White Male VegFest Colorado: Gatekeepers & Institutional Discrimination in the Animal Rights Movement

As I am in Colorado for the summer with fellow vegan feminist Cheryl Abbate, we’ve been keeping an eye on the vegan community, looking for fun stuff to do.  I haven’t been to a “vegfest” of any kind since I was a teenager, and Cheryl thought it might be fun to check out VegFest Colorado 2014. But then we took a look at the speaker schedule: Andrew Freeman, Andy Mars, David Robinson Simon, Jeffrey Smith, Marc Bekoff, Paul Shapiro, Virginia Messina, and Will Tuttle.  Notice anything strange about this lineup? Seven out of 8 are males…white males at that. Ick.

Others took notice as well on the event’s Facebook page.  Sadly, faced with comments on this blatant reproduction of male privilege in the animal rights movement, the organizers simply accused concerned persons of being sexist, misandrist, trouble-making, ingrates that ruin things “for the animals.” The inevitable tone-policing (a favorite tool of oppressors for deflecting blame and dismissing injustice) reared its ugly head. Because if marginalized oppressed people dare make a peep about equality, they better ask nicely and quietly with a pretty please at the end.

The very notion that feminists raising concern about the almost completely male panel of speakers (in a movement that is notoriously sexist) could ever possibly be sexist themselves is amazingly laughable. Under a patriarchy, men cannot be victims of sexism–this is because the institutions of patriarchy are designed to privilege men. This “reverse sexism” trope is a common fallback for sexist groups in the movement, and I am starting to feel like a broken record.

Furthermore, as I explain in an essay I published last year, lamenting “the animals” is a distraction technique meant to falsely reverse victimization.  It takes the blame away from those responsible for the problem (almost always persons of privilege) and puts it on the individual drawing attention to the problem (usually marginalized persons). It’s a technique designed to avoid cognitive dissonance and protect structures of inequality.  In that essay I explain:

Emphasizing the urgency of Nonhuman Animal suffering (“RIGHT NOW!”) is meant to distract. No time to think, animals are suffering! This trope is invoked to silence criticism and maintain the status quo. Plain and simple.

People using this trope are exploiting the torture and death of Nonhuman Animals to maintain privilege and inequality. Why are you upset about the rape culture animal rights community perpetuates? Animals are suffering RIGHT NOW!

The point of frustration comes from the relentless inability for important gatekeepers in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement to accept responsibility for institutional discrimination.  Let me be clear: very few persons today are explicitly sexist or racist.  Most individuals today engage in implicit or unconscious prejudice and stereotyping; most of us outwardly hold egalitarian ideals. This is great news on one hand, but on the other, it makes challenging the barriers that remain all the more difficult.  Much of the problems facing marginalized groups today result from institutional barriers. This is the culmination of subtle prejudices and discriminations and the cumulative effects of many centuries of state-supported institutionalized discrimination. So, even if we personally don’t feel we are sexist or racist, that does not mean sexism or racism doesn’t exist.

And yet, we are so quick to individualize the problem:  “It’s your problem for finding a problem. I’m not sexist.  In fact, you must be sexist for suggesting such a thing!”  But sexism (and other forms of discrimination) do exist; and culpability must fall somewhere.

In many studies of institutionalized barriers, institutions, organizations, corporations, groups, etc. are often quick to pass the blame.  They would love to be more diverse…if only they had more diversity to choose from!  For instance, when faced with the gross gender inequality in academic departments, professional associations often merely blame women:  not enough women are interested in the field.  When publishing companies have been accused of publishing too few African American authors, it’s not their fault, people of color just don’t like to write as much as white people!  When companies using sexist advertising are called on their objectification, it isn’t their fault, that’s what the consumers want.  Why no women in VegFest Colorado? Not their fault; it’s just men are easier to get! No women signed up!

This is individualizing a systemic problem. Instead of institutions of considerable privilege recognizing their role as gatekeepers, the incredible power they wield in improving representation, and the important role they play in setting standards and values for their audiences, these groups merely blame the already marginalized communities.

In another essay I’ve posted for Vegan Feminist Network on how to be a good male ally–I think it is also essential for men to start taking responsibility for sexism in the movement and use their privilege for good instead of status quo.  Men need to speak up about this. Powerful men (like Marc Bekoff and Paul Shapiro) should withhold their services until the diversity is improved.  The animals aren’t missing out–the only persons who would miss out are the men who benefit from the celebrity involved in these events. Indeed, the atheist movement has had a similar problem with few female speakers at important events–but the atheist movement has significantly less women to begin with, and they have been able to push back with boycotts and all-female conferences.  If the horrifically sexist Free Thinking movement can start making progress on this front, surely the mostly female animal rights movement can do the same.

In a movement that is 80% female, there is no excuse for an all-male or nearly all-male panel of speakers/group of contributors.Of course the problems with diversity at major events is not only a matter of gender equity.  The overwhelming whiteness of activist pools and events is an indicator of something much more disturbing that has manifested in our movement. But the majority of our movement is already female, and we can’t even ensure equal representation for women?  This should be a serious wake up call.

At the end of the day, I am of the position that these events tend to be colossal wastes of precious few resources (as a matter of animal liberation at least). I recognize that creating community is essential to preserving vegans, but I wouldn’t say this is exactly “for the animals.”  The majority of event goers I suspect are not going to be uninitiated people waiting to be converted, they will be people who are already “converted” and looking for something to do like Cheryl and I. These events are nothing more than sites of fundraising, personal entertainment or gain, and celebrity worship. This isn’t “about the animals,” it’s about us.  Especially for events that are geared towards encouraging community, we need to take responsibility for the discrimination being reproduced there. A movement that belittles and trivializes the marginalization of human groups will be unwelcoming and ineffective for other animals. End of story.

Originally posted on Vegan Feminist Network.

To Charge or Not to Charge? Improving Conference Accessibility for Low-Income Persons

I lived in Fort Collins, Colorado for about four years, which was only a little bit more than an hour away from Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary.  I love PPS, they do amazing work. They are the only explicitly abolitionist sanctuary that I know of.  Not only do they provide immediate relief to farmed animals, but they also work to educate the public, hosting visitations an providing literature for activists.  But in all the four years I lived on the prairies of Colorado, not once did I go visit PPS.

Why?  In addition to the gas money, event tickets usually cost thirty-five dollars or more.  As a person who has lived near or below the poverty line for most of my life, I just couldn't afford it (I grew up poor in Appalachia, survived on student loans and part-time jobs through college, and I currently teach for three universities and make about $10,000 a year).  Neither have I attended any major conferences for that same reason.  I use my tax refund money to afford my yearly pilgrimage to the American Sociological Association's meeting (a requirement for anyone hoping to land an academic career), which costs about $200 for membership, $200-250 for conference admission, and several hundred dollars more for travel and hotel fees.  I've heard that vegan conferences are sadly comparable in cost.

Which is really a bummer, because I would love to attend these conferences.  Like anyone who does animal rights "full-time," I want to learn more, network, and be more involved in the movement.  As a low-income person, that is just not a luxury I get to afford.  Animal rights advocacy is (and has always been) highly correlated with middle-class status.  Many conferences offer scholarships, but they tend to be extremely limited and generally do not cover the entire cost of attendance.

This is why I was so pleased to participate in the Western Ontario Vegan Society's conference on Friday. While the other three speakers were physically there, I was able to participate via Skype by paying $10 for an upgraded account that let me share my screen and present a powerpoint (believe it or not, $10 is still a lot of money for some of us, I ended up having to borrow from my mother).  There was no admission fee, this information was free to the public.  I was happy to present for free (free to viewers and nearly free for me).  For this reason, I am also very excited about my upcoming web-conference that I'm co-hosting with Animal Liberation Ontario.  It is available to those who cannot afford to travel to Canada, and it is also available to those who could not afford a ticket price.  The ALO has decided to make e-tickets donation-based.  For those who can afford it, they are encouraged to chip in.  The ALO is attempting to redistribute those funds to the speakers.  Whatever money I might get is going towards server costs for my vegan advocacy website.

My concern is that so many conferences insist on high ticket prices, and, likewise, some speakers actually require significant monetary compensation before they will participate.  Sometimes this is to cover travel costs, but other times it works like a mandatory donation that will be handed over to the speaker's non-profit of choice.
 
The tension here is between inclusiveness for low-income persons (a group traditionally marginalized by a largely middle-class movement) and supporting organizations that rely on fundraising for survival.  Where should our activist priorities lie? Should we reach out to those excluded from our outreach efforts or continue to support those already active on behalf of animals?

I am also concerned with the relative power that non-profits hold within the social movement arena.  Unlike individual low-income persons, organizations with non-profit status have a team of dedicated individuals, many of whom have expertise in fundraising and enjoy other resources.  Indeed, non-profits dominate the animal rights landscape.  While I understand that some smaller non-profits majorly rely on donations like this (especially groups like PPS), if I were to place non-profits on a hierarchy of concern with individuals who have been marginalized in our advocacy, I'm going to have to side with the individuals.  I am more concerned about including a diverse group of people, as it is this diversity and alliance-building that is critical for movement success.  Fundraising is important, but it should not be the central focus of our work.

I suggest that our movement is desperately privileged, and this is not a good thing if we seek to reach large-scale influence.  A movement that is mostly white and mostly middle-class is going to have difficulty resonating with the large numbers of persons who do not fit these categories of privilege.  True, organizers for many university-based conferences have the ability to request funds from their institution, but this assumption should consider a few points.  First, student groups tend to be grossly underfunded.  Secondly, Nonhuman Animal rights interests tend to go under appreciated (and even more underfunded).  For that matter, students who are organizing these events oftentimes lack the expertise, time, or social power needed to successfully request monies.

Our movement is highly professionalized.  Professionalization is a product of privilege and also a protector of privilege.  The voices of the vulnerable are systematically silenced.  I believe it would be in our best interest to start actively working to overcome structural barriers that so many of us face.  This is not simply a moral issue, this is a political issue.  Unchecked privilege and a disregard for accessibility will seriously restrict our potential for growth.

Groups should start exploring alternatives that are more welcoming to low-income persons.  And, for those groups that rely on admission fees to survive, it might be prudent to offer sliding scale fees (including free admission).  For those who require a fee to present, I would also encourage them to be mindful of the event's audience.  That is, I'm not sure it's very ethical to refuse participation (if that participation is of no cost to them, as is the case with web-conferences) if the conference organizers cannot guarantee deliverance of certain fees because of their desire to include low-income persons.  Of course, conference organizers should be aware that several funding sources may be available.  Organizers should also consider that, for academic conferences, academics tend to be reimbursed by their department for participating and should not be requiring any payment from the conference.