals=Sexualized=Dominated=Meat=Objects of Pleasurable Consumption

and

Nonhuman Animals=Feminized=Sexualized=Dominated=Meat=Objects of Pleasurable Consumption

. . . and apparently this is a hoot.

An adaption of this essay was published in 2013 in Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism 2 (1): 135-139.

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.

Vegan Feminist Network

Critical essays and resources for vegan women and their allies

Category Archives: Feminism & Patriarchy

Love, Sex, and the Animal Liberation Front

Three Reasons Why Veganism Needs Diversity

Feminism, Veganism, and Vaginal Beer

Vegan Feminist Work Removed from Ecorazzi; Author Ousted

When Social Justice Ignores Marginalized Vegans

Fifty Shades of Chicken

Follow Vegan Feminist Network