La Política Sexual del Veganismo Moralmente Superior

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

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 anxietychronic 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.

A Hősimádat Veszélyei Egy Aktivista Mozgalmon Belül

Tartalmi figyelmeztetés: nemi erőszak és rasszizmus említése, rendkívül sértő (rasszizmus, akadályozottság) megjegyzések a palesztin emberekre és a muszlim kultúrára nézve

Gary Yourofsky

Translation by Eszter Kalóczkai. See more Hungarian translations of intersectional vegan essays by visiting their blog, Tudatos Vegán. The original English version of this essay can be found by clicking here.

írta: Michele Kaplan

Voltál-e már olyan helyzetben, amikor a körülötted lévő emberek azt gondolták: inkább meg se szólaltál volna?

Mindez március 19-én kezdődött, amikor néhány ismerős vegán Gary Yourofsky Palesztina-ellenes kirohanásáról beszélt. Természetesen azok az állatjogi aktivisták, akik a szívükön viselik a palesztin emberek sorsát (beleértve magamat is), teljes megrökönyödéssel olvasták, hogy mit mondott Yourofsky.

gary on palestine

(Az Igazi Gary Yourofsky által írt Facebook-poszt fordítása:) Amíg az izraeli emberek épp most rombolják le a hús-, tej-és tojásipart – ami végül az állatok koncentrációs táborainak a végét fogja jelenteni – a palesztinok és az elmebeteg emberjogi szimpatizánsaik épp, hogy több tábort ÉPÍTENEK. Míg az izraeliek befogadják a homoszexuálisokat, addig a palesztinok kiközösítik, bántják és gyilkolják a meleg embereket, mert úgy gondolják, hogy a homoszexualitás bűn. Míg az izraeliek (kivéve az ultra-ultra ortodoxokat, akik Izrael népességének az 1-2%-a, és ugyanannyira őrültek, mint a palesztinok) egyenlő mozgásteret biztosítanak a nőknek a társadalmon belül, addig a palesztinok továbbra is elnyomják a nőket ugyanúgy, ahogy az arab államok teszik. Míg az izraeliek szeretnek együtt élni a palesztinokkal és MINDEN más néppel, addig a palesztinok legfőbb célja, hogy minden zsidót elpusztítsanak, az iskoláikban a zsidók GYŰLÖLETÉRE tanítják a gyerekeiket, és NEM HAJLANDÓAK békességben élni a zsidó néppel. A palesztinok maguk a PROBLÉMA. Ők a legelmebetegebb nép ezen a bolygón. Még a velük szimpatizáló arab államok (Egyiptom, Jordánia stb.) is VISSZAKÜLDIK azokat az elmebeteg őrülteket, ha azok megbújnak az ő országaikban. Úgyhogy ne legyél már egy másik agyatlan, vérző szívű liberális, aki VAKON támogatja a palesztinokat, mert épp az a “menő”. Továbbra, habár szimpatizálok az emberi jogi kérdésekkel (melegek jogai, nők jogai, stb.), többé NEM fogok az embereknek az egyenlő bánásmódjáért harcolni, amig azok az elnyomott emberek elnyomják az állatokat. Amíg az állatokat belevesszük a vitába, addig azt mondom: A POKOLBA minden elnyomott kétlábú lénnyel, aki nem veszi észre, hogy milyen elnyomást támogat aktívan, amikor leül enni, vagy új cipőt vesz. Az állatoknak a legrosszabb. A világ teheneihez, csirkéihez, pulykáihoz, sertéseihez és birkáihoz képest a palesztinok KIRÁLYOKKÉNT ÉS KIRÁLYNŐKKÉNT élnek. Úgyhogy a LEGSÜRGETŐBB kérdésre koncentrálj inkább: az állatok felszabadítására. És felejtsd el azokat a palesztin őrülteket. És amúgy a palesztinok nem élnek koncentrációs táborokban, akárhogy is definiálod azokat. Menj és nézd meg, milyen egy vágóhíd, ahol ezeket az ártatlan lényeket lefejezik, egyiket a másik után, vagy egy tejipari telepet, ahol a teheneket megerőszakolják, hogy ismételten teherbe essenek, aztán a melleiket naponta többször gépekre kötik, nézd meg, ahogy egy vágóhídi teherautó 1000 csirkével behajt az épületbe, ahol megölik őket… és aztán kérdezd meg magadtól: “Hogy sikerült annyira átverniük, hogy azt higyjem, hogy a palesztin embereket elnyomják és koncentrációs táborokban élnek?” Kérlek ébredj fel és koncentrálj az EGYETLEN kritikus és fontos ügyre. [a jelek szerint ezt a Facebook-posztot eltávolították a Yourofsky oldaláról.]

Ki is ez a Gary Yourofsky? Hallottam már a nevét itt is, ott is, különböző állatjogi csoportokban, de nem tudtam, hogy mit tett hozzá a mozgalomhoz. Elkezdtem rékeresni a nevére, és rájöttem, hogy ez a kirohanása (amiből csak úgy dől a kirekesztés és a privilégium), nem egyszeri alkalom volt (bár még ettől se lett volna kevésbé elfogadhatatlan).

Gary Yourofsky egy vitatott, szevedélyes személyiség, aki egyfelől az erőteljes beszédeiről híres, amelyek hatására rengeteg ember lett vegán, másfelől viszont hírhedtek a lesújtó megjegyzései, amelyek elidegenítettek rengeteg embert az állatjogi mozgalomtól.

Ilyen megjegyzései például a hírhedt interjú (teljes egészében itt olvasható angolul):

Minden, szőrmébe bugyolált nőnek át kellene élnie egy olyan durva nemi erőszakot, ami egész életükre megnyomorítja őket. 

Mint vegén, mint nő, és mint ember, teljesen sokkolt, hogy ezt mondja, és egészen felkavaró érzés volt (és egy kicsit kevésbé érzem magam most biztonságban), amikor egyes emberek az állatjogi mozgalomban kifogásokat találnak neki.

“Jaj, ez annyira régi idézet” mondják, mintha ettől meg nem történtté lehetne tenni. Vagy mintha azóta bocsánatot kért volna, és megváltozott volna, mert nem tette.

Nagyon elszomorított mindez, mert annyi időt és szeretetet áldoztam az ügyre, és most megkérdőjeleztem, hogy van-e a mozgalomban jövőm. Tudtam, hogy van ez a régivonalas, (és nem annyira interszekcionális) ága az állatjogi aktivizmusnak, és van az újabb vonulata (ami jellemzően sokkal inkább figyelembe veszi az interszekcionalitást), úgyhogy nem gondoltam, hogy mindenki támogatja azt a levelet, de amikor sokan az újabb hullámból kifogásokat találnak neki, még akkor is, ha ez csak néhány ember volt, azt rendkívül elkeserítő.

A következő reggel, aktivisták egy kis csoportja (egészen pontosan 3 ember) megjelentetett egy közleményt, hogy tudassa az egész közösséggel (és az internettel), hogy a vegán mozgalomban semmi helye a mások kirekesztésének és elnyomásának.

Egy nemi erőszakot túlélő nő azt mondta, hogy nagyon pozitív élmény volt elolvasni ezt a levelet. Másvalaki azt mondta, hogy “senki nem támogatott, amikor ugyanezt mondtam Yourofsky-ról, annyira örülök, hogy vannak más vegánok, akik így éreznek!” (és többen egyetértettek ezzel). Így egy pillanatra úgy érezhettük, hogy bármi is következik ezután, már megérte.

És akkor… beindult az ellentámadás.

“Miért bántjátok Gary-t?”

“Miért vagytok ennyire gonoszak?”

“Gary olyn sokat tesz az állatokért, miért csak ezt emelitek ki?”

“Szerintem több jót tesz, mint rosszat.”

“Ezt most komolyan gondoljátok? Ez most valami korai április elsejei vicc? Csak fel akarjátok hívni magatokra a figyelmet, vagy szimplán hülyék vagytok?”

“Ne ítélkezzetek.”

“Hibázott, és akkor mi van. Mindannyian hibázunk.”

“Ezt most kiemeltétek a szövegkörnyezetből, pedig kontextussal együtt kéne nézni.”

“Inkább támogatni kellene, mint hátbadöfni!”

“Valójában nem is nézi el a valódi nemi erőszakot, olvassatok csak utána.” (Mintha Yourofsky ezt mondta volna? Nem ezt mondta. És mintha csak beszélni a nemi erőszakról teljesen ártatlan lenne, és nem lennének következményei? Nem így van.)

Rendkívül zavarbaejtő volt az egész, és rendkívül fárasztó. Mi a fene folyik itt?

És akkor rájöttem. Lehet, hogy hősimádattal állunk szemben? Én is álltam már így hozzá emberekhez régebben…

Emlékszem, amikor még nekem is voltak példaképeim, ha valami rosszat hallottam róluk, én is elkezdtem őket védeni, hiszen az én példaképemről  volt szó, aki egy szimbólum, aki reményt ad. A lelkem egy darabja el akarta hinni, hogy létezik egy ilyen hős, egy ilyen példakép.

Mostanság annyira nincsenek már példaképeim, mkert ahhoz, hogy valaki a példaképem legyen, ahhoz magam fölé kell helyeznem az illetőt. Tisztelem sokak munkásságát, elismerem őket, de valójában mind ugyanazon a szinten vagyunk. Ember és ember.

És amúgy értem én: a vegánságért és az állatjogokért küzdeni a mélyen gyökerező társadalmi szokások ellen küzdeni. Hiszen hiába a nagyipari állattartás a leginkább felelős a klímaváltozásért, és hiába annyira szörnyűek az állatok életkörülményei, akkor is a vegánság, az állatjogok puszta ötlete az “extrém”. És amikor megismered az állatipar mögött rejtőző igazságot, akkor nem tudod azt többé elfelejteni. És amikor tudod, hogy mennyit szenvednek az állatok, hogyha nem figyelsz oda eléggé magadra (az önmagunk gyógyítása, a lelki békénk megőrzése nem mindig kap elég teret a mozgalomban: “az állatok gyilkolása nem áll meg, úgyhogy mi sem pihenünk!”), akkor az megterhelő lehet.

De ettől még elfogadható a kirekesztés a mozgalmon belül? Nem. Továbbá ne felejtsük el, hogy hacsak nem egy vegán családba születtél volt eg idő a te életedben is, amikor nem voltál vegán. Úgyhogy rendben van-e, hogy erőszakra uszítunk más emberek ellen (amilyen te is voltál egyszer), csak azért, mert nem tudták kinevelni magukat a beléjük nevelt társadalmi normákból olyan gyorsan, ahogy te? 

A közlemény, amit írtunk, nem arról szólt, hogy csak azért támadjuk Gary-t, hogy valaki támadhassunk. Arról szólt, hogy azt mondtuk: “attól még, hogy valaki vegán, továbbra sincs semmi joga kirekesztő módon viselkedni másokkal szemben, és ha így tesz, annak lesznek következményei – függetlenül attól, hogy mennyire imádott személyiség”.

Rendkívül veszélyes, különösen egy aktivista mozgalmon belül, ha valakit annyira nagyra becsülnek, hogy érinthetetlenné válik, és a tettei, megszólalásai csak hibátlanok lehetnek.

 

Ez az esszé eredetileg megjelent Rebelwheels’ Gondolatok április 21, 2015.

 

Editor’s Note:

Interested in learning more about the problems with hero worship in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement? Check out the work of Marti Kheel, co-founder of Feminist for Animal Rights. Some of her writings on this topic are hosted on the FAR website. Vegan Feminist Network has also written on this topic in regard to the celebration of male violence as vengeance. You can also read more about the problems with anti-Muslim rhetoric on the Academic Abolitionist Vegan. A number of Yourofsky’s essays on violence and rape are also available on Negotiation is Over; please be warned, they are very crude and offensive.

It’s a Man’s World for Talking Dogs

Closeup of a collie chewing food and talking from Beneful commercial

Why is it that almost every voice-over for dogs in commercials for flea & tick medication, pet food, or treats is masculine?

 

First, animals for whom we do not know the sex or gender we often presume to be male by default. Secondly, canines in particular tend to be masculinized. However, the predominance of masculine voices in media is well documented. Human or nonhuman, it really speaks to the patriarchal dominance of public spaces and experiences.1

Feminine voices only seem to be consistently ascribed to Nonhuman Animals on television in dairy commercials featuring farmed cows. These voices are often matronly, as well, likely in an attempt to frame the product as something that is nurturing, healthful, and familial.

 

One exception can be found in the 2015 Yoplait commercial that gives a masculine French voice to an American female-bodied dairy cow. In fact, cows are frequently represented as male despite being female-bodied.2 This not only demonstrates a general ignorance about the American food system, but it also lends evidence to the male-as-default schema.

Notes:

1. Voice-overs are also white-dominated, with few ethnic intonations represented.

2. Gender and sex are not one in the same of course, but human constructions of gender in the nonhuman world are even less consistent and tend to reflect gender hierarchies.


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 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.

Why are White People Outraged Over Cecil the Lion but Not about Sandra Bland?

By Michele Kaplan

TRIGGER WARNING: The following article contains discussion of racism and police violence.

Author’s Note: This article is not suggesting that every white person is outraged over Cecil (let alone outraged over Cecil and not Sandra Bland). This article is also not suggesting that there aren’t any people of color who are outraged over the death of Cecil. However this question was asked by many people on the internet, and so thus the title, and thus the following is my two cents. 

Sandra Bland

Every time there is a trending topic, you can pretty much expect the following to happen. There will be a large amount of blog posts written about it. Some from the heart and some because people see an opportunity to bring more attention to their blog. Then, if the topic is trending long enough, there is the “inevitable” backlash.

Gorilla

You may or may not recall #Shabani, the “heartthrob Gorilla”, who was trending not too long ago but for a very brief period of time. So brief that there simply wasn’t enough time for a backlash to occur.

Sometimes the backlash is a reaction to a system that pins various groups against each other. A system that promotes the idea that there isn’t enough to go around, so you better get yours before your neighbor gets theirs. How often has there been situations where the powers that be say “Hey, specific oppressed demographic, you want your civil rights? We’ll give it to you, but it’ll be on the backs of these groups.”  (As if that was the only option. As if that was your best bet.) So, instead of intersectional activism (or realizing that all forms of oppression are actually connected and that we are far more powerful united, then we could ever be divided), it promotes Single Issue Activism, where every group is separately scrambling to be heard and to make progress.

For some groups, there is so much injustice against them, that they are on the constant verge of nearly drowning in it, and don’t even have the energy to then take on other causes than their own. The system loves this, because when the powers that be can keep us exhausted, the system can remain status quo.

The internet and the existence of trending topics is a prime example of that. Whenever there is a trending topic, other groups who perhaps do not feel heard, who are not getting the justice they deserve, see another cause in the spotlight and may start to feel angry or even bitter. Why are they getting all this attention but not my (worthy and valid) cause?! Some may start to panic that this will take away attention from their recent state of trending. Not because they are greedy for the spotlight, but they are validly desperate and know that the internet has a really bad habit of taking on a trending topic, utterly immersing themselves in it to the point of exhaustion, and then they move on. And if you’re aren’t directly impacted by a particular situation (like what’s going on in Palestine as one of many examples) then you have the luxury of moving on to the next trending outrage du jour.

Lion

Cecil, The Lion has been the latest trending topic that people are livid about, and like clockwork the backlash has started. However, there has been one legitimate question that is going around, that I would like to address.

Why Are White People Outraged Over Cecil The Lion But Not About Sandra Bland?  

And of course as a white person, I can not (and will not) say that I speak for all white people (seriously white bloggers, please stop saying that you do), and I certainly haven’t done an official survey by any means amongst all Caucasians, but as an animal rights activist and ally to the #BlackLivesMatter campaign, I do have some theories. Keep in mind, this is no way a comprehensive list and not necessarily in any order of importance.

1.) Because Racism. Let’s just get this one out of the way. The one we all knew existed. Some white people are livid about the death of Cecil, The Lion but do not give a crap about Sandra Bland (or any other innocent person of color who was physically harmed and/or murdered by the police.) because they are racist.

(On a side but related note, please refrain from using the hashtag #AllLivesMatter for Cecil. This is pissing some people off and rightfully so.)

Meme of Cecil the lion juxtaposed with a pig in a factory farm, both read, "I am Cecil"

The hashtag #IAmCecil and #CecilTheLion are popular pro Cecil hashtags that does not co-opt the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag nor does it have racist connotations like #AllLivesMatters. Image from TheirTurn.net

Having said that, here’s where it gets a bit more complicated.

2.) It’s A lot Easier To Get Pissed At That Hunter, Than It Is To Tackle Systemic Racism. It seems like this country can’t go a week without another innocent person of color being physically assaulted and/or murdered by the police. At times it’s just too much and a person may want to avoid (or at least take breaks) from the topic, because it’s so heartbreaking to see so much injustice (one after the other) and typically without legal consequence. I can’t even imagine what it’s like for people of color (particularly parents) to be inundated with bad news after bad news on a daily basis that directly and deeply impacts them on a very dangerous level.

That being said, sometimes humans (even though they care) start to shutdown and go numb in response to a mind blowing amount of injustice. Sometimes (especially if they aren’t aware of the importance of self care), people burn out and feel helpless in creating change for a particular cause. And then along comes Cecil, The Lion. So Cute and friendly. Plus he’s endangered! And he was killed how?!

Picketing outside the home of Cecil's killer. One sign reads, "KILLER"

And while said police brutality related deaths are often met with little consequence, Time Magazine recently reported that the government has introduced The CECIL Act which aims to “curb trophy hunters.” A baby step in the right direction, but progress nonetheless. The people have spoken and the government reacted in a pretty timely manner. With Cecil, people can be outraged and have way quicker results (at least addressing the immediate issue. The root of the problem? Meh. The nation is not as interested.) There’s no “Yeah, but what about Lion on Lion crime” or victim blaming, thus making the mainstream conversation really really easy. “Hey are you pissed off as to what happened to that lion?” “Yes!” “Great, me too!” “Let’s discuss and bond over our outrage” Done.

3.) The Hypocrisy Factor One thing that animal rights activists deal with (at least the ones who advocate for all animals, not just the Cecils and Shamus of the world) is the fact that our society is highly hypocritical when it comes to our compassion for animals. People are so pissed off at this hunter who murdered Cecil, to the point where some have adopted a mob mentality and are calling for harm to the hunter. They will frequently post about it, as they eat their chicken with bacon and cheese sandwiches and type with great fury while wearing their leather boots.

Piglet leaning on tiny guitar

“I will now play you the song of my people. It’s called “I don’t want to be your sandwich, dammit” off my latest CD “No Animal Wants To Die”

Meanwhile, this idea of selective compassion for animals is considered totally normal in our society, but for the animal rights activist, the hypocrisy can be frustrating as all hell, and this frustration often results in this particular issue becoming their main focus.

“But, question: how can people make an animal and not another human being their main focus?” This naturally is a touchy subject (and probably an article in itself) especially considering that historically humans have compared other humans saying they’re “like animals” (and thus inferior) in order to justify oppressing the living crap out of them. However, it should be noted (like all false ideas of superiority) that just because one group decides and declares themselves superior, it doesn’t mean that it’s true. That is why many animal rights activists reject the concept of speciesism (the idea that one species is by default superior over other species and thus it’s okay to oppress them), and go with the idea that we are all animals (which is actually scientifically accurate).

But why would an intersectional animal rights activist (who advocates not just for the non-human animals, but for the human ones as well) make Cecil their focus?

(See #4)

Window open to a blue sky

4.) The Small Window Of Opportunity. Even with the success and popularity of such films as Blackfish (which made a huge dent in Seaworld’s profits and challenged the way our society views certain animals), a conversation about animal rights (outside of the animal rights movement) is just not that common. Even more rare is when it involves “livestock” aka: the animals we have deemed as nothing more than “food”. We were raised to save the dolphins but eat the tuna. Cats are family but pigs are bacon. Thus when a situation like Cecil comes along, where an animal rights topic is actually trending? Small window of opportunity! (echo echo echo).

People knew when the news of Cecil’s death came out, that the animal rights community would speak out, but most animal rights activists did not predict people who normally do not take much interest in animal rights, to react with such outrage. This is a potential opportunity to expand the conversation, and deal with not just Cecil’s death but the root problem of speciesism. This could be the opportunity to show people that as long as any animal can be killed in the name of pleasure (whether it’s the “pleasure” of hunting or the “pleasure” of bacon), no animal (including Cecil) will be safe. Opportunities like this do not come very often and because any at moment in time, another topic could come up and wipe out Cecil’s popularity, soon to be forgotten, we must focus on this topic and give it the most attention on our social media accounts. What if people post about something else and that distracts people from this issue? People feel they must seize the opportunity before it passes (because it will.)

Like I said. Sometimes people are focusing on Cecil, The Lion and not horrific situations like Sandra Bland because they are flat out racist, and that’s all there is to it (and there’s no excuse for it.) But sometimes it’s a reaction to a system that has all of us desperately scrambling to be heard, and sometimes at the expense of hearing each other.

Bear

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.

PETA Sexualizes Woman’s Death in Canine Heat Exhaustion Campaign

Trigger Warning: Post contains misogynistic audience responses to campaign discussed. Also contains discussion of violence against women (specifically abduction and murder).

Not Safe for Work: Post contains misogynistic audience responses that utilize vulgar language.

Elisabetta Canalis in low cut tank top sweaty and passed out in the front seat of a car

With summer upon us, leading animal welfare organization PETA has been drawing attention to the dangers of locking dogs in cars with a commercial featuring model Elisabetta Canalis dying of heat stroke. PETA’s promotional website graphically describes Canalis’s death, calling it a “scorcher”:

As the car heats up, Elisabetta experiences the agonizing symptoms of heatstroke. As panic and anxiety set in, Elisabetta’s condition deteriorates rapidly with the addition of excessive thirst, lethargy, lack of coordination, and a rapid heartbeat. Scared and alone, she desperately attempts to escape the car, which is quickly heating up like an oven.

Essentially, the video shows a scantily clad Italian supermodel locked in a car against her will where she suffers and dies. PETA exclaims: “Italian supermodel Elisabetta Canalis knows what it means to be hot!”

Nowhere in the commercial or on the promotional page is a dog ever shown. At all points, the “dog” referred to is the woman. Even the tip sheet listing appropriate actions for dogs found locked in cars shows an image of Canalis dead in the front seat.

PETA flyer for canines in cars: "If you see a dog locked inside a hot car: 1. Quickly take down the car's make, model, color, and license number, and have the owner paged in the nearest buildings. 2. Call local humane authorities or the police immediately; don't hesitate to call 911 if the animal is in distress. 3. Don't leave the scene until the situation has been resolved. 4. If you can't find the owner, the authorities are unresponsive or too slow, and the dog's life appears to be in imminent danger, find a witness (or several) who will back up your assessment, and take steps to remove the suffering animal from the car. 5. Wait for the authorities to arrive.

PETA defends the sexualization of this woman’s violent death because “sexy celebs” attract more viewers.

Twitter user asks PETA, "Can you explain why you chose a young, scantily clad model? Why you chose to maek her suffering and death sexy?" PETA responds: "Sexy celeb starred in vid so we'd reach more pple. 420k on YouTube have gotten important message thanks 2 Elisabetta Canalis"

If attracting more viewers is the goal, it’s certainly working. But if educating the public on Nonhuman Animal issues is the intent, the message seems to be lost on many. For example, the top two comments on the commercial’s Youtube page read: “Again, PETA has to resort to over sexualization in order to get their message across” and “Wouldn’t have happened, if she stayed in the kitchen.”

PETA-Summer-Scorcher-Top-Comments

Similar comments characterize the public’s response:

dog damn! I have never realized how sexy it was to let a dog closed in a car for a few minutes!!!

I want to get trapped whit (sic) that dog in the worst summer day god ever create (sic) if you dont (sic) mind.

i think this video is a great lesson to all women everywhere on the dangers of leaving the kitchen.

yay im going to do this to females, thank you peta for the idea

Women=dogs

mmm let me get in that car too n heat thangs up a bit more /licks lips

I bet this ad would have been cooler if she de-robed!

This did not teach me or change my mind on anything about animals…just made me want to fap it

never leave ur bitches in the car…got it…

This video has backfired in 2 ways: 1, I now regard women as dogs, 2, now I have a heat exhaustion fetish

And yet PETA insists the model is sexy, not her suffering and death. The point of the video, it reassures, is to “show how wrong it is to lock a living being in a car.”

Twitter user to PETA: "This advertisement draws heavily on imagery of violence against women, and you sexualized it. I believe it was intentional. PETA responds: "Sry u feel that way, that wasn't the point of the video. There was no violence, other than the extreme heat in the car."

More likely, the point of this video is to exploit sexualized violence against women to bring attention to PETA. Depicting a panicked woman locked in a car against her will is drawing on imagery of kidnapping, rape, and murder, an all too common occurrence for women. I can’t even say I’m convinced this is intended to draw attention to dogs when dogs are completely absent from the campaign.

Elisabetta Canalis PETA Car

PETA’s intentions may be good, but its facilitation of rape culture is unmistakable. A lot of money and time goes into advertising campaigns—these images were intentionally chosen to trigger particular cultural knowledges. It is not an accident it chose a “sexy” woman pounding on the windows in a desperate attempt to escape as she dies trapped in a car. The sexualization of rape and violence against women is a cultural norm, it’s something we respond to.

But aggravating violence against woman is not a valid justification for advocating on behalf of dogs or other animals. As evidenced in the viewers’ responses, trivializing the oppression of women to challenge the oppression of other vulnerable groups is not effective. People tune in for sexy misogyny, and exactly what they get.

 

This essay originally appeared on Feminspire on May 28, 2013.


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.