This week, I’d like to highlight the facet of our innate and inseverable connection to the non-human animals that we share the Earth with. Now, you might’ve read that sentence and thought to yourself, “Why doesn’t she just say animals? Why does she have to complicate things and include “non-human” beforehand?”
Throughout the ecofeminist readings that I consumed this week, I was asking that same question at first. Theorists kept using “non-human animals,” and it was popping up too frequently to be a one-off notion. And then I realized that this distinction purposefully emphasizes the fact that humans are animals too. Although so many of us falsely believe that we are inherently superior to all other animals, ecofeminists strive to break down this widespread belief. Just as activists will stand up and fight for the rights of human animals being oppressed, non-human animals are just as worthy of fair treatment.
This ties into how vegetarianism and the perception and treatment of non-human animals are inseparable from ecofeminist theory. If the ecofeminist goal is to garner compassion and empathy for all other living non-human beings to then, in turn, pave the way toward compassionate relations within ourselves and each other, non-human animals are a crucial part of this equation.
It’s a smaller leap for humans to recognize the validity of animals because of their apparent sentience than it would be for an ignorant person to recognize the intrinsic value of plants, the environment, or the planet. Baby steps are necessary to open minds instead of close them. And we can point to the fact that even with a basic understanding of non-human animals’ sentience, we justify their horrific mistreatment.
We use them for labor like hunting or guardianship; we use them for entertainment in zoos; we use them to fulfill our need for companionship in keeping domestic pets; we use them for their reproductive processes like milk and eggs; we use them for experimenting on to ensure that new human innovations are safe for our bodies at the expense of theirs; we use them for the very meat and bones that make up their body. We use and use and use for personal gain, which is an unfortunate consequence of the “dog-eat-dog” world perpetuated by androcentric patriarchal hierarchies that are ever in play in our society.
Ecofeminist Greta Gaard articulates the complications of the human / non-human animal relationship in her article “Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspective on Human-Animal Relations.” She dives deep into the “linkage between sexism and speciesism…[and] the connection between speciesism and classism” (20). Ecofeminists recognize this slippery slope—how the unjust oppression of animals reflects the patriarchal oppression of women, POC, LGBT individuals, and so on.
Although this connection may seem convoluted at first, it’s so intrinsic that its effects can even be tied to our linguistics—our colloquial language. Gaard points out that “animal pejoratives” (20) are used as dehumanizing, derogatory descriptors for all those who do not fit into the pedestalled androcentric Anglo-European mold. Women are referred to as “‘sow,’ ‘bitch,’ ‘pussy,’ ‘chick,’ ‘cow,’ ‘beaver,’ ‘old-bat,’ ‘bird-brain,’” and the list could go on and on. The “linguistic association with animals has also been a method of demeaning Jews and people of color, as Nazi propaganda equated Jews with ’vermin,’ and Blacks have been called ‘coons’ or ‘jungle bunnies’” (Gaard 20). Animals are demonized as a way to “shield ourselves from our own complicity in a system of inter-species domination” (Gaard 21).
The fact of the matter is that our society’s patriarchal hierarchy is inherently a capitalistic one, with emphasis placed on oppression as a viable means of climbing higher on that ladder. Gaard highlights how racism, classism, sexism, and speciesism are all forms of oppression that include “exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence” (20). All of which non-human animals endure at humans’ hands. “Any one of these experiences would be sufficient enough to indicate a group’s status as oppressed. Non-human animals experience all five aspects of oppression” (Gaard 20). We justify this oppression because “humans believe their own economic interests [are] in opposition to [non-human animals’] well-being” (Gaard 20) — providing the bare minimum to ensure non-human animals’ access to a healthy and happy quality of life is seen as “too much work, too much time and [too much] money” (Gaard 20).
Ecofeminist Deana Curtin approaches the human – non-human animal relationship in a contextually ethical way in her piece “Contextual Moral Vegetarianism.” She acknowledges the necessity of animal consumption in dire circumstances, like in geographical locations where it’s impossible to grow food or in a survival situation where the choices are to eat an animal or starve (1). What she works to highlight is the affluent West’s oppressive perspective on non-human animals.
She writes, “vegetarianism…is for economically well-off persons in technologically advances countries…[for the] persons who have a choice of what food they want to eat; they have a choice of what they will count as food” (Curtin 2). We have the choice and capabilities not to harm non-human animals, and yet we still pack them into factory farms as close together as sardines in a can, to live in filth and squalor, and to endure their powerlessness and mistreatment. Billions of animals are killed every year for food in the United States (Curtin 2), and it doesn’t just stop there. They’re experimented on, “genetically engineered and chemically infused to grow faster and come to market sooner” (Curtin 2).
In the West, we aren’t satisfied by just oppressing non-human animals. We don’t stop at exploitation, marginalization, inflicting powerlessness, and violence. We maximize their suffering.
Take a look at this image. It illustrates the way that we are never satisfied by just inflicting maltreatment. We overdo it to cement our position in the patriarchal hierarchy. The meat, the non-human animal, in this photo has already been detained throughout its life for the non-essential purpose of human consumption. And once it’s been killed, butchered, and cooked, the mistreatment doesn’t stop there. The figure that’s carved into this meat is wearing a chef’s hat, indicating that this animal’s body is destined to be commodified and served for capitalist gains. And the figure isn’t just slicing into the meat; there’s another knife stabbed into the non-human animal’s body, emphasizing the unnecessary violence that we subject these beings too.
It’s impossible to ignore the connection between our mistreatment of non-human animals and the mistreatment that those who don’t fit into the androcentric Anglo-European patriarchal mold face as well. We’ve already discussed how tying women, POC, and LGBT individuals to the villainized perception of non-human animals serves to disenfranchise them and justify men’s superiority over them. Men are strong; they’re conquerors.
They’re always portrayed as eviscerating a bloody steak or a fatty, juicy burger
. They’re associated with strong liquor that burns on the way down. Masculinity has become synonymous with pain infliction. “The connection between meat and masculinity…articulates the hidden connections between meat eating and patriarchy” (Eisenberg).
While women are seen as weak and only worthy of frivolous consumption like a triple fruit daiquiri or a light salad— extra cucumbers and tomatoes hold the dressing. Women, too, become the meat whose sole “use” is to satiate men’s appetites.
In order for Ecofeminist theories to enact lasting change, we must first begin by dismantling our justification and infliction of oppression. We can start by restructuring our mindset around non-human animals and their right to live; that’s just as essential as our own. This will open doors and open minds for others to see that same intrinsic value within our planet and within each other. Again, it’s baby steps that will open more minds than close them. So we need to keep having these conversations to raise even more awareness and unveil our patriarchal society from its complacent ignorance and empower each and every individual around us—both human and non-human.
I’ve explored the women – non-human animal correlation in a previous post surrounding SH Sadler’s iconic and thought-provoking photography. You can check it out here!
I’d love to hear your thoughts on these issues in the comments below! Have you ever thought of non-human animals in the context of feminist issues? Was it shocking to see the inherent connection? What’s a way forward that you see working for humans and non-human animals and the planet to come into a respectful and equally distributed power interplay?
—–
Works Cited
Curtin, Deane. “Contextual Moral Vegetarianism.” Animal Rights Library, 1991.
Eisenberg, Zoe. “Meat Heads: New Study Focuses on How Meat Consumption Alters Men’s Self-Perceived Levels of Masculinity.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 13 Jan. 2017, huffpost.com/entry/meat-heads-new-study-focuses_b_8964048.
Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations.” Academia.edu, 2001.
Jasmine –
Your blog caught my attention. Your images are so so so thought provoking, especially the last one. It made my heart hurt which was then followed up with a pile of anger but I suppose for those that understand it – that was the point. Well done.
Funny that you explain the use of “non-humans” in that I had to explain that to a family member when discussing this very topic. When they stop and really try to understand the use of that word…and they make the connection that “oh yeah – we are animals too” it’s like it clicks. This highlights how removed we are from the idea that we are animals. We are simply different species and yet we do not equate ourselves as being animals. You said that “we believe that we are inherently superior to all other animals” which is dead on. The person I was speaking with when discussing the use of “non-human” said “ok – I get it. We are all animals…but you have to admit that we are not even close to being intellectually equivalent” to which I responded, “While that might be true in terms of the measurements we as humans use for intellectual ability, it does not de-value non-human animals. They are no less valuable or worthy of freedom. It is us who made that determination through the ideology pushed by our hierarchical-patriarchal society.”
When we look at intersectionality and class systems, we clearly see how diversity is squashed and de-valued and it is no less true when we look at the environment, nature, and our nun-human friends. They are classified as “other” and thus vulnerable to exploitation. To be quite honest this unit has really made my head spin. I know in my heart I need to change things in my own household, and I plan to. You mention baby steps – but I think within my house it will take very long straddled steps. I had already been contemplating certain changes (and already made small ones) and this has ratified for me things that I need do. Gaard said, “Women’s relational self, a self-identity that is constructed in terms of our relationship to others” (Gaard, 2) makes me think… what does that say about me then in terms of my relationship with non-humans? Who I am is comprised of my relationships with others which includes (but is not limited to) humans, non-humans, the environment, etc.
You mentioned in your blog about “the slippery slope between classism and speciesism, how the unjust oppression of animals reflects the patriarchal oppression of women, POC, LGBTQIA individuals…” and I agree it is a clear connection that once acknowledged calls into question everything from eating meat to animal ownership. I have only ever had a pet once in my life. It was a cat that my boyfriend (turned first husband – I am now divorced and remarried) got for me. My children have had dogs that their father has bought for them. They frequently bring one of the dogs to my house and they see how much I love her. They always ask me why I don’t have an animal. I think in large part it is because I have always felt badly for dogs/animals in general. My heart aches for those in cages. I only visit zoos that are rescue (recover) habitats. I didn’t understand a lot of the connection I feel until I read a book called “Untamed” by Glennon Doyle. It is AMAZING. In the beginning of the book, she describes taking her children to a zoo where they had a cheetah. The cheetah (whose name was Tabitha) is released out of cage and chases a bunny on the back of a jeep. The point of it was to see how fast the cheetah can run. She is rewarded after with a steak. Glennon said as she watched it something inside of her became upset – nauseous even. The Cheetah had been trained and was confined. Here is the excerpt from Untamed:
“While the zookeeper began sharing facts about cheetahs born into captivity, my older daughter, Tish, nudged me and pointed to Tabitha. There, in that field, away from Minnie and the zookeepers, Tabitha’s posture had changed. Her head was high, and she was stalking the periphery, tracing the boundaries the fence created. Back and forth, back and forth, stopping only to stare somewhere beyond the fence. It was like she was remembering something. She looked regal. And a little scary.
Tish whispered to me, “Mommy. She turned wild again.”
I think about this A LOT. About how people are also trained. We are conditioned – especially women. To echo Kingslover’s sentiments in our reading from last week – as human animals we too long to return to our wild selves. The wild puts us in our place and I believe it takes us back to our true selves.
“Extract: Untamed by Glennon Doyle.” Extract | Untamed by Glennon Doyle – Penguin Books Australia, https://www.penguin.com.au/books/untamed-9781785043352/extracts/2279-untamed.
Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations.” Academia.edu, 22 May 2014, https://www.academia.edu/2489929/Ecofeminism_on_the_Wing_Perspectives_on_Human-Animal_Relations.
Kingslover, Barbara. Knowing Our Place . https://svacanvas.sva.edu/content/mfa_ap/fa16/apg5350/s1/downloads/Session_pre-02_H03_Kingsolver_2.pdf.
Great…now I’ll be adding ANOTHER book to my ever-growing TBR list! (I’m just kidding, I’m so thankful for the recommendation, that was such a stunning exerpt that you included!)
Hi Jasmine,
It was a pleasure to read your blog in response to this week’s topic on vegetarian ecofeminism. Not only did you thoroughly explain the significance of understanding our similarities to the non-human animal, but your tone of writing kept me intrigued from start to finish. This theoretical extension of the ecofeminist perspective is one that I believe is not often talked about enough. Vegetarianism has been labeled as a mainstream dieting trend in Western society rather than a philosophical understanding of our connection and ethical responsibility to have respect and sympathy for the non-human animal. Not only have patriarchal ideologies controlled the expectation of a desirable body, but they have influenced power imbalances between all life placing the white male at the top of the social ladder. As you described in your interpretation of the image, we live in a society that always desires more, that thrives off dominance and capital. In this image not only is the non-human animal exploited once through death, but again and again with every action taken to ensure there is no trace of the life that was taken. To draw further upon your analysis of patriarchal society in connection to meat consumption and masculinity, Carol J. Adams in her book, “The Sexual Politics of Meat” suggests that there is more to be drawn upon besides gender. In her section titled, “The Racial Politics of Meat” she writes, “Two parallel beliefs can be traced in the white Western world’s enactment of racism when the issue is meat eating. The first is that if the meat supply is limited, white people should get it; but if meat is plentiful all should eat it. This is a variation on the standard theme of the sexual politics of meat. The hierarchy of meat protein reinforces a hierarchy of race, class, and sex” (Adams 40). In this we can understand that our disconnect between human and non-human animals creates a web of oppression placing those disadvantaged under the umbrella of white supremacy in the category of inferior. Not only is the non-human animal exploited and ignored as a form of life in the practice of meat consumption, but when in situations similar to that discussed by Curtin’s contextual moral vegetarianism, class, race, and sex are all at play. White wealthy men are to eat first in times of scarcity because meat is a symbol of higher status. Adams also includes another interesting quote as she writes, “In technological societies, cookbooks reflect the presumption that men eat meat. A random survey of cookbooks reveals that the barbecue section of most cookbooks is addressed to men and feature meat. The foods recommended for a ‘Mother’s Day Tea’ do not include meat…” (Adams 38). What’s significant here is the connection between oppression of non-human animals and women. Adams draws upon technological societies, Western for example, in saying that there is a choice, yet we continue to marginalize. Non-human animals are violated and killed for the consumption of humans, but mostly geared towards masculine eating, insinuating that women are less worthy than men. Heteronormative patriarchy continues to embed marginalization and hierarchy in socialization practices as if human life is different from non-human animal life and continues to break it down even further as categories within this get ranked on a superiority basis. I don’t think this will be dismantled until we become active advocates in standing against the patriarchy and work towards a society that shares equal responsibility and honors all life as their own.
If you are interested in reading more about Carol J. Adams’ work, “The Sexual Politics of Meat,” here is the citation information:
Adams, Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. 10th ed., Continuum, 2000.
Best,
Kylie Coutinho
Hi Kylie!
You must check out Angelica Florio’s article “The Sexualization of Meat,” it seems that you two are of the same mind!
Her article was just as enlightening as your response.
Here’s the link if you’re interested: ciphermagazine.com/articles/2017/2/19/the-sexualization-of-meat
Jasmine – thank you for this thorough and explanatory post. I especially appreciate how you chose to open with the definition of non-human animals and why it’s used instead of simply, animals. As I went through the readings for this week’s lesson, I also did a double-take at first. I think that the deliberate choice for ecofeminists to select this language does in fact, help us see how all beings on this planet are connected.
You mention the gendered norms of how “men are strong; they’re conquerers”. It is this concept that has been instilled by patriarchal thought and oppression that has largely led us to our current state. Not only have we been conditioned to believe that men are strong conquerers, we have come to infer the opposite, that women and meek and timid. As you discuss in your post, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence of how the patriarchy exerts its power over other human animals and non-human animals. Gaard raises and important point on the issue of pets (non-human animals) and the dependency cycle that human animals have created for them. She states “for all this, pets are offered room and board, and the possibility of affection. If the situation were offered to humans, we’d call it slavery” (Gaard 2014, 21).
As you bring your post full-circle, you mention how we “need to dismantle our justification and infliction of oppression”. In the Meat Heads article (link below), they share how men are making the shift to plant-based diets. Some of these men are athletes and they have found that there has been no change in their performance by inflicting pain and death upon non-human animals. “I think vegan men are setting great examples to the world,” Howell continues. “The more athletes and businessmen, or anyone who excels at their craft, the better because we can draw a direct line between the way they eat and the way they perform on the field or in the boardroom. It’s helpful in changing that stereotype.” ((Eisenberg, 2017). It will be interesting to see if through individual changes in gendered eating patterns, we can slowly start to shift toward plant-based diets. If we can do this, we’ll begin to reshape the patriarchal power within society and create more compassion for all animals, both human and non-human.
Eisenberg, Z. (2017, January 13). Meat Heads: New Study Focuses on How Meat Consumption Alters Men’s Self-Perceived Levels of Masculinity. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/meat-heads-new-study-focuses_b_8964048
Gaard, G. (2014, May 22). Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations. https://www.academia.edu/2489929/Ecofeminism_on_the_Wing_Perspectives_on_Human_Animal_Relations
Yes! I thought it was interesting that in the “Meat Heads” article, men who choose to eat a vegan or vegetarian diet were seen as emasculated! I think for women; this would be the complete opposite! To women, seeing a man not care about gender norms and enjoy a salad when he wants to is more attractive and even more masculine since he doesn’t need to eat a raw and bloody steak to prove something!
I suppose I can’t speak for every woman, but this is a notion I’ve heard repeated many times over!
Hey Jas!
I really enjoyed the callback you made to an earlier post. I think that just proves how all of these things make up the myriad of issues that ecofeminists combat, and how they’re all connected to one another. You had me laughing with a few points you make and the playful nature of your word choice. It took a serious issue and made it more fun to read.
As a vegetarian, I find these conversations are some of the most difficult to have. Most time when speaking about these issues, I’m not taken seriously. I’m just seen as a small, weak woman who cares a little too much about Bambi. And that’s the issue with this chokehold patriarchal values have on our country. It got me thinking about ecofeminists in other countries and what the meat industry looks like somewhere else. I found an article that discusses the impact of the meat industry in Europe and compares meat consumption in men and women.
The issues you’ve discussed are not just here, it’s a global problem. I’ve attached the article if you want to read it over. It’s got some really interesting statistics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7555944/
Hi Jasmine,
Like many people have already commented, I appreciated your explanation of the significance of “non-human animals.” This was something that I had noticed in the readings, but had not really thought about deeply.
In your post, you wrote about Curtin’s ideas surrounding contextual ethical vegetarianism. This is something I struggled to firmly envision as a suggestion for people to follow. Curtin is clear that her suggestions are for economically well-off people, but does not really define “economically well-off.” Comparatively, many people in the US have a higher standard of living and more economic resources than many people in the Global South. However, there are many people suffering from severe financial strain in the US. How we measure being “well-off” can vary depending on factors such as whether we look at the poverty line, living paycheck-to-paycheck or being dependent on another for financial stability.
Additionally, even if someone feels that they are financially stable, moving to vegetarianism could require things other than money. Choosing food for oneself and family requires time and effort for planning, buying, or preparing. Many people are unfamiliar with how to have a balanced vegetarian meal three times a day, and restaurants or pre-cooked foods are often created with non-vegetarians as the main consumers. People only have a finite amount of time, so spending more time on meals can mean less time at another activity such as work, resting, or time with family. I feel contextual ethical vegetarianism requires balancing many complex factors, and the manner in which someone is to do so remains unclear to me. In the context of the US, where many people have unstable work, several jobs, or jobs that do not pay a living wage, Curtin’s argument might be stronger if her method of contextualizing moral obligations was clearer. As I believe our food systems should be reimagined to be more ethical, I think that the manner in which we do so is a topic that deserves much debate. Thank you, Jasmine, for all your good points on the dehumanizing aspects of food systems!