'It is Anything But': Sarah K. Woodcock Comments on Equality in Abolitionist Spaces

Dear colleagues,

I share this important letter that was today posted publicly on a social media page by my good friend Sarah K. Woodcock, founder of The Abolitionist Vegan Society (TAVS). This is the first time she has responded publicly to the racist microaggressions and harassment that the abolitionist movement has directed at her and other "intersectionalists" (a slur used by some abolitionists to describe abolitionist vegans who take a pro-intersectional approach) since the recent movement disruption documented on Vegan Trove (an anti-intersectional abolitionist platform that has been rejected by but still promotes Francione, a prominent abolitionist icon).

The concern over in-fighting and intra-movement violence in abolitionist spaces is nothing new. In Woodcock's case, she was forced to the center of this turmoil just over a year ago (TAVS has issued a public statement on the matter here and here). Woodcock and others have been upsetting the privilege and white-centrism of the abolitionist faction, only to be met with considerable hostility and limited support. Indeed, many white abolitionists remained silent on the matter of her victimization, or, worse, joined in it.

The message published here remains pertinent today as the pro-intersectional abolitionist community's commitment to nonviolence continues to encourage negative (and sometimes aggressive) responses from abolitionist leaders. I have omitted the names of those for whom the letter is specifically addressed, as the content of the letter actually speaks to a systemic issue. It is shared here with her permission.

[ . . . ] The abolitionist movement is racist and hostile to people of color. While it spouts off great ideas about being “against all forms of oppression,” its actions are not aligned with its words. It is *uncannily* similar to how nonvegans spout off great ideas about being “against animal cruelty” but live nonvegan. That is why I coined the term badgeally (Corey’s essay with examples, not just accusations here). The abolitionist movement is rampant with badgeallies.

And before you or anyone say this “This isn’t about race,” remember that saying that is a privilege only white people have. Please check your privilege.

Because society is systemically racist, the abolitionist movement replicates that system of inequality. White abolitionists have a responsibility to make the movement safe and inclusive for people of color. It is anything but. This is what Corey and I speak up about, and if you [...] and others have a problem with that, that should tell all of you something. I have been experiencing marginalization and microaggressions from white abolitionists since day 1 of my entering the movement. I have been and continue to be invisibilized, which is a classic racist tactic, by white abolitionists since day 1. In the beginning, when I naïvely thought white abolitionists would be concerned about this because they claim to be “against racism,” I raised my concerns to several white abolitionists. I was met with denial, more marginalization, more microaggressions, and more invisibilization.

One of the greatest things that happened since I split with Francione & Co. was that I came to the harsh realization that the abolitionist movement is not actually against racism. Of course, it and everyone in it claims to be against racism. But people of color don’t have the privilege or luxury of not seeing the truth behind those claims.

As for reconciliation, it is just like the abolitionist/nonabolitionist movements. There are fundamental ethical issues at stake here. Just as the abolitionist movement cannot “reconcile” with the nonabolitionist movement because it would mean compromising on fundamental ethical issues, the anti-racist abolitionist movement cannot “reconcile” with the racist abolitionist movement because it would mean compromising on fundamental ethical issues. To me, as a person of color, denying the racism in the abolitionist movement is as unacceptable as denying the speciesism in the vegan movement. For those who want to learn more about the racism (as well as the other forms of oppression) in the abolitionist movement, I recommend checking out The Academic Abolitionist Vegan. Wrenn has written extensively on these topics.

That is one of the things that makes TAVS different from the rest of the abolitionist movement. We refuse to deny and be silent about the racism in the abolitionist movement. We are building a movement that is safe (or safer) for people of color.

Well, as I wrote in my recent post on the TAVS page, I rarely post about drama in the abolitionist vegan movement because my time and energy is better spent on building the movement I want, not having exchanges like this, so I will be turning off notifications now. Take care, everyone.

Sarah

---

If you take anti-oppression seriously, it must extend beyond Nonhuman Animals to include all beings who are vulnerable to systemic violence. It's not only the just and moral approach; it simply makes good sense as a strategic matter.

Allies are requested to please show their support for Woodcock and The Abolitionist Vegan Society by getting involved with one or more of the many amazing ongoing non-violent, vegan, pro-intersectional campaigns that TAVS is currently running. Readers can join TAVS by visiting the website or link up by visiting TAVS on Facebook.

Corey Wrenn featured on Under the Toadstool

I joined Sonia Chauhan and Sarah K. Woodcock on their Under the Toadstool podcast for a serious discussion about the state of sexism in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement. In this episode, we talk about the history of sexism in the movement, current events in sexism, and concrete steps we can take to disrupt it. I highly recommend this episode as an introduction to intersectionality topics in vegan spaces. We worked hard to keep it short (42 min.) so it will not be overwhelming. A mild trigger warning: we do speak frankly about these issues, and it could be upsetting for those personally impacted.

Mobilizing Anti-Muslim Sentiment "For the Animals"

Trigger Warning: Post contains discussions of racism against Muslims and the Nonhuman Animal rights movement's role in promoting it.

Anti-Muslim protests in the U.K.

The hatred of and discrimination against all things Muslim is a social justice issue that is especially poignant in today's post-911 world where many live in fear of the latest reports on ISIS and few understand the complexities of Middle Eastern current events. In the West, the ubiquitousness of hate crimes against Muslims or anyone who "looks" Muslim makes life unsafe and unfair for many. Even the KKK is on board. The Huffington Post reported earlier this week that Ku Klux Klan literature has been promoting increased discrimination against Muslims.

Unfortunately, it doesn't end with hate groups. The Nonhuman Animal rights movement itself has a long history of mobilizing racist sentiment in order to garner support for Nonhuman Animal protection. True, many of the early activists were active in the anti-slavery abolitionist movement, but it is also true that many early rights and welfare laws specifically targeted communities of color at home and abroad in the colonies. In some ways, this was an act of deliberate racism, but movements also make "compromises" by pulling on racism to increase resonance.

Muslims in particular have routinely been the target of Nonhuman Animal rights activism, specifically in regard to slaughter practices. "Live export" campaigns go back at least as far as the 1980's, with organizations demonizing Muslim regions for their "barbaric" treatment of livestock sourced from Western countries. In my research, for instance, I have uncovered reports produced by direct action advocates in the U.K. who had been protesting live export, only to have Compassion in World Farming take credit for their activism without even being present at the protests.

Compassion in World Farming, "the world's leading farm animal welfare organization," continues to benefit from racist campaigning today. In a newsletter released today in promotion of their "The Secret is Out" campaign against Muslim slaughter, CIWF invites us to "Expose the Truth" by supporting their campaign, specifically, by donating and signing a petition.

Please note the following statement from the above excerpt which I have found to be especially problematic (emphasis mine):

They tracked down animals who had travelled thousands of miles by land and sea from Romania and Hungary - via Israel - to Gazan slaughterhouses where, frankly, it just isn't possible to slaughter an animal without causing immense suffering. 

This language implies that Muslims living in Gaza are inherently incapable of anything but cruelty. This statement also wrongly implies that killing Nonhuman Animals can be done without suffering. By contrast, readers are left to assume that 1. killing can be done "humanely," as long as it is 2. done by the "right" people in the "right" places. The language of "exposing the truth" and the "secret is out" also, I believe, pulls on Western conceptualizations of Islamic terrorism. CIWF frames their campaign as though the underground, clandestine evil of Muslims in slaughterhouses is being "leaked" to the public, who can now use that knowledge to intervene in the name of justice.

And what of the immense human suffering taking place in Gaza? Suffering brown bodies don't sell. CIWF relies on graphic images of animals being murdered and the societal hatred of Muslims in the West in order to promote their campaign. I charge that such an approach is morally problematic in that it diminishes the integrity of Nonhuman Animals whose suffering becomes a selling point, and it diminishes the immense human rights violations taking place against Palestinians living in Gaza. Indeed, the violence against humans taking place in Gaza is made invisible.

Nonhuman Animal rights campaigners should not be in the same business as the KKK. There is no justifiable reason to target vulnerable groups for their seemingly more horrific use of Nonhuman Animals, especially when the West engages in a number of equally horrific acts of violence (including the failure to protect Palestinians). This is not done by accident: Nonhuman Animal rights organizations know that by targeting the activities of wealthy whites in the West, they are not likely to garner as much support as they might by targeting poor brown people in a war-torn region. It is easy to demonize them, because the rest of the world is already doing the same.

Compartmentalizing violence against other animals is morally problematic for a number of reasons. The tendency to vilify the practices of vulnerable human groups while ignoring the practices of those in power is one of those reasons. To avoid fanning discrimination, it is best that we promote a holistic vegan position. Cows in slaughterhouses are no more deserving of protection than any other species oppressed by humans, and slaughterhouses in Gaza are not measurably worse than many in the United States. Creating a hierarchy of concern only replicates systems of inequality and systems of privilege. Until we situate our vegan message within an intersectional framework of social justice, we will remain a marginalized movement that few take seriously.

Thank you to Sarah Woodcock of The Abolitionist Vegan Society for bringing this campaign to my attention.

If You Believe it is Wrong to Force Your Beliefs...

Image from Cedar Row Farm Sanctuary

If you are a person who believes it wrong to force your beliefs on others, then you are obligated to go vegan.

- John Tallent

A Vegan Abolitionist Discussion in Australia

By Stevie Lynne

Not Safe for Work: Contains some good natured cursing.

Do we need people like Rupert Murdoch on our side? White men say, "Yes!"

Went to a vegan abolitionist discussion group last night. It solidified a few things to me that I already knew:

1. Francione's style of abolitionism is dripping in privilege as evidenced by the total lack of awareness about how a small group of white men insisted on dominating the conversation.

2. Men literally have no clue as to why "welcoming everyone into veganism" is problematic and threatening as f*ck. One dude insisted we needed people like Rupert Murdoch on side. Called him on it and said that welcoming everyone was a direct threat to my safety and the safety of others. His eyes glazed over and uncomfortable silence followed. Yes, a woman just challenged you on your privilege. Get the f*ck over it.

3. Many in our movement are just freaking unaware about the harmful language that they use. 

4. There are other abolitionist thought leaders out there besides some white dude and who actually rock an intersectional praxis. I managed to drop a couple of names at the end of the discussion - like Corey Wrenn and Sarah K Woodcock (much to the organiser's chagrin)

5. Francionists are happy when police can enforce certain laws. You can't be all like "abolish hierarchy and domination over nonhuman animals" in one breath and supporting the police in the next.

6. Francionists are happy to talk about human slavery in the past tense, even though they know human slavery is bigger now than ever. That's just downright deceptive shit that makes white people feel good about slavery being "in the past".

7. Francionists don't like to admit that food privilege is like a thing and should be a part of the conversation about veganism. I brought it up. It got swept away asap.

Screw Francione's abolitionism. Give me intersectional veganism any day.

Intersectionality is a Foundational Principle in Abolitionism

I have written many times on the importance of intersectionality in abolitionist advocacy as both a matter of ethics and efficacy. For succinctness, I will not repeat the arguments in this essay, but readers can access these articles by utilizing the search function in this blog. As racial violence and discrimination against people of color continues to dominate headlines and advocacy spaces, many in the vegan community are made uncomfortable by these discussions and have been publishing some unsavory and insensitive comments and essays. I believe the following status update by a self-identified abolitionist group on Facebook sums up this reaction well. 

Because white privilege has created a social environment where the white experience is misconstrued as the universal experience, because whites see themselves as individuals and not part of a racial group ("Not all whites!"; "But I'm not racist!), and because whites enjoy the privilege of being spared uncomfortable exposure to the consequences of racial inequality, whites generally lack the tools to constructively handle race issues. Robin DiAngelo refers to this phenomenon as "white fragility": 

White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress be-comes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. 

Writing for Salon, Cera Byer makes a very powerful assessment: 

Being able to turn a blind eye [sic] to things that don’t happen to you is the essence of privilege. It’s also an abuse of power. 

The following interaction was pulled from the comments section of the above status message:

Ignoring or downplaying the crisis in human suffering from the white perspective is problematic, but it is also an act of violence to shame those who are struggling to be free from violence, suffering, and death. Insinuating that people of color and women are acting selfishly also draws on prescribed race and gender roles that pressure people of color and women to put the interests of their oppressors first. In a white supremacist, neo-colonial environment, the problems facing people of color are trivialized and they are made to serve others. In a patriarchal environment, women, too, are socialized to serve others, ignore their own interests, and remain contentedly powerless and last in line.  When privileged vegan advocates draw on these race and gender roles, they pull on powerful social scripts to instill silence and obedience. These are scripts that have been in place for centuries, and persons with privilege are well socialized in their effective operation.

Anti-human/anti-intersectionality ideologies have plagued the movement in general, but their encroachment into so-called abolitionist spaces is especially disheartening. Fortunately, many are working to protect the principles of vegan abolitionism (1. veganism, 2. non-violence, 3. intersectionality) and aren't buying it. Michele Spino Martindill, for instance, shared the following commentary. It is in response to the anti-intersectionality controversy in general, but it specifically relates to the recent remarks made by Grumpy Old Vegan.

[...] the time has come to speak out against his continued defensive posturing and his complete inability to understand why intersectionality matters in the animal rights (AR) movement. GOV claims that he understands that oppressions against women and other "disadvantaged" groups are "cut from the same moral cloth" as oppressions against other animals, BUT--and there's always a BUT with GOV and his followers--he adds that oppressed humans can speak for themselves, so they don't need the support of vegans in the way that other animals need our help. I take issue with that kind of reasoning. How can children being sold into slavery speak for themselves? Are nursing home residents able to speak for themselves and assert their rights? Are rape victims given a voice when members of the AR movement compare their experiences to that of dairy cows? Were the voices of Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown heard by the oppressors? It is apparent that a divide is emerging between those who define anti-speciesism as only animals other than humans needing the help of humans, and those who see anti-speciesism as the need to oppose all oppression simultaneously because all oppression stems from the same source and if marginalized groups unite they have the power to end oppression. 

If anyone dares to mention intersectionality within the AR movement, it is treated like the ultimate dirty word, like a strike against the AR membership. We get comments along the lines of, "You're a speciesist because you care more about the exploitation of humans than other animals. We're not supposed to value humans over other animals." How is it valuing humans over other animals or species to define anti-speciesism as the need to end social hierarchies that elevate the wealthy elite at the expense of those who are defenseless? Are some AR members unable to extend their compassion to more than what they term nonhuman animals? That is an incredibly narrow view of compassion and veganism. It also shows a desire to be picky about who deserves the efforts of AR members to end violence. Clearly, human animals are not deserving in their book. Their claim that anti-speciesism will ultimately end all oppression is an empty claim if they refuse to fight and speak out against all oppression now, today and forever. 

The comments of GOV's followers are equally troubling in that they now indicate a trend to divide AR members between left and right political wings. One follower specifically praised GOV by complaining that some members of the abolitionist society were demanding that followers adhere to the "Holy Grail of Liberal Dogma" and went on to add that such "sanctimonious" beliefs are simply "trendy." These followers dismiss the efforts of feminists, the Civil Rights Movement and other efforts as if there is no need for them or they are nothing more than petty issues that will be cleared up once people accept veganism. If only it could be that simple! It's not. Veganism and anti-speciesism look elitist to those who have real and immediate needs, e.g. paying the electric bill, finding coats for everyone in the family or trying to get affordable health care. AR members have a tough choice ahead. They can resist intersectionality and working for social justice across the board, or they can accept that what benefits one will benefit all, that compassion is truly limitless and can be extended to every living being.

Let us now briefly explore those selfish folks worrying about themselves with their mixed up priorities. Trigger warning: Some of the following are disturbing images that depict systemic discrimination against vulnerable humans.

Racial profiling, violence against people of color, police violence

Rape and rape culture

Homophobia and heterosexism

Prostitution/Sex slavery

Homelessness and hunger

Pornography and sexual objectification

Environmental injustice, child poverty, food insecurity

Child labor and exploitation of the Third World

Transgender homelessness, unemployment, and murder

Violence against women

Ebola, TB, AIDS, and other diseases related to systemic oppression

Labor exploitation, colonial violence, "illegal" status

State apathy and inaction

Please, let us not tread on their toes. Please, let us give equal importance to violated, beaten, raped, starving, freezing, enslaved, sickened, suffering, dying, and murdered humans. Please, let us work for everyone's liberation. This is not a zero sum game. The same ideologies and systems of inequality oppress humans and nonhumans alike. Abolitionism as it was first conceived was built and mobilized to free oppressed humans who continue to be oppressed. For vegan advocates to completely appropriate the language and ideas of this movement and then forsake suffering humans, abandon them in their time of need, aggravate their hurting, benefit from their hurting, and then accuse victims and survivors of selfishness is deplorable. Without a doubt, this approach will only further alienate anti-speciesist efforts, tarnishing it as yet another a space of violence, oppression, and white male Western privilege.

Acknowledgements
Thank you to Pax Ahimsa for the two sources on white privilege that were discussed in this essay.

Cork Vegans, Misogyny in Ireland

TRIGGER WARNING: Contains rape meme and dismissive comments about violence against women.

I have been in Cork, Ireland for the winter, and, since my arrival, I have been absorbing the state of speciesism outside the U.S. and have been checking out the vegan scene as well. Unfortunately, I can't say I'm all that impressed in either regard. The vegan food is awesome, but post-speciesist ideology is probably more intense here in an economically-struggling, romanticized Ireland, and the vegan movement appears to be extremely misogynistic. Specifically, violence against women is taken for granted as acceptable and standard advocacy. Vegan Information Project in Dublin utilized this tactic not long ago, and, subsequently, on my birthday trip to Dublin, we did not feel comfortable making a detour to check out their stall. Here in Cork, the situation is much more dire. Sexist tactics are not only rampant, but the local vegans cling to them unapologetically. My partner and I are both vegan and we have intentionally stayed clear of our local group, Cork Vegans, because of their outright hostility to women and their unapologetic stance on violence against women.

On World Vegan Day, Cork Vegans announced they would use the holiday to promote LUSH by leafleting outside the Cork store, encouraging people to buy their products (sort of like Avon representatives, they would receive a portion of the proceeds). But, LUSH is a non-vegan company that routinely (and intentionally) uses images of violence against women to shame or scare them into buying their expensive soaps and bath bombs. When I raised some concerns with the group's decision to squander a day of peace and non-violence on a non-vegan company that causes violence to both women and other animals, the group administrator responded that it was "women's choice" to participate in sexist demonstrations and that LUSH is worth supporting because they are "kind and generous" (to whom exactly?) and "their products are not animal tested." On World Vegan Day, the last thing I want to do is promote a non-vegan company that hurts women, so we stayed in and I began compiling my social psychology series on vegan outreach. Unfortunately, these essays are probably not of much help to vegan groups that focus their energy on capitalist consumption.

This morning, Cork Vegans posted a crude Vegan Sidekick rape meme that uses violence against women as a metaphor for violence against other animals. Vegan Sidekick is notorious for exploiting the imagery and language of violence against women to discuss Nonhuman Animal rights, completely disregarding the fact that we live in a rape culture and violence against women is a real and lived experience for half the human population. Perhaps this is intentional. Activists and organizations realize that women are considered subhuman--there is no concern in upsetting or triggering them, because women's feelings and experiences simply don't matter under the patriarchy. When the movement endangers women and dismisses women's concerns, but then uses women's experiences to promote their cause, this is known as tokenizing. For more information on the problematic nature of trans-species analogies that tokenize and exploit, what Kim Socha calls "fast food activism," please read my earlier essays, "Rape as an Anti-Speciesism Tactic and the Vegan Male Discourse" and "The Misogyny of Animal Rape Imagery."

Cork Vegans: "I'm not going to apologise for sharing this. If you don't like the posts on this page just 'unlike' the page or remove it from your newsfeed."

Cork Vegans' response?

I'm not going to apologise for sharing this. If you don't like the posts on this page just 'unlike' the page or remove it from your newsfeed.

Let me be clear, when women are told, "If you don't like it, keep it to yourself/don't look/go elsewhere/unlike," the message is clear: your victimization does not matter. When activists say, "I'm not going to apologise" for hurting vulnerable people (rape victims in this case), what they are also saying is: we intend to protect our oppressive structures and don't care who it hurts. Telling survivors to "unlike" violent material in their own community is dismissive. It is also complacent and oppressive.  

It's also a form of victim-blaming. It is though it is women's fault for being exposed to the movement's misogyny. It's women's fault for participating in the movement. It's women's fault for existing. What an unwelcoming position to take. Society already maintains intensely powerful systems of victim-blaming that successfully silence most rape victims. Silencing survivors in our movement as well is nothing short of repulsive. Why would anyone want to join a movement that behaves in such a way to vulnerable people? 

Promoting and abetting violence against women "for the animals" is grossly unethical, dangerous, and it absolutely does not work. If misogyny as a tactic doesn't work, then why engage it? I believe it is because this is behavior that works in tangent with patriarchy. People hate and hurt women because that is what they've been socialized to do; this goes for men and women. Even activists in the service of peace will prey on the vulnerable, because it is a script that we are all taught from infancy. 

Cork Vegan's actions have been extremely triggering for me. As a result, I want nothing to do with the group. I would never feel comfortable being around them, much less supporting them. My experiences with Cork Vegans and other sexist groups in the movement have got me thinking: if I can barely put up with it, how could (and why would) anyone else put up with it? Because my career involves studying and researching in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement, I cannot disengage, but I can only imagine how many thousands of people the movement turns away with its callous, violent behavior. 

The dismissal of human suffering is a political problem for our movement. It aggravates oppression, and paradoxically so since we claim our goal is to end oppression. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't work. When groups like Cork Vegan engage this violence and then respond to criticism with "don't look" or "go somewhere else," that is exactly what most people will do.


Update 12/4/2014:  Cork Vegans responded several times to inform me that my colleagues and I are "a bunch of IDIOTS," "CRACKPOTS, and "off our heads." This response indicates that they are unable or unwilling to reflect on the misogyny they facilitate, are intent on aggravating misogyny with more hostility and victim-blaming, and that they are also extremely disableist. I would advise women and other vulnerable groups be wary of this organization and others like it, they can be quite volatile. 

The Social Psychology of Speciesism Lecture Series

For those new to social psychology, I've published an introductory four part hour long lecture on the science of human-nonhuman relationships. In the first lecture, I make a case for the inclusion of Nonhuman Animal issues in the social sciences. In the second lecture, I cover a few important social psychological concepts that help explain institutionalized violence against animals. In the final piece, I criticize the use of other animals as research subjects in the discipline.

Lecture 1: Social Psychology of Human & Nonhuman Relationships (Part 1) 

Exploring how social psychology relates to nonhuman species and the role of human supremacy in otherizing nonhuman species.

Lecture 1: Social Psychology of Human & Nonhuman Relationships (Part 2) 

Lecture 2: The Social Psychology of Speciesism 

Exploring various theories of social psychology to explain the institutionalized violence against other animals.

Lecture 3: Animal Research in Social Psychology 

Exploring the ethical problems with using animals in social psychologial experimentation, highlighting prominent research, and suggesting alternatives.

Seeing "Euthanasia" as an Extension of the Capitalist Project

Oftentimes we explore the problem of “euthanasia” (generally a euphemism for the killing of healthy dogs and cats) as a basic matter of morality or rights ethics. I argue that we should also be exploring this as an extension of anti-capitalist efforts as well.  Norm Phelps has argued that the dog and cat industry is a capitalist one, with consumers encouraged to purchase designer dogs and cats and to dispose of them when trends or lifestyles change.  “Shelters,” he argues, are to the dog and cat industry as the landfill is to other material goods. Shelters exist to dispose of unwanted dogs and cats who are continually produced, consumed, and disposed of in a constant capitalist cycle. Euthanasia is an essential component to capitalism.

The arguments for euthanasia are really quite disturbing in this light, especially given similar projects designed to eliminate unwanted human populations that are a burden on the capitalist treadmill. I have heard it argued that not killing dogs and cats waiting on homes is “a waste of people’s time and money.”  Ironically, I saw this argument made in an anti-capitalist animal rights space. But this is the very logic of capitalism, that is, to view sentient beings as disposable objects measured by their monetary value.  Strange, when it comes to privileged groups, where there's a will, there's a way. When it comes to devalued groups, killing is just "common sense."

When a sentient being is deemed a burden to the capitalist system, that sentient being becomes extremely vulnerable to suffering and death. Recall Jonathan Swift’s satirical essay A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Public, which suggests that the burdensome poor Irish could be repurposed for wealthy persons . . . killed and served up as food.

Consider also “overpopulation” rhetoric which is promulgated by wealthy Western nations who see the masses of poor in third world countries as a burden on the capitalist system (similar programs have targeted poor women of color in the United States as well). “Population control” efforts invariably target vulnerable poor persons, usually brown, and usually women.  These efforts are intended to annihilate entire groups of people—masked as “family planning,” they are often dangerous, non-consensual, and life-threatening.

The notion that vulnerable groups can be “euthanized” or “controlled” “for their own good” (a position held by privileged groups), that euthanasia is a "rational" matter to save “people’s time and money” is the language of oppression . . . capitalist oppression. We should be critical of this line of thought.  It won’t get us any closer to liberation. It only normalizes exploitation and objectification. 

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.

PeTA Perpetuates the Sexual Politics of Meat and Classism in their Most Recent Pokémon Parody Game

By Stevie Lynne

PeTA released their latest Pokémon parody game, Pokémon Red White and Blue, in late 2013. PeTA have a very valid criticism of Pokémon in so far as Pokémon reflects and perhaps reinforces the speciesist idea that nonhuman animals are ours to use. However, there are a few things I wish to specifically focus on in their new parody, namely classism, sizeism and sexism.

Their latest parody game is loosely a sequel their earlier game Pokémon Black and Blue, a parody of versions Black and White. The aesthetic of PeTA's most recent parody game mirrors the first: all the scenes are dripping with obscene amounts of blood. PeTA's acceptance of and indeed over-top violence in this game warrants its own article.

The story in Red White and Blue follows newly liberated Pikachu, identified by the broken shackle around his neck, bandages, and a chunk missing from his ear. The game opens with a cow-like Pokémon, Milktank, being beaten up by McDonald's mascot, Hamburglar. Hamburglar has slipped through into the Pokémon universe to capture Pokémon to use in McDonalds products. Pikachu
steps in, defeats Hamburglar and saves Miltank. Pikachu and Miltank then follow Hamburglar back to the real world where they discover that McDonald's is using cute Pokémon toys to sell animal products to children. Together, they find various people who are involved in exploiting animals and use physical violence to overcome these “enemies”.

While I agree vaguely with PeTA's critique of McDonald's as a corporation using manipulative advertising to indoctrinate children, there are several elements of this game that are intensely problematic.

The “Fat” McDonald's Customer vs. the “Attractive” PeTA Protesters 

When the Pokémon first enter the “real world” they come across a McDonald's with a customer standing outside.

It's important to note that the McDonald's customer is portrayed as wearing ill-fitting clothes, is covered in food stains, and is also larger than the other characters depicted in the storyline. Here, PeTA are drawing on fat-shaming stereotype of larger people being slovenly and disgusting.

It's not as if PeTA aren't well known for being sizeist. Their 'Save the Whales' campaign remains one of their most offensive ideas to date.

To strengthen the association of the McDonald's customer being “gross”, after battling and defeating the McDonald's customer, the party encounters a group of PeTA protesters outside McDonald's. None of these figures has a similar body shape to the McDonald's customer. Jigglypuff even asks “Are you all so attractive?”

By inference, being larger, like the McDonald's customer is “not attractive”.

The Evil Slaughterhouse Workers – How PeTA Perpetuates Classism and Racism 

Part way through the game, one of the enemies the liberated Pokémon encounter are two slaughterhouse workers. They are characterised by menacing facial expressions, wearing white coats, and carrying meat cleavers. They are splattered with blood.

The portrayal of slaughterhouse workers as being an evil enemy of Pokémon and animal liberation reeks of classism. In the United States, slaughterhouse workers are predominately poor people of colour, an unknown percentage of whom are undocumented and as such have limited access to workers rights (Source: Food Empowerment Project).

In addition, slaughterhouses are environments which are psychologically damaging to people as well as being horrific for nonhuman animals. One study in the United States looking at 581 counties discovered that “slaughterhouse employment increases total arrest rates, arrests for violent crimes, arrests for rape, and arrests for other sex offenses in comparison with other industries.”

In Australia, the Northern Territory has recently proposed a scheme for making prisoners work in a new abattoir opening up later this year, despite evidence that slaughterhouse work is psychologically damaging and leads to increased crime rates.

PeTA by setting up slaughterhouse workers as the enemy in this game clearly have no idea about ways in which structural oppression ensures that lower class, people of colour, undocumented migrants and even potentially prisoners, are forced to carry out psychologically traumatising work.

Slaughterhouse workers are not the enemy of the animal rights movement and it's ignorant to suggest that is the case.

Jigglypuff as Lettuce Lady and the Sexual Politics of Meat 

One of the battle moves PeTA has designed for Jigglypuff is “Lettuce Ladies”. This is most certainly not a move present in the original games. When you execute this move, Jigglypuff turns to the camera, suddenly holding two lettuce leaves as a “bra” over her chest before lashing out at the opponent.

In Carol J. Adam's seminal text, The Sexual Politics of Meat, she defines the sexual politics of meat as “an attitude and action that animalizes women and sexualizes and feminizes animals.”

PeTA have done exactly that with the character of Jigglypuff.

Here Jigglypuff is clearly sexualised, drawing on the common and ineffectual campaigning technique by PeTA of placing women out in public covered only by lettuce leaves. But here Jigglypuff is supposed to be “liberated”, but is instead being sexualised as feminized object.

This type of gendering of the oppressed non-human animals as feminine in imagery often appears in animal exploitation advertising. For example:

But the vegan movement is no stranger to sexualising and objectifying women.

As Corey Wrenn has written: “The vegan movement also favors the tactic of turning women into consumable objects in the exact same way that meat industries do.” She also notes why this is problematic from a systemic level: “Instead of empowering women on behalf of animals, these approaches could be disempowering women by preserving a patriarchal framework.”

In the Pokémon parody PeTA do to Jigglypuff what the meat industry does to the bodies of animals. Just like this image of a sexualised pig, PeTA are repeating similar structural oppression of nonhuman animals:

Photos from Carol J. Adams' blog.

Typical PeTA Tropes 

Critiquing Pokémon for its reflection and potential promotion of speciesist values is a valid undertaking. Critiquing McDonald's for using cute Pokémon toys to manipulate children is also a valid undertaking. However, PeTA's latest Pokémon parody replicates similar oppressive structures as found in some of their other campaigns – including, but not limited to: sizeism, classism, and sexism.

PeTA is sadly a broken record, continuing in their contributions to oppression while all the while being the most well-known “face” of the animal rights movement.

Stevie Lynne co-hosts Team Earthling Vegan Radio, a weekly Australian podcast.