If you claim to be against all forms of oppression but find yourself mainly subscribing to, valuing, and sharing the voices of white men when it comes to veganism or really all of life’s topics, you need to think about why. And you need to think about the consequences of that.
– Sarah K. Woodcock of The Abolitionist Vegan Society
Corey Lee Wrenn, founder of the Vegan Feminist Network, is interviewed on Episode 2 of Sonia Chauhan and Sarah K. Woodcock’s “Under the Toadstool” podcast. In this 40 minute program, the state of sexism in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement is explored, with some discussion of how to identify and disrupt it. This program was specifically designed to be introductory and is meant to share with those who are new to topics in intersectionality.
If you found your way to this page after listening to the podcast, welcome! We are so thrilled that you are here and that you care about social justice for everyone! Want to be a better advocate? Start by visiting our “What You Can Do!” page.
Yesterday I was in a conversation with a male colleague who supports violence and welfare reform in Nonhuman Animal rights efforts. As an abolitionist, I reject these tactics as both ideologically flawed and counterproductive. The violence/non-violence debate and the abolition/welfare debate have long histories in the movement, and debates over effectiveness are never ending. Because I specialize in social movement theory in my academic life, I have some rather strong positions on these topics. My colleague, however, is a non-academic and is not versed in the science of social movements, basing his position on the dominant (male-led) discourse of the movement. As the conversation progressed and I continued to remain strong in my position, my colleague pointed out that he didn’t feel like he could talk to me without eventually being accused of sexism. This may have been because I was using the language of privilege to discuss the dominance of welfarist organizations in the movement, or it may have been because I noted that violent tactics are patriarchal and tend to attract men. Whatever the reason, I was being flagged for communicating my position within the framework of inequality. I certainly never accused him of sexism. However, it soon occurred to me that my colleague was probably not making this claim out of true exasperation, but rather as a manipulative tool intended to derail the discussion and restore male supremacy.
Men tend to be socialized to expect domination in discourse. They are socialized to believe they are right, that their opinions matter, and that these opinions are the most important. This is not based on experience or expertise, rather, it is based on their privileged social status as a male. Women, on the other hand, are socialized according to the politics of politeness. We are taught to give men more room to talk, to value their opinions no matter how ridiculous or offensive, to soothe their egos, etc. Decades of sociological research on talk, language, and social space regarding mixed gender interactions has confirmed that men talk more, they take up more space, they dictate the discussion, and their opinions are viewed as more credible and legitimate. Women, on the other hand, speak less, support more, and take up less space. Their opinions are also extremely devalued.
When men complain about not being able to say anything without being accused of sexism, what they are really saying is:
1. I am used to having control over the conversation, your awareness of sexual politics makes it difficult for me to enact this invisible privilege smoothly.
2. I am used to being able to speak about any topic without my authority being challenged, the possibility of being accused of sexism interferes with my authority.
3. I am drawing on politics of politeness to shame you into putting my feelings and interests first.
4. Feminist theory is a charade. Sexism isn’t real, you’re just using that rhetoric as a way to win the argument.
This tactic is a variation of tone-policing. Rather than engaging the discourse, there is a derailment created by appealing to the bruised male ego, the woman’s character, and the authenticity of feminism. Women are distracted from expressing their own authority on a subject when men exploit femininity and pressure women into paying deference to the patriarchal social structure. The validity of my argument goes by the wayside, I have to put his feelings first. Not putting the feelings of men first is a cardinal sin in the patriarchy. Being a woman with an educated opinion seems to be a great offense as well.
Finally, it is extremely important to recognize that when we individualize oppression, we obscure its systemic nature. If we can’t discuss systemic oppression because people of privilege prioritize their discomfort at what appears to be a personal attack, we will not be able to have the important conversations necessary for creating an egalitarian society. Making it personal (“Hey, I’m not sexist!”; “Hey, are you calling me racist?!”) seriously derails the conversation. Instead of challenging structural oppression, advocates find themselves tending to the feelings of people of privilege who are used to being shielded from discomfort. It becomes extremely wearisome for oppressed people to continuously pander to the feelings of privileged persons. Doing so redirects attention from the oppressed to the oppressors. It also shuts down the dialogue, interferes with critical thinking, and impedes social justice work.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox
Join other followers
