-- a letter-to-the-editor from "the 'heavily pregnant' woman who kneeled nearly naked in a metal stall to remind viewers of how mother animals are totally commodified, abused, and denied their every desire on factory farms": "listen to our body language" [noemie ventura, campaign coordinator, peta uk]
and my reaction, from a recent response i sent to a list where those were linked:
i for one am an animal righter who's very much against peta and their sexist tactics - but i do think that the discussion around women who work for peta and participate in these kinds of campaigns, and their position, is a worthwhile one to have. the letter from that peta staff person is important to take into consideration (and i'd like to point out that it's rare that the actual women who participate in those campaigns express their personal opinion - it's usually a p.r. person trotting out the peta party line). my personal view is that when protesting these kinds of campaigns one should be careful to address the issue and not make it about shaming the women who use their bodies; because it's not that a woman goes nude to attract attention that's the problem, but rather the fact that women are expected to use their naked bodies even when the message sent is at the expense of their own dignity: peta wants people to start treating non-human animals with respect, but doesn't think it's a problem to use women's bodies in a demeaning manner to "appeal" to the public. the thing is, those campaigns rely on demeaning somebody - and so the message sent is the opposite of what peta thinks (or pretends) it sends.
so my answer to the question in the title of this post is: all three. but at the same time, criticizing a woman for getting naked "for a cause" is different than criticizing the fact that in our dysfunctional society it takes naked female bodies to draw the public's attention to justice issues. the former can be a misogynistic stance, because it focuses on a particular woman and can become about shaming her and thus not condemn but rather support the system at work, which treats women badly. but that's the whole point of protesting a sexist campaign: to say no to using and abusing women. it's what any organization dedicated to social justice should do on their own; and holding a group accountable for not only being oblivious to this problem but actually profiting from it means taking a feminist stance.
i think a woman who decides to go naked to draw attention to the plight of animals is choosing to do whatever it takes to draw that attention. as noemi ventura says, she "can decide how she wants to express herself" (and what she expresses). it's her activism - as long as it's just hers; nobody says that every woman on this planet should only do stuff that has a certain message. but when it comes to a group like peta, one expects something from their message. that it be ethical and self-consistent, for one. the problem is, if in this case a pregnant peta employee "kneeled nearly naked in a metal stall to remind viewers of how mother animals are totally commodified, abused, and denied their every desire on factory farms," then what is the message really? perhaps the peta employee, who embraces animal rights, may think that "being compared to [animals] is no insult"; but most people aren't there yet (that's why we need activism and awareness campaigns in the first place, right?). i disagree that peta campaigns "force people to look, think and, most importantly, take action" - actually, with a campaign like this one peta accomplishes nothing except to show the public a naked pregnant woman in a cage and compare her to an animal; which doesn't challenge or inform the public about anything at all, so they can go right ahead with both their sexist and speciist views.
but i still can't articulate the point any better than it's layed out in the following comment which i already quoted in a previous post:
It would be worthwhile to demonstrate how cruel the meat industry is to animals by tapping into empathy, using humans to draw a parallel. But the thing is, you have to do something that evokes feelings of outrage and shock. To draw the parallel, the viewers have to feel empathy for the human stand-in in order to then apply that to animals.
That’s not accomplished with putting women naked in cages or painting them up like tigers. In a society in which that is so closely related to images in a great deal of pornography, the display is likely to elicit sexual excitement or moral scolding than outrage on the behalf of the woman.
the grand coolie damn, pamphlet from 1969 by marge piercy about sexism within the leftist movement - it is really really good and chock full of really really important points about how and why even the most progressive groups tend to be a microcosm of patriarchal bs [about the word "coolie"]
[prison] rape - poignant and thought provoking piece at the huffington post contrasting men's outrage about rape of men and their lack of similar concern about rape of women ("What does it tell us that men's most terrified reaction to the idea of prison is the fear that women experience all the time? What does it tell us that the worst punishment is to be made like a woman?") - also excellent: what causes rape? anatomy of a rape culture at alas, a blog
a video-post by vegankid about conscientious objection. see the video and the campaign. i too used to be involved in lots more anti-war organizing, and i should still be, as should we all!!
colbert and satire at the whca dinner on is there no sin in it? - v. good explanation about the difference between "horatian" and "juvenalian" satire (think jon stewart vs. stephen colbert)
earthlings, a new documentary about the cruelty suffered by animals at the hands of humans (narrated by joaquin pheonix, music by moby) which looks amazing and comes highly recommended by lots of people, for instance by propagandhi -- btw propagandhi is annoying me so much with their continued semi-support of peta (a couple of years back, chris the singer answered an email i sent them about their having a link to peta on their site but said that even though peta might suck they are the most prominent mainstream animal rights group and as such should be promoted argh)! also btw, recently i had the pleasure of finding this feminist anti-peta page: peta, where only women are treated like meat - so mine's not the only one! yay!
aaand... the leaf player of the zocalo on npr's all things considered. excellent. (romanians play leaves too. 'cause we're cool like that.)
thank god feministe & readers address a new example of peta sexism, so i don't have to... for the fivemillionthtime. i was especially glad to see that all of the people who've contributed to that thread so far (except for a certain "activist") went straight to the heart of the problem, articulated things particularly well and even brought in a new twist that i haven't seen before in these kinds of conversations: how might one take peta's tactics, keep all of the stuff that's supposed to work (drawing a parallel between human and non-human animals, shock tactics, irony, subversion, comedy, street theater) and remove not-ok stuff like relying on and promoting misogynistic, patriarchal values? what would such campaigns look like? i think that's a particularly useful discussion to have. it's so good to see more and more of this kind of critique:
It would be worthwhile to demonstrate how cruel the meat industry is to animals by tapping into empathy, using humans to draw a parallel. But the thing is, you have to do something that evokes feelings of outrage and shock. To draw the parallel, the viewers have to feel empathy for the human stand-in in order to then apply that to animals.
That’s not accomplished with putting women naked in cages or painting them up like tigers. In a society in which that is so closely related to images in a great deal of pornography, the display is likely to elicit sexual excitement or moral scolding than outrage on the behalf of the woman. ...
-astrea
(and i think that's quite perfectly put).
oh, yeah, and this is damn funny (and true):
I’m a vegetarian and I can’t stand PETA. They’re the Christian Right of the animal rights movement.
ps: i am going to make an "i'd rather eat meat than support peta" banner for all veg*ans interested in displaying it on their sites.
i knew it couldn't last long... 'cause i actually thought one of the latest peta campaigns was getting somewhere -- their" sea kittens" thing is actually witty, subversive and thought-provoking (just barely - which, for them, is saying A LOT).
this, though?! it's utter, complete crap of the lowest rank. if there's one progressive veg*an out there who still supports peta, i just have to ask you - WTF? what will it take - each time they come up with oneoftheseoffensive, staggeringlystupid campaigns i think: now they've finally gone too far... how can anyone still support this group?!?! but people do, and then next time it gets worse. seriously. it's our responsibility to disown them loud and clear!
i know i do:
[only copy and use this banner if you're veg*an, please!]
Frankly, I don’t believe that PETA loves animals, with all the complexity and interdependence that love entails. I believe that they only love preaching and grandstanding on the subject, in a very specific human-egoic way.
now i know, after all these years, that the answer to that question is no. and still, every time they come out with yet another mind-numbingly UNethical, ill-conceived, animals-should-have-rights-even-at-the-detriment-of-whole- groups-of-people, let's-stop-objectifying-animals-by-objectifying-women-as- much-as-possible, any-press-is-good-press-the-end-justifies-the-means-and- peta-just-doesn't-care ad or "campaign"... i'm a little bit surprised.
read here for details about this newest peta stunt. "show me your udders", indeed... just perfect as a new addition to my "peta wall of shame". sigh.
"Are Animals and Humans the Same?" @ Womanist Musings (cross-posted at Feministe, with lots of discussion there as well: - watchforsomeamazingcommentsbybfp, who's got to have developed the most nuanced, yet clear analysis of the "a.r. as part of social justice" problem that one can find anywhere; - while the position and discourse adopted by "ARPhilo" - the know-it-all, holier-than-thou, totally blind to other points of view, individual choice-based organizing kind - provides a perfect illustration of the type of approach that works against the "interconnectedness of animal and human liberation" even as it preaches this interconnectedness: not quite PeTA, but in effect PeTA-like... i understand the frustration and the "defensiveness," but, sometimes, a statement such as "... I will be a devoted speciesist" has to be understood in all its contextuality and complexity, rather than reacted to with single-minded righteousness: if you can't do that, you don't get it all, and you might as well give up communicating with your fellow humans and stop worrying about all of our liberations right now!)
& The Century of the Self - The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
Part 1: Happiness Machines Part 2: The Engineering of Consent Part 3: There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed Part 4: Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering
"To many in both politics and business, the triumph of the self is the ultimate expression of democracy, where power has finally moved to the people. Certainly the people may feel they are in charge, but are they really? The Century of the Self tells the untold and sometimes controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society in Britain and the United States. How was the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interests?" (via)
"Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, changed the perception of the human mind and its workings. His influence on the twentieth century is generally considered profound. The series describes the ways public relations and politicians have utilized Freud's theories during the last 100 years for the "engineering of consent".
Freud himself and his nephew Edward Bernays, who was the first to use psychological techniques in public relations, are discussed. Freud's daughter Anna Freud, a pioneer of child psychology, is mentioned in the second part, as is one of the main opponents of Freud's theories, Wilhelm Reich, in the third part.
Along these general themes, The Century of the Self asks deeper questions about the roots and methods of modern consumerism, representative democracy and its implications. It also questions the modern way we see ourselves, the attitude to fashion and superficiality.
The business and, increasingly, the political world uses psychological techniques to read and fulfill our desires, to make their products or speeches as pleasing as possible to us. Curtis raises the question of the intentions and roots of this fact. Where once the political process was about engaging people's rational, conscious minds, as well as facilitating their needs as a society, the documentary shows how by employing the tactics of psychoanalysis, politicians appeal to irrational, primitive impulses that have little apparent bearing on issues outside of the narrow self-interest of a consumer population." (via)
"Public rights have been replaced by personal choices. Don't have a right to clean air, pure water and a future for you children? Then choose composting, recycling and growing your own veggies organically. Worked out that having it all - a career and family - isn't all it's cracked up to be? Then take your right to choose, give up that career and stay at home with the kids, the cost of childcare was killing you anyway. Black? Then you'll probably "choose" a second-rate education, exponentially higher exposure to violent crime and a diet that will make you sick. And while you're at it why not settle in the poorest, nastiest ward of New Orleans? Go ahead, it's your choice. This reframing of the debate, to cripple the very power of a movement by shaking it down from masses in search of a universal right to individuals with private decisions to take, was a masterstroke by the Right, because if you pit the little guy against an institution the institution will always win.
We stopped working together for reform and are now being forced to conform, dying deaths of a thousand choices. But it's not too late. In the words of Roberta Lynch, 'Movements do not simply get born, flourish and die. They go forward and are beaten back. They retreat, regroup and advance again.'"
gary francione of The Abolitionist Approach has thoughts on "Postmodern Feminism and Animal Welfare": he argues that the two are essentially the same type of thing and elaborates the ways in which this is a perfect parallel. in the process, he proves that in spite of his usual thoughtfulness and dedication to justice work he just doesn't know enough about feminist movement and ideas. to a certain extent, he did this in the past with the subject of rape... but i think in this case he's really blundered: because he was irritated by an argument that reminded him of animal welfarist arguments, he seems to have abandoned all care for nuance and faithfulness to reality. his point here, in a nutshell, is that someone needs to fight for the rights of those without voice, which includes animals and those poor women exploited by... porn. and i just have to say - WHAT? why is this needed? of course, to a certain extent all social justice work is the struggle to promote the rights of the disenfranchised. and i for one totally agree that certain kinds of feminism ("choice" feminism, "i-feminism," strictly "pro-sex" feminism, liberal feminism) can be pretty frivolous and self-centered, and mainly the domain of privileged women who just want a piece of the (patriarchal) pie, about maintaining the status quo more than anything. but... that's not really francione's point here. in this case, he focuses on porn. and as he elaborates this parallel between animal welfarists and non-anti-porn feminists, his point becomes essentially that just like animals, women who are exploited (by porn) cannot have a voice, so others must step in to take over and order their lives for maximum "justice." i dunno... he does realize that women DO have their own voices, i hope?! that's why there's even a debate on this subject.
first of all, a small observation that i think says a lot about the inaccuracies in francione's argument: the postmodern feminists would never call anyone "patriarchal" -- actually, the postmodernists have an allergy to the term "patriarchal," which is a marked second-wave/radical concept. this, by the way, is one of the many reasons why i also think "postmodernism" is of no use at all when it comes to working for social justice...
but regarding the feminist position on porn, francione hasn't even understood the two "camps" very well. postmodernism hasn't got much to do with this issue... and the camps aren't split along whether commodification of women is inherently bad as he says; any true feminist should have a problem with injustice towards women in general, with the normalization of the female body as nothing more than a sexual receptacle, an object to be used by men -- francione comments about this himself when he singles out rape as an agreed-upon example of injustice. and no, to clarify, peta as an organization is not "feminist" at all, not even the postmodern kind... they use a "post-feminist" rhetoric (we've already solved gender issues, women are already powerful and sexism is not a problem), which is pure bullshit.
rather, the feminist disagreement around "pornstitution" is whether all sex work is "inherently exploitative" (based on different definitions) and women can/should have any agency at all as sex workers. i, for one, am somewhere in between the two poles: i am completely for talking about "pornstitution" as exploitation and violence against women in this society, but at the same time i'm also completely for us, as a society, doing our best to make the lives of sex workers better, through no longer penalizing them instead of those who profit from their work (pimps, traffickers, clients, the police), through unionization, through measures that would benefit them in significant ways -- everything from health care to exit services... for giving women more and better options to choose from. for making homes and streets and communities safer for girls and women (and boys and men). and not least of all changing traditional attitudes towards male/female sexuality. but to me, the important thing is to provide help and needed resources to people who need them most; to listen to them; and to address the problems, in concrete ways, not just some abstract concept of "sexual services for money" which is supposed to be inherently something or other...
the big problem with francione's argument, and with some of what "anti-porn" feminists argue, is that it essentially strips away any agency that a whole lot of women might want or need in their current situations. which is bad, however you look at it. and it's not promoting justice.
and, dear god, this part: "This style of discourse reflects the tactics of the reactionary right. Any dissent is automatically demonized and attempts at reasoned discussion are rejected in favor of slogans and other empty rhetoric that do nothing except maintain the dominant ideology of exploitation." really made me laugh. has francione ever seen any feminist debate on porn? has he looked at how feminists who are categorically anti-porn discuss this subject? because what he says about the "postmodern" feminist discourse is just empty words used to draw the conclusion he wants: that you're either "anti-porn" or reactionary. in fact, those exact words can be used to describe a lot of the "anti-porn" discourse and attitudes; i have experienced this very dynamic at least once on my own skin (to a quite painful degree that truly took me by surprise - and i consider myself quite jaded on this topic... -- read that i blame the patriarchy thread i referenced and you'll see what i'm talking about).
one point of francione's is that, apparently, this thing he calls postmodern feminism "...rejects making any negative normative judgments about these exploitative institutions or how they affect women in lower socio-economic classes who do not have the privileges of the postmodern feminists, who are, by and large, white, middle-class, and well-educated"... well...
REALLY?
it's actually the other way around. the majority of the categorically "anti-porn" are privileged, white, economically well-off feminists who whenever they run into the problem that opposing and condemning sex work 100% means an antagonistic position towards sex workers (and this happens constantly, of course), prefer to retreat in patronizing "false consciousness" feminist discourse (even the most well-meaning ones to whom such discourse is usually distasteful) than to address the issue at some practical level. than to deign to really support, in concrete ways, those women who need support. because... they just know better. and never mind that all of us participate in the system to one degree or another, and perpetuate this patriarchy which hurts all women (and men) in a mirriad ways -- somehow sex workers are guiltier than all of the rest of us put together, as well as less conscious (they have to be, they're whores). it's amazing to me that the most obvious flaw in this discourse is so invisible to so many who declare themselves feminist-ier and more anti-patriarchal than thou... the system relies on such attitudes towards "the whores" out there: as a feminist who agrees, you're doing nothing to fight the problem at its roots. radical change needs to entail a different vision of sex and what "sex work" might mean... together with a dedication to ending all economic exploitation and violence towards all women. not just "pornstitution" as we know it.
along these lines, and because i wanted to give a link to it anyway, see: "A small post" @ Women of Color Blog (i think it's enough said - if that doesn't stop and make you think, then i don't know... nothing will, probably.)
there's also this (a similar experience is what first made me struggle with and begin to distance myself from a classical "anti-porn" stance of "poor sex workers, how can they bear to do something so demeaning, why don't they realize how exploited they are?!"):
(thanks h.)
but my two old standby quotes on this topic serve quite well too:
"Because of this ["whore"] stigma, which keeps many women from freely exploring, experiencing, and naming their own sexuality lest they be called whore, many critics isolate prostitution from other situations in which women are objectified or their labor exploited, and assume both that any problems associated with prostitution are unique and that the existence of prostitution is the root cause of patriarchal and capitalist objectification, economic exploitation, and violence against all women. From a sex workers' rights point of view, it is the laws against prostitution and the stigma imposed on sex work that provoke and permit violence against prostitutes, and ensure poor working conditions and the inability of many sex workers to move on to other kinds of work without lying about their experience." -- Priscilla Alexander
"Anti-porn arguments bore me. Such accounts get in bed with right-wingers, infantilize women, condescend to sex workers, refuse to critically consider porn as a social practice, and prescribe what gets to count as "healthy" sexuality (usually vanilla, reproductive heteronormativity). Yawn. But sometimes, it’s true, as a critical theorist, pro-sex politics also bore me. They sometimes (not always, sometimes) feel limited, especially when what counts as politics is just about fucking. And because I’m a cranky girl, I worry about the very real potential for flattening all those uneven social relations and their histories into a spread-around lack of mind-blowing sex. […]If we meaningfully consider sex and sexuality – especially in its regulation and criminalization — in a dialectic with ideologies of race, gender, nation, capitalism, and material relations, the rhetorical hard-sell of personalized liberation falls flat." -- Mimi Nguyen
if francione, or any adamantly "anti-porn" feminist, can talk about other industries/exploitation of (women's) work in the same way they approach the sex industry and exploitation of sex workers -- it they will oppose, say, efforts to better conditions and unionization for sweatshop workers -- then ok, i'll just accept that they wish to opt out of society entirely because they feel any efforts to improve the lives of people caught in the system in one way or another only serves to legitimize the bad institutions. and that's ok. at least it's self-consistent, ethically. but in the meantime, this "inherent exploitation" rhetoric focused exclusively on porn is simply about slut-shaming and -blaming. on top of ignoring the larger picture of women's economic exploitation! there's really no excuse. personally, i think what we need to "be" as feminists is not just "anti-porn" (that's useless) -- rather, let's agree to be against violence, coercion, rape, trafficking, violation of autonomy, intimidation, exploitation, objectification, dehumanization, racism, etc. (all of which does apply to "pornstitution"), and let's work on bringing about change, full recognition and observance of human rights. to me, the problem is not that women are exploited sexually and therefore there's misogyny, the problem is that there's misogyny (and classism and racism) and therefore women are exploited sexually and non-sexually. the parallel as far as animals are concerned is to oppose violence/killing/cruelty/commodification, etc., and aim to end all use and achieve animal rights. it's not that animals are killed for food and therefore animals don't have rights, it's that we're speciist and therefore we kill animals for food and otherwise hurt and exploit them.
i do wish people who care about these things, activists in general, didn't construct their ideologies around abstract holier than thou-ism so much. especially feminists.
just 2 great parts amongst much goodness in the post, which also includes a pitch-perfect take on peta [see "I'm with Stupid" by bob torres as well - and while we're at it, "3 Ways to be the Revolution" and "All we have is means", because that just about encompasses the issue]:
[....] Did my community need or even want these protests? Did they even know that they were supposed to be protesting? Did they have any say in formulating the ‘goal’ I personally decided on for them?
With animal rights activists, answering these questions is harder for the obvious reasons. Thus, rather than focusing on empowering animals and allowing animals to speak for themselves (which is what my revelation was after working through the responses to the previous questions), I think animal rights organizers need to focus more on changing a culture that does not consider the needs of animals on any level at all. For example: why is it that when 99% of the people in the U.S. by a new product, they do not ask themselves, how would/does this product affect animals? Would things change for animals if this *was* one of the first questions asked?
Changing cultural beliefs does NOT happen by firebombings. Violence as a strategy has NEVER changed cultural beliefs for the better–indeed, as many post colonial and radical women of color activists would argue, it actually *reinforces* cultural beliefs, turning what once was a pain in the ass cultural standard that could be ignored or only ‘performed’ in certain spaces to shut up the complainers, into a standard that is severely (and usually violently) enforced and highly policed in the name of ’showing solidarity’ against violence.
[...] The problem is, when you need a mass base of power to create change, but you are only preaching to the converted–you are not creating a base of power–thus you are not ever going to create change.
To bring this back to the firebombers–the fallout of the action consists of those who are already converted being forced into a corner by the non converted–that is, instead of continuing action and base building that *does* bring about change, animal rights groups have to stop and answer questions and reassure and promise that they are not really like *that* group.
On the other side, the non converted are making new laws that make it harder for ALL animal liberation folks to protest, not just the extremists. They are calling animal liberation minded folks “crazy” and equating them to terrorists. They are distancing themselves from not just the extremist actions of a few animal liberation folks–but from the entire concept of animal liberation period.
Is that what’s going to stop violence against animals? Detracting those who are doing legitimate grassroots basebuilding from their work and completly alienating the unconverted?
There are many many compelling moral and ethical reasons for not engaging in violence as a form of protest. I have talked about those reasons before–and for me, my belief non-violence is primarily a moral and ethical choice based in feminist principles. At the same time, there are sound practical reasons why engaging in violence as an organizing strategy simply doesn’t work. You have to know a thing or two about social justice movements to understand this, however, and unfortunately, it seems that far too many organizers feel that reading and talking and contemplating historical strategies of social justice movements are not legitimate forms of ‘action’.
[...] My advice: if you are person that is truly interested in creating meaningful change–then start researching social justice movements. [...] Pay attention to what strategies have been successful for other organizations and what has not been. Do outreach to organizations in your own community. Be mindful of the work they’re dong so that you aren’t repeating their work or writing over it.
...can a cupcake be cute and punk at the same time? In the early days of punk, bands like the Sex Pistols were notorious for nihilism, anarchism and epic consumption of drugs and alcohol — none of which would seem to lead to tofu and chamomile tea. But as punk became more political (and as bands self-destructed) in the 1990s, many punks adopted a more profoundly rebellious stance: against drugs, against alcohol and against the whole habit of mindless consumption. [note: they could've researched this part better.]
“It was about purifying the movement, about being poison-free,” said Ted Leo, of Ted Leo and the Pharmacists, who led the band Chisel in the 1990s. He became vegetarian in 1988 and has been vegan since 1998. Many punks became vegetarian to protest corporate and government control of the food supply. Veganism takes vegetarianism farther into cruelty-free territory by avoiding anything produced by animals: milk, cheese, eggs, honey, etc.
“I would love to live in a world where I knew the eggs came from happy chickens,” Ms. Moskowitz said. “But in Brooklyn? That’s not going to happen.” ... “Besides, eggs are the big lie in baking. All the books say they provide structure, but that’s kind of crap.”
...“I learned knife skills by cooking for Food not Bombs,” she said, referring to the activist group that protests corporate and government food policy. “But I also learned to love Julia Child and Martha Stewart. Vegan food can and must be pretty,” she said, pounding a fist on the butcher-block counter.
...punk vegans like Ms. Moskowitz and Mr. Leo acknowledge that they are still far outside the mainstream, and that the label “vegan” — unlike “vegetarian” — can still inspire a strong negative reaction.
“Any time you confront a deeply ingrained societal norm, people are going to get upset,” Mr. Leo said.
Ms. Moskowitz agreed that the vegan movement is in need of a public-relations overhaul. “I can’t say there’s no self-righteousness in the movement, and also, a lot of the food is awful.”
She said vegans should stop whining about what they can and can’t eat, and start cooking. “When someone invites you to dinner, bring something delicious, and share it,” she said.
This peaceable approach — smoothing frosting over the rough edges of rage — might be the key to Ms. Moskowitz’s appeal.
“You can’t stay angry forever,” she said. “Either as a punk or as a vegan.”
[edit: otoh peta, who recently gave isa a "proggy" award, can as usual kiss my progressive ass. even though i realize they can't grasp - pun intended - what "progressive" (or "ethical") means. THEY JUST NEED TO BE STOPPED.]
[double edit: here's the errata sent by ted leo to the writer of the article, which is v. good (although i would have a further qualm/nuance to add, about being drug-free perhaps automatically meaning "asceticism" - which is just as untrue as in the case of veganism; and that's the point of the article, isn't it? even if it sounds radical, one doesn't need all these things we're told we need - among them animal products and drugs - to live a good and fun life):
"...thanks for the coverage on Isa and veganism! In reading the article, though, I think that it may seem that the ideas of veganism and asceticism (for the uninitiated) or "straight edge" (for those in the know) become conflated to too great an extent, and if I contributed to that, I apologize. The "poison free" thing was a catch phrase of the straight edge movement. They don't necessarily go together, and I, as a rather hard-drinking vegan, am not much engaged with straight edge at all at this point in my life. In an article about someone like Isa, who really focuses on the fact that being vegan is more often a positive choice that offers a fun and full life with food, than it is an ascetic one, I feel like the quote ascribed to me about poison free could be single-handedly responsible for drawing many a reader back into the same old assumptions about the life we lead, and I just wanted to set the record straight a bit. Also, I was thinking more about what makes people react so violently to the mere presence of a vegan at the table, and one thing I wish we'd talked about, because I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, is just what a personal thing food, itself, is to human beings. It's one of the major threads of our social fabric, no? Aside from the obvious survival need for it, at this point in our evolution, I wouldn't be surprised to find that we've developed direct synaptic links between sensual food experience and emotion (or at least the glands that send out the seratonin that regulates it!) So many memories, feelings, etc. are wrapped up in our relation to how, where, and when we eat, and the meals we've had throughout our lives, and for some people, the customs of "the meal" as they've known it, and "food" as they understand it, may just be too important in their lives, for whatever reason, to touch without it being sometimes even painful! It's a really interesting thing to think about at this late pint (to illustrate the Freudian way my mind works in relation to being "poison free" or not, I'm going to leave that typo, "pint," that was meant to be "point," in) in the game for me, because people are obviously going to react to things differently, and while some may be really intrigued by or at least understanding of the vegan choice, I guess for some people it's probably hard to even understand just how big the apple cart you're overturning is for them. That, however, doesn't mean that I wouldn't still like to see it overturned... ( -insert sarcastic winking emoticon that I don't know how to make here- )..."]
in the ever "popular" (well, at least ever relevant) series titled "what, you mean there's a link between a feminist and a vegetarian critique of society? no way" - here's something from Pandagon:
The sexual politics of greasy fast food Shakes Sis has a post up about a favor tactic in commercials–setting up situations where men are told that in order to prove they are Not Women or Not Pussywhipped, they are required to do whatever the advertisers tell them to do, no matter how damaging or stupid. In this case, it’s a pretty easy sell because the required behavior is to eat lots of disgusting fast food. .... And to think that I used to be a bit skeptical of Carol J. Adams. I shouldn’t have been, of course. The first person to ever mention her book to me was a boyfriend who generally wasn’t too keen on some of the more radical aspects of feminism but didn’t see why I was hesistant to think there was something horribly patriarchal about our culture’s views on meat consumption. Maybe I was defensive due to my newbie vegetarian status. But in the years since, it’s become difficult for me not to notice that not only is vegetarianism something that’s coded as female, but that meat-eating is coded as most definitely masculine.
Carol J. Adams is the author of the groundbreaking and controversial The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory (Continuum 1991), which explores the relationship between patriarchal values and meat-eating. To explain this relationship, Adams introduces the concept of the structure of the "absent referent: "Behind every meal of meat is an absence, the death of the animal whose place the meat takes. The absent referent is that which separates the meat eater from the animal and the animal from the end product. The function of the absent referent is to keep our "meat" separated from any idea that she or he was once an animal, to keep something from being seen as having been someone.
The structure of the absent referent not only keeps animals oppressed, but women and other non-dominant humans as well. In parallel with the consumption of meat, the objectification of women, whether as severe in the case of rape, or as trite as a pin-up girl, keeps something from being seen as someone. And Adams offers strong evidence that women and animals are linked as absent referents in the texts of a patriarchal society: Terms relating to the parts of a woman's body and cuts of meat are often used interchangeably, and Adams points to advertising that does so in an overt manner. The link is also seen in everyday language: If animals are the absent referent in the phrase, "the butchering of women," then women are the absent referent in the phrase, "the rape of animals."
The Sexual Politics of Meat means that what, or more precisely who, we eat is determined by the patriarchal politics of our culture, and that the meanings attached to meat-eating include meanings clustered around virility. We live in a patriarchal world in which men still have considerable power over women, both in the public sphere (employment and politics) and in the private sphere (at home, where in this country woman-battering results in the death of four women a day). What The Sexual Politics of Meat argues is that the way gender politics is structured into our world is related to how we view animals, especially animals that are consumed. Patriarchy is a gender system that is implicit in human/animal relationships. Moreover, gender construction includes instruction about appropriate foods. Being a man in our culture is tied to identities that they either claim or disown--what "real" men do and don't do. "Real" men don't eat quiche. It's not only an issue of privilege, it's an issue of symbolism. Manhood is constructed in our culture, in part, by access to meat-eating and control of other bodies.
Through the sexual politics of meat, consuming images of women provides a way for our culture to talk openly about and joke about the objectification of women without having to acknowledge that this is what they are doing. It is a way that men can bond publicly around misogyny, whether they know it or not. ...
-- which is SO true and proves to be more and more true all the time. though i have my own disagreements with carol adams, and eco-feminism in general if it means essentialising women in any way (and it kinda does even though it's also awesome), i totally agree with the "sexual politics of meat" argument and all this stuff about the objectification of animals and of women in society being pretty much the same thing, based on the culture first "other"-ing and dehumanizing both those categories of beings to some extent. (not that carol adams was the first to ever name this problem.) of course, the irony of it all is that on this subject, at a pragmatic level, the most telling example is actually not an ad like the one mentioned above (though that's pretty fucking obvious), but sadly the stubbornly sexist tactics of the highest-profile "animal rights" group of the universe, peta. because, you know, given that someone has to fulfill the role of getting objectified and oppressed by the patriarchy, when pressed to make a choice whose objectification to support, the "ethical" one is to go "i pick women. 'cause the animals are just more deserving of my compassion right now." of course.
ps: i was just talking about this in a comment to a post on the romanian imc about laws related to cruelty against animals, which though a bit foggy in certain parts still has a very perceptive central point that the patriarchal attitude towards women as well as animals is at the root of the problem. interestingly perhaps, the major "fogginess" of that post is that to illustrate the argument that society has been conditioned to accept the horrors of violence and cruelty against animals exactly as where women are concerned, it uses not an instance of cruelty against women but abortion (! i suppose because abortion is ultimately an act of violence... but as far as performing abortion as a direct parallel to slaughtering animals and as an example of the hand of the patriarchy restricting women's freedom, yeah, i didn't get it either).
in romania, although it is called "international women's day" and it is faithfully observed, march 8th is celebrated as more of a "mother's day." meaning - with cards, flowers, proclamations of love and respect for "woman as mother." that is good to have, of course... but it's not exactly a women's day (well, in romanian we say "woman's day" anyway)!
one nice part of pre-'89 celebrations for march 8th in romania were the women-only get-togethers that were organized (women would get half a day off from work), which were sometimes repeated throughout the year with so-called "femina" clubs... i don't know too much about those, actually. but it seems like they might've been a good opportunity to meet, have fun and organize - except nobody organized anything in those times (since people had no actual rights and freedoms). today, on the other hand, it's all consumerist and hedonistic like other holidays. definitely not feminist.
so if in north america it seems to be largely ignored, in romania this day exists completely removed from its radical, feminist roots. its history as a day of women's social and political activism is virtually unknown (that indymedia link points to an article i co-wrote last year, and it's the only such romanian piece that i know of). this was the case during "communism," too, though i can't understand why at the time we didn't at least keep the revolutionary discourse, since we were very good at emptying radical discourse of all applied meaning and using it just "for show." it would've been just as well to pretend. but in romanian society the whole message of women's day got watered down to flowers and candy for "the only woman" (that's whom the romanian card with the heart, which is pretty typical, is addressed to). i suppose the main reason must have been that as a "communist" society we had already transcended gender issues - no sex-based discrimination remained and all people were completely equal (actually true in one sense: nobody had any rights, so we were all automatically equal). therefore, the only specifically female condition was that of mother, and the only thing left to do for march 8th was to celebrate (mothers). i think that was the idea. i have a friend who lives in a country that's still communist today, and from what she says this is the official stance as far as women's rights there, too. of course, just as in pre-'89 romania, this is the happy, propaganda-laced facade of the reality that the culture remains patriarchal and misogynistic to its core, with women doing most of the domestic work anyway, sexual and domestic violence a commonplace occurrence (carefully hidden away and kept "in the family"), mistrust and derision of women in positions of power or authority... yeah, these things are the same whether you have female tractor drivers to put on posters or not. (not sure why tractors specifically, but the female tractor driver was the equivalent of a rosie the riveter figure in communist romania.)
the degree to which people were equal and there was no sex-based discrimination whatsoever in communist romania is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that in a society where almost everything was tabu and freedom of speech was absent, the most tabu subject of all was homosexuality, and gay people were actively persecuted. oh, and least we forget, abortion was illegal.
since '89, there's been some progress made towards eliminating direct discrimination, but the culture hasn't changed all that much.
today, however, people like to argue that there's no "gender issues" and that feminism's not needed in romania as a backlash against having had to deal with the "equality" nonsense imposed by the communist regime... and apparently we've transcended gender again, only in a different way this time: no longer pretending to have achieved full "feminist" consciousness, but based on views that are both conservative ("men and women are different, don't you know?!") and supposedly post-feminist ("women have the vote, what else is there to fight for?").
well, i can enumerate lots of gender issues in romania. and people are aware of most of them, it's just that they don't think of them as issues that society can solve. or if they're not aware it's because they can't be bothered to pay attention to the world around them. there's the fact that romania has one of the highest incidences of domestic violence in europe (1/3 of all women are affected), that until 2002 romanian laws didn't incriminate marital rape or domestic violence as a whole, the fact that women in romania earn about 50% of men's income, the rampant, unapologetic misogyny entrenched as the cultural norm, the triple discrimination faced by roma women, the poor quality of reproductive health services and general lack of access to adequate sexual education, the more recent gloomy news that under the current proposed law women's retirement pensions will be comparatively much smaller than men's, or the fact that sexual harassment is a huge problem in romania but most people blame the victims entirely and don't even know there is a law against it (the law has never been implemented)... or the fact that the legalization of prostitution is being considered by the government, but purely for profit - in order to be able to better exploit prostitutes - while the problem of human traffic is one of the most serious social issues, affecting ever increasing numbers of girls and women all over romania. and that would be just the tip of the iceberg.
the degree to which sexism is not a problem in romania today is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that a couple of years ago the romanian edition of playboy published an article on "how to beat up your wife without leaving traces." (it was an april fools joke, though! obviously. another joke: an "anticonsumerist" site made last year by a couple of dudes who like to think they're hip, cool and progressive is called "dick fashion" and features an illustrated manual with suggestions for when to wear the "dick fashion" tshirts that they sell, and one of these situations is "when you go out and rape.")
so is there a need for feminism in romania? as the ladyfest romania flyer says:
to the "post-feminists," i can't respond any more eloquently than alix olson does to some guy who once told her "i don't get a lot of your feminists references, 'cause we don't have sexism in our country":
[the poem is called "subtle sister" and as alix points out it may be her "most subtle work to date," because she did heed that guy's advice and tried to make herself thoroughly unthreatening and ladylike as all activists should do.:)]
to me, for march 8th, the celebration should be all about awareness and learning from the struggles and ideas of various women. around '98 i made this list of some excellent women/feminists, and i still quite like it... but i'd add to it many others.
instead of listing names, though, here's a few of my favorite feminist pieces i saw this past year, in no particular order:
