I have been a vegetarian for month since the fourth of January and a lot of people have been curious as to why I made the decision to no longer eat meat, so I have posted my final paper for my global feminism class. It has been difficult to get the formatting anywhere close to what I would for a paper. Anyway, read on if you can:
In the analysis of violence and oppression against women, people are often critical of partriarchy’s role. However, there often seems to be a piece missing from the overall analysis. People have to acknowledge violence against animals because of the many ways it parallels the system of patriarchical oppression toward minority groups.
“As others in the industry force their animals to produce more, an individual farmer is often economically beleaguered if only by the bank, into following accordingly. But it is only possible for him to increase pressure on his chickens if he has already mentally negated their existences as individuals. He must already view them as lesser to himself, perhaps so much his lesser that he has denied the importance of their feelings or actually can no longer think of them as having any feelings at all. (Spiegel, pp. 85)”
Violence against any living creature perpetuates the acceptability of violence between human beings.
For the purposes of this literature review connections will be made to key feminist theories to better provide an analytical critique of the topic. One feminist theory that fits well with this paper is Marxist or Socialist theory, which contends that class structure leads to oppression of certain groups of people. While this theory is usually applied to economic analysis, it can be a helpful lens through with to view any situation where patriarchy is controlling movement within social structures. One of the main tenets of this theory is that patriarchy divides society into social classes, including economic, race and sex. Under patriarchy and capitalism, every person is given a social and economic status that is used by those in power to manipulate those without power. Scholars who come from a Marxist/Socialist standpoint believe that: The oppression of women is fundamentally connected to the concept of ownership, particularly private property (Tuana & Tong, 1995). They also believe that patriarchy and capitalism are intertwined, which makes it safe to conclude that capitalism is a core cause of oppression against women (Hartsock, 1995). Therefore, Marxist feminists would believe that women are subjected to acts of institutionalized and personal violence as a result of living in a capitalistic and patriarchal society.
Two other areas of feminism that provide helpful ways of looking at this topic are the anarcha and ecofeminists theories. Anarcha feminism “...emphasizes that all forms of domination – and any institutions, theories, and practices that give rise to it – must be abolished” (Tuana & Tong, 1995, pp. 329). Similarly, ecofeminists believe that “...along with addressing the oppressions of women and certain groups of men, feminism must also work to understand and fight against all forms of oppression of nonhuman nature” (Tuana & Tong, 1995, pp. 329). Although anarcha and ecofeminism are two different theories, both agree that violence towards the earth is connected to violence towards humans, and that societies that oppress their members are inherently wrong and must be overturned. The anarcha and ecofeminist belief that oppression can never be tolerated is extended to humans and non-human animals alike. In other words, people cannot be successful at eliminating hierarchical divides among humans until they are also willing to end acts of domination over the natural non-human world (King, 1995).
One last theory that provides a helpful framework is radical feminism. Radical feminism comes from the idea that the current structure of society – one that encourages violence and oppression – is in place to maintain the status quo and therefore must be overthrown in order for changes to take place. Radical feminists believe that male domination over women is the utmost form of oppression against women. They believe it is interwoven into every aspect of human being’s lives and influences every aspect of what it means to be a man or a woman (Tuana & Tong, 1995). Because of this, radical feminists believe that creating change within the current societal systems cannot dismantle oppression. Rather, they suggest that the basis of the systems we have created must be overturned and entirely new systems created (Tuana & Tong, 1995).
Power and privilege make up the basis in patriarchical societies, creating categories of people who receive benefits and determents according to their superposed place in society. In a critique of partriarchy Pyne-Addelson, Ackelsberg & Pyne wrote, “In a hierarchy, people (or at least the rolls they fill) are ranked, and interactions among them occur through this ranking” (Pyne-Addelson, Ackelsberg & Pyne, 1995, pp. 331). The people who receive the most detriments from this type of class structure are minorities, women, children, and animals, who men’s dominance over is absolute. Hartsock (1995) suggests that the system of private ownership, which originally benefited only white men, formed the foundation of class systems, which are held up today by capitalism and imperialism.
In meat eating cultures, part of what defines the lower class from upper class is distinguished by the privilege of who gets to east meat and who does not. In Europe’s patriarchical history meat was not nearly as plentiful as it is today and because of its scarcity meat has always been reserved for men – for those with power (Adams, 2000). Families could usually only afford meat on Sundays, when only the men took part in eating it. Women often received the least amount of nutritious food, but meat was not extended to them because it was a symbol of male dominance. During the period of colonization and beyond, the meat-eating habits of cultures were used by white people as proof that whites were superior to non-whites (Adams, 2000). Cultures that were primarily vegetable eating were thought to be wild and made up of savages. By seeing people as below human – beast like and without intellect- it was easy to exploit and commit acts of violence against these people since animals were already exploited and suffered violence. With the end of U.S. slavery in the nineteenth century, whites used meat eating as a way to further segregation. Once again meat was a food for the privileged members of society. “Nineteenth-century advocates of white superiority endorsed meat as superior food. ‘Brain-workers’ required lean meat as their main meal, but the ‘savage’ and ‘lower’ classes of society could live exclusively on coarser foods. . .” (Adams, 2000, pp. 40).
Over and over again meat has been used to demonstrate and explain the abuse of power. Adams writes:
In the twentieth century the notion was that meat eating contributed to the Western world’s preeminence. Publicists for a meat company in the 1940s wrote: ’We know meat-eating races have been and are leaders in the progress made by mankind in its upward struggle through the ages.’ They are referring to the ‘upward struggle’ of the white race. (pp. 41)
In the twenty-first century, especially in the United States, meat is a staple for every class. But while meat is more equally distributed it is still used as a symbol of masculinity. Men demand that meat be a major part of the meal and think that food without meat in it is women’s food and not fit for them. So while meat distribution is more egalitarian, meat is still an indication of what a culture’s values are. In The Sexual Politics of Meat, Carol J. Adams describes a study done by Peggy Sanday, where over a hundred developing cultures were studied. Adams writes, “Characteristics of economies dependent mainly on the processing of animals for food include: sexual segregation in work activities, with women doing more work than men, but work that is less valued; women responsible for child care; the worship of male gods; and patrilineality (pp. 45). At this time in the world we consume more meat then we ever have before. With the invention of factory farms, animals are killed on a large scale with a brutality never seen before. So now, it is any wonder that as men have lost their power of distributing meat they have begun to kill those who are unable to object with a frightening ferocity?
We live within a system where it is acceptable for certain classes of people – white men – to have power over other living things. In fact, to many people, domination of others is the very definition of masculinity. For example, the gendered concept of “femininity” defines women as passive and dependent on others (men) for help and protection. These ideas allow for men to continue to dominate women (Hoagland, 1988). Capitalism affirms this by teaching that there will always be haves and have nots, and that smart men should do everything that they can to be in the former group. Capitalism is a system dependant upon those in power becoming alienated from other people and the natural world. In this sense, capitalism’s success is determined by those in power having the control to exploit other living beings for their own benefit (Hartsock, 1995).
Violence against marginalized groups is perpetuated by the desensitization of violence. The very way we talk about meat, killing animals, violence against women, and the oppression of minorities is built from men’s desire to dominate all living things. Meat is made into an object and then into a masculine object by our language. Adams reminds us of the blatant sexualization of animals and meat within male culture (Adams, pp.44). Sandwiches filled with an excessive amount of meat are called “Manwhiches”. We like “meat and potatoes kind of guys” and make sure to give the men in our lives “man-sized” portions. When our wives are not home to cook for us we can eat Hungry Man frozen dinners that have twice the portions of other frozen dinners.
When we talk about meat itself, we disguise our language so we are no longer reminded of the violence incurred on animals and can then enjoy eating the dead bodies of formerly living things. Women have often used language invoking the experience of animals to describe acts of aggression and violence carried out by men but then turn around to participate in the atrocities against non-human animals. In The Sexual Politics of Meat, Adams offers a critique by writing:
Whereas women may feel like pieces of meat – emotionally butchered and physically battered – animals actually are made into pieces of meat. In radical feminist theory, the use of these metaphors alternates between a positive figurative activity and a negative activity of occlusion, negation, and omission in which the literal fate of the animal is elided. (pp. 57)
Women tell us they are made to feel like meat: objects with no emotions or feelings regarding their fate in the system of oppression.
Our culture has been built around violence as a form of entertainment, which then goes on to shape our feelings about all violence. Jackson Katz, a professional speaker on pro-feminist issues writes extensively on this topic. He comments, “We know from decades of research that depictions of violence in the entertainment media create a cultural climate in which such behavior is accepted as a normal, even appropriate, response to various situations” (Katz, 2006). An excellent example of this is sports, specifically, spectacle television wrestling, which has included people like Hulk Hogan. Whether the maneuvers used are faked or not, the amount of violence in these programs is staggering. Since most of the audience is made up boys and young men, the matches are tailored to capture that segment’s attention. In The Macho Paradox (2006) Jackson Katz reveals that the tactics most commonly used by these shows include wrestlers spending their time trying to out bully each other, humiliate women, and use sexual violence against women. He writes, “There are countless scenes of men knocking women to the mat, punching them in the face, breaking chairs over their back, or mock-raping them. Wrestling might not directly cause men to be abusive to women, but there can be little doubt that it contributes to an atmosphere in which men’s violence against women is not taken seriously.”
Katz later goes on to describe a famous wrestling scene in which a woman was forced to take off her clothes on stage and then bark like a dog until her tormenter had been appeased. This woman was humiliated and made to act like an animal. This performance does not only suggest that women are little more than objects to be dominated for pleasure, but that animals can be dominated for pleasure too. Some of the most common violent entertainment involving animals includes bull fighting, cock fighting, and dog fighting. In dog fighting, animals are bred for the purpose of killing and are starved, beaten, and frightened until they are willing to kill their opponents. In order to breed these dogs, the female dogs are forcibly placed in what are commonly referred to as “rape racks” so a male dog can mount them. When a dog can no longer fight it is violently killed. It is no wonder that men are so confused about violence since pleasure is often directly associated with it.
From the time of Aristotle to nineteenth century pro-slavery advocates, to imperialistic governmental regimes of the twenty-first century, there have been those who would try to justify systematic oppression with the suggestion that those being dominated are better for it and that those in power deserve it because they are better. At times scientific research has reinforced this idea whether that was the original intent or not. Spiegel writes:
So, despite the large scandal the theory of evolution caused in Darwin’s age – enraging the church and its leaders – with a quick twist in meaning and intent it was used to serve one of the same purposes as institutionalized religion once had: justifying the exploration and oppression of others based on their differences. (pp. 74)
Over and over again we have been told that minorities and animals are much safer and happier when they are under the control of those in power. This has been as an excuse to colonize territory all over the world and continue occupying it under criticism. “The theory of manifest destiny implies that colonizers are bringing civilization to ‘barbarians.’ Colonizers depict the colonized as passive, as wanting and needing protection (domination), as being taken care of ‘for their own good’ (Hoagland, 1988, pp.177). Whether it is religion or science that is being used for a basis, we are told that the status quo is acceptable and is upheld by natural law. With the example of slavery, Spiegel writes:
“It has long been contended that, for some – and of course, never us, but always them – life as a slave proves more beneficial than detrimental...For this rationalization to be effective, the victims need to be transformed – in the mind of the captor/master – from oppressed beings to thankful underlings; grateful for being used, appreciated, and protected, while fulfilling the needs of their superiors.” (pp. 73)
Spiegel’s thoughts can also be applied to hunting. Many hunters and national hunting organizations contend that hunting is quite necessary in order to make sure that animals, such as deer, do not starve to death from too much competition for food (Kheel, 1995). However, hunters fail to address the fact that the booming population of deer is because hunters have killed most of the top predators, such as wolves and that is why there are too many deer. So whether it is for the gain of land during colonization, the use of free labor from slaves, or taking pleasure from killing a life, it is clear that the arguments used to convince us that those being oppressed are fine with the situation are little more then a smoke screen put up by those who are afraid of losing power.
The current power structure is one that encourages those in power that oppression of others is not only a good thing, but that it is the right thing to do. One of the direct outcomes of this thought process is racism. Through violence, objectification, and sometimes physical removal the dominant culture is able to survive without ever considering the drastically horrible effects racism has had on all people. Sociologist Philip Slater wrote:
Our approach to social problems is to decrease their visibility. This is the real foundation of racial segregation, especially in its most extreme case, the Indian ‘reservation.’ The result of our social efforts has been to remove the underlying problems of our society farther and farther from daily experiences and daily consciousness, and hence to decrease in the mass of the population, the knowledge, the skill, and motivation necessary to deal with them. (Spiegel, pp. 77)
Similar tactics have been used so that the act of eating meat and the death a friendly animal are never connected. This sentiment comes from the same thinking that allowed eugenics to be practiced on people of color and the mentally ill. Infamously, black men were given syphilis and without any help from doctors they were observed as their sickness worsened until they died so scientists could learn about the disease’s medical effects. The thought process that was used in order to justify this experimentation is the same process that is used everyday on animals in animal testing facilities around the world. In order for these horrendous procedures to take place, those conducting them must already believe that their patients are not worth as much as they themselves are. The animals that die so we can use lotions and make-up are hardly ever considered.
“Secrecy and distancing are also used to protect the very profitable institutionalized cruelty to animals as it exists today. Vivisection laboratories and other facilities are notoriously difficult to enter. In most cases it is impossible for a citizen to enter without breaking the law. Even veterinarians can be denied admittance, and law-enforcement agents are not permitted to enter without a search warrant, which is difficult to obtain without evidence of wrongdoing. (Spiegel, pp. 80)”
Because of the process of objectification and the fact that we hardly see the consequences, in patriarchal societies violence in any form perpetuates violence. However, by implementing systematic change it is possible find solutions to the current structure. First we must recognize the connection between the maltreatment of animals and maltreatment of people. In doing this we will take the first step towards stopping oppression. “...the systematic denigration of working-class people and people of color, women, and animals are all connected to the basic dualism that lies at the root of western civilization” (King, 1995, pp. 353). King (1995) later continues, “At this point in history, there is no way to unravel the matrix of oppression within human society without at the same time liberating nature and reconciling the human and nonhuman parts of nature” (pp. 355).
Secondly, we must minimize the maltreatment of animals, as a part of stopping violence amongst people. “...the goals of feminism, ecology, and movements against racism and for the survival of indigenous peoples are internally related; they must be understood and pursued together in a worldwide, genuinely prolife, movement (King, 1995, pp. 353). When we stop eating animals, stop hunting them, stop inflicting violence on them for pleasure, and stop experimenting on them, we will finally be able to stop treating animals as objects that do not think of feel. If we hold respect for animals we will no longer be able to dehumanize people to the point of objectification.
Finally, when people do choose to have power over animals, they need to acknowledge the reality of the power they are using over other living beings. We must no longer allow the secrecy that aides in the domination of those around us. If people choose to eat meat they must butcher the animal themselves so they can see what they are killing. If we must do experiments on animals they have to be allow the public to have access to the experiments. When the secrecy of the systems of oppressions are taken away people will be force to consider their actions and will no longer passively allow oppression to control our lives. Despite what people may think, everyone takes part in systematic oppression that causes violence. As long as people fail to make a connection between violence against animals and violence against people, efforts for change will be fruitless.
References:
Adams, C. J. (1994). Neither man nor beast: Feminism and the defense of animals. New York:
Continuum.
Adams, C. J. (2000). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New
York: Continuum.
Charles, N. & Kerr, M. (1988). Women, food, and families. New York: Manchester University
Press.
Dunayer, J. (1995). Sexist words, speciesist roots. In Adams & Donovan (Eds.), Aniamls and
Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (pp. 11-31). USA: Duke University Press.
Hartsock, N. C. M. (1995). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically
feminist historical materialism. In Tuana & Tong (Eds.), Feminism and Philosophy: Essential Readings in Theory, Reinterpretation, and Application (pp. 69-90). Colorado: Westview Press.
Hoagland, S. L. (1988). Moral revolution: From antagonism to cooperation. In Tuana & Tong
(Eds.), Feminism and Philosophy: Essential Readings in Theory, Reinterpretation, and Application (pp. 175-192). Colorado: Westview Press.
Katz, J. (2006). The Macho Paradox: Whys Some Men Hurt Women and how All Men can Help.
USA: Sourcebook Trade. Retrieved December 19th, 2007 from
http://www.bwjb.org/Katz_response.htm.
Kheel, M. (1995). License to kill: An ecofeminist critique of hunter’s discourse. In Adams &
Donovan (Eds.), Aniamls and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (pp. 85-125). USA: Duke University Press.
King, Y. (1995). Healing the wounds: Feminism, ecology, and nature/culture dualism. In Tuana
& Tong (Eds.), Feminism and Philosophy: Essential Readings in Theory, Reinterpretation, and Application (pp. 353-373). Colorado: Westview Press.
Pyne-Addelson, K., Ackelsberg, M. & Pyne, S. (1995). Anarchism and feminism. In Tuana &
Tong (Eds.), Feminism and Philosophy: Essential Readings in Theory, Reinterpretation, and Application (pp. 330-352). Colorado: Westview Press.
Spiegel, M. (1996). The dreaded comparison: Human and animal slavery. New York: Mirror
Books.
Tuana, N. & Tong, R. (1995). Feminism and philosophy: Essential readings in theory,
reinterpretation, and application. Colorado: Westview Press.
I plan on writing a more in-depth comment later, but I just wanted to say that consuming/buying or choosing not to consume/buy something is not in itself a revolutionary act.
Too many people have the idea that they can only be an activist with their wallet.