“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.

Speaking of Logical Fallacies…A Response

Posted on February 4, 2014 by Vegan Feminist Network

My buddy and colleague Cheryl Abbate recently commented on an activist demo which involved several folks stalking out (or “staking out” depending on your perspective) the private residence of a female vivisector. Activists staged a silent vigil outside this woman’s home, and a bunch of counter-protesters were waiting to greet them. The animal advocates maintained their nonviolence, but were screamed at and spit upon. Cheryl and others have been understandably shocked by the event, and because it was caught on camera, it offers an excellent opportunity for a little sociological analysis…

My first reaction to this event is to recognize that framing the animal advocates as “nonviolent” is not wholly accurate. These are people who have staked out a woman’s private home. That is in itself a violent action. Many vegan feminists, myself included, do not view this as a nonviolent tactic. Carol Adams has even recounted her own experience on the other side of a protest, as her home had been picketed once. It not only terrified her, but it terrified her children. You can read Marti Kheel’s analysis of “direct action” by clicking here.

Violent tactics only continue to give us a bad name and support our negative stereotype. Tom Regan has identified this negative stereotype as one of the primary reasons why our movement has been stunted and fails to flourish (see Empty Cages). For that matter, this tactic represents your classic single-issue campaign. As I have argued before, single-issues are a waste of time and a waste of resources. They ignore the root of the problem, and they single out particular (popular) species at the expense of others. They also detract from vegan education. You can read more about this in an article I’ve recently published in Food, Culture & Society.

On the other hand, I recommend Cheryl’s essay on this bizarre interaction between activists and counter-activists. Sociologically speaking, it is interesting to see how the social problem is defined and how the power of patriarchy and science is used to dismiss anti-speciesist claimsmaking. Pay attention to how both sides frame the issue, and how both seek to capitalize on the perceived vulnerabilities of each. Jasper & Poulsen (1993) have published an article on this very topic: “Fighting Back: Vulnerabilities, Blunders, and Countermobilization by the Targets in Three Animal Rights Campaigns.” They make the argument that blunders can be capitalized on to achieve success. The disgusting behavior of the vivisectionists and their supporters captured on film might easily be perceived as a blunder.

However, two caveats: 1. How are we defining success? I don’t think single-issue campaigns are strongly correlated with dismantling oppression (instead, they have more to do with fundraising and activist morale/ego); 2. We need to recognize the context of these interactions. We live in speciesist world. We also live in a world that has branded animal activists as terrorists. A bunch of strangers stalking out someone’s home is only going to be perceived as a threat, even if they are “silent.” If a bunch of “silent” people showed up at my home, I’d be dialing 911, I don’t care what their moral position is. It’s threatening. Especially as a woman. And the vivisector they were stalking was indeed a woman. Even male vivisectors who are targeted have families that activists should consider.

Neither can we ignore the white privilege inherent to these kinds of tactics. There is a reason most of these protesters are white. People of color are heavily harassed by the police: they are more likely to be reported, stopped, and arrested. Once arrested, they receive heavier penalties. In a society with a grossly racist criminal justice system, these tactics are inherently white-centric. So, when people parise these types of tactics, I read that as praise for white male approaches to social change. Using white maleness to fight white maleness, not surprisingly, isn’t getting us anywhere.

So, in sum, I think the activists have no reason whatsoever to be surprised at what happened to them. I also think tactics like this aggravate our bad reputation and squander resources. We have limited time, money, and personpower…we should be investing what little we have into vegan education…not stunts like these that are bound to backfire. These stunts are about two things 1. Fundraising and 2. Giving activists the feeling that they’re “doing something” for the animals…because, frankly, vegan education isn’t glamorous work, it’s feminized, and it won’t get you a bunch of Youtube hits. But it’s the necessary foundational work that we must embrace if we want to enact change.

– Corey Lee Wrenn

This post originally appeared on the Academic Abolitionist Vegan. You can follow Ms. Wrenn on Facebook and Twitter.

The Sexual Politics of Vegan Food

Posted on January 22, 2014 by Vegan Feminist Network

Carol Adams has written extensively on the sexual politics of meat, arguing that women and other animals are both sexualized and commodified to facilitate their consumption (both figuratively and literally) by those in power. One result has been the feminization of veganism and vegetarianism. This has the effect of delegitimizing, devaluing, and defanging veganism as a social movement.

But I argue that this process works within the vegan movement as well, with an open embracing of veganism as inherently feminized and sexualized. This works to undermine a movement (that is comprised mostly of women) and repackage it for a patriarchal society. Instead of strong, political collective of women, we have yet another demographic of sexually available individual women who exist for male consumption.

Take a browse through vegan cookbooks on Amazon, and the theme of “sexy veganism” that emerges is unmistakable.

Ms. Cupcake: The Naughtiest Vegan Cakes in Town!

Oftentimes, veganism is presented as a means of achieving idealized body types. These books are mostly geared to a female audience, as society values women primarily as sexual resources for men and women have internalized these gender norms. Many of these books bank on the power of thin privilege, sizism, and stereotypes about female competition for male attention to shame women into purchasing.

Cover for "Eat Yourselve Sexy", Shows a topless woman with her arms up and behind her head, looking seductively at the camera

Eat Yourself Sexy

To reach a male audience, authors have to draw on a notion of “authentic masculinity” to make a highly feminized concept palatable to a patriarchal society where all that is feminine is scorned. Some have referred to this trend as “heganism.” The idea is to protect male superiority by unnecessarily gendering veganism into veganism for girls and veganism for boys. For the boys, we have to appeal to “real” manhood.

Thankfully Meat Is For Pussies (A How-to Guide for Dudes Who Want to Get Fit, Kick Ass and Take Names) appears to be out of print.

Skinny Bastard: A Kick-in-the-Ass for Real Men Who Want to Stop Being Fat and Start Getting Buff

Then there is the popular tactic of turning women into consumable objects in the exact same way that meat industries do. Animal rights groups recruit “lettuce ladies” or “cabbage chicks” dressed as vegetables to interact with the public. PETA routinely has nude women pose in and among vegetables to convey the idea that women are sexy food. Vegan pinup sites and strip joints also feed into this notion. Essentially, it is the co-optation and erosion of a women’s movement. Instead of empowering women on behalf of animals, these approaches disempower women on behalf of men.

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.

“Booth Babes” Bad for Business & Animal Rights

Posted on January 16, 2014 by Vegan Feminist Network

The animal rights movement loves using young women to sell veganism, but whether or not this tactic is effective has come under serious scrutiny.

New research on the effectiveness of “booth babes” at techie conferences suggests that the use of provocatively dressed young women to sell items at trade shows doesn’t work. The comparison group, which consisted professionally dressed older local women, performed significantly better:

The results? They were great. The booth that was staffed with the booth babes generated a third of the foot traffic (as measured by conversations or demos with our reps) and less than half the leads (as measured by a badge swipe or a completed contact form) while the other team had a consistently packed booth that ultimately generated over 550 leads, over triple from the previous year.

Why don’t booth babes make good salespersons? Marketing executive Spencer Chen suggests that they are intimidating to men. That is, rather than attracting men, they repel men. Chen also suggests that women who are hired specifically for these events have little incentive to work for the company. As he explains, “They are used to not doing much except showing up to make their fee for the day.” Customers are looking to learn more, something models are not often invested in. This point may or may not apply to vegan booths, as PETA and other organizations that objectify women rely on volunteers as well as paid models.

Chen also reports, “Business and product execs don’t talk to booth babes.” While vegan “booth babes” are not targeting important business persons, the effect is similar. Animal justice is a serious matter, as is changing one’s diet, and “booth babes” simply do not convey seriousness:

Many times I observed that while my team was busy in demos with other prospects, the booth babes were unable to hold the interest of these execs for the extra five minutes that I needed to get a person from our team to engage.

Who they do tend to attract, however, are young men who are interested more in photo ops than business.

Young man poses next to the "Ice Queen" while another young man takes their picture. The woman is very thin, white, and painted in blue. She wears a tiara and high heels. Sign reads: "Beat the heat with nondairy treats."

So why use booth babes at all? Chen suggests that it’s simply cheaper than relying on qualified individuals and experts. It’s not only easier on the budget, but it’s indicative of cheap advertising standards that dominate the marketplace:

[…] there still exists the “stripper and steaks” mentality in sales, where it’s less about the product and more about relationships and the art of the “close.” Booth babes have long been a part of this dog-and-pony show in this old approach to sales.

This study comes on the heels of the Australian study published in December of 2013 that demonstrated PETA’s “sex sells” approach is actually counter-productive. Male participants recognized that the women were dehumanized and were subsequently less likely to support the animal rights cause.

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

Does Sex Sell Animal Rights? RESEARCH SAYS NO!

Posted on December 23, 2013 by Vegan Feminist Network

Two researchers in Australia sought to test PETA’s hypothesis that sex sells animal rights:

Images of scantily clad women are used by advertisers to make products more attractive to men. This “sex sells” approach is increasingly employed to promote ethical causes, most prominently by the animal-rights organization PETA. Yet sexualized images can dehumanize women, leaving an unresolved paradox – is it effective to advertise an ethical cause using unethical means? In Study 1, a sample of Australian male undergraduates (N = 82) viewed PETA advertisements containing either sexualized or non-sexualized images of women. Intentions to support the ethical organization were reduced for those exposed to the sexualized advertising, and this was explained by their dehumanization of the sexualized women, and not by increased arousal. Study 2 used a mixed-gender community sample from the United States (N = 280), replicating this finding and extending it by showing that behaviors helpful to the ethical cause diminished after viewing the sexualized advertisements, which was again mediated by the dehumanization of the women depicted. Alternative explanations relating to the reduced credibility of the sexualized women and their objectification were not supported. When promoting ethical causes, organizations may benefit from using advertising strategies that do not dehumanize women.

The conclusion?

Overall, these findings are the first to demonstrate that sexualized images that dehumanize women reduce concern for ethical behavior in a domain unrelated to gender relations and sex.

Salon reports that PETA dug in their heels in response to the research, insisting naked women get the most media attention. So, perhaps we are misrepresenting PETA’s hypothesis. They’re using naked women not to raise awareness and stop animal exploitation, but to raise money and awareness about PETA. The “sex sells” tactic, I have argued, is indicative of the non-profit industrial complex, where compromised messages and fundraising are prioritized over actual social change. Really, PETA is ignoring this research even though it has been demonstrated that their tactics do not help Nonhuman Animals. They will continue objectifying women because it “grabs the headlines.” Can it be any clearer that this is not about social change effectiveness?

Of course, while this study demonstrates that there is no effectiveness, there is also a huge body of research that demonstrates that the sexual objectification of women is directly linked to violence against women and the devaluation of women.

This post originally appeared on the Academic Abolitionist Vegan.

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

Jamie Kilstein, Vegan Male “Feminist” Explains Feminism to “Dumb” Women

Posted on November 6, 2013 by Vegan Feminist Network

Content Warning: Contains ableist language and male-on-female aggression

Not Safe for Work: Contains cursing.

By Professor Corey Lee Wrenn

Jamie Kilstein, comedian and co-host of Citizen Radio, announced that he would be doing an interview with PETA and PETA 2. A feminist questioned him on this, asking why he chooses to collaborate with a notoriously misogynistic organization. He then proceeded to dismiss her and berate her.

In the middle of the above interaction, Kilstein peeked into her profile, which listed her interest in Marxism. He then referenced it, insinuating that she was “dumb.”

Kilstein then reminded readers that he’s discussed PETA’s sexism and fat-shaming on the show. For that matter, PETA has done awesome things for the kids. His dismissive and aggressive reaction insinuates that women who continue to have a problem with his position are demonstrating ignorance and simply don’t understand the wonderful things PETA has done.

PETA promotes violence against women and girls by regularly using pornified images of women and girls to represent either violence against women and girls or violence against animals. How many episodes of his show do we have to listen to before we understand that supporting PETA is consistent with feminism? How many episodes until we find his behavior towards women acceptable?

This is not the first time I’ve gotten an uneasy feeling about Kilstein. He once posted that he found men’s rights advocates (a hate group) “funny.” I replied saying that, as a woman, I didn’t find them very funny at all, but rather quite terrifying. He responded with condescension, gas lighting, and mocking. Like the woman above, and he also told me that I must not listen to his show. Again, he positions feminist criticisms as a matter of ignorance or irrationality.

This man has made a career from feminism, but he approaches honest feminist criticism of his decidedly anti-feminist behavior with abuse and aggression. This behavior is what is referred to as tokenizing. Tokenizing is when men use women’s experiences for their own personal gain while simultaneously doing little to challenge gender oppression. Kilstein makes fun of sexism in his stand-up, then signs on to Twitter after the show and berates women who find it problematic that he collaborates with organizations that routinely hurt women.

When men self-identify as feminists, this is generally the result. Too often, they have little understanding about women’s experiences, and, sometimes, are the very perpetrators women are seeking to escape. Self-identified male feminists generally use this feminist identity to shield their sexist behavior (and there is also a frightening trend in men using feminism to sexually harass and assault women). Read more on why I argue that men cannot be feminist here and how men can be better allies here.

Ms. Wrenn is the founder of Vegan Feminist Network and also operates The Academic Abolitionist Vegan. She is a Lecturer of Sociology with Monmouth University, a part-time Instructor of Sociology and Ph.D. candidate with Colorado State University, council member with the Animals & Society Section of the American Sociological Association, and an advisory board member with the International Network for Social Studies on Vegetarianism and Veganism with the University of Vienna. She was awarded the 2016 Exemplary Diversity Scholar by the University of Michigan’s National Center for Institutional Diversity. She is the author of A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory (2015, Palgrave Macmillan).

Vegan Feminist Network

Critical essays and resources for vegan women and their allies

Tag Archives: Animal Rights

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

Speaking of Logical Fallacies…A Response

The Sexual Politics of Vegan Food

“Booth Babes” Bad for Business & Animal Rights

Does Sex Sell Animal Rights? RESEARCH SAYS NO!

Jamie Kilstein, Vegan Male “Feminist” Explains Feminism to “Dumb” Women

Follow Vegan Feminist Network