To many people, a woman without makeup and with two nose rings is non-mainstream, non-conservative, what have you. Yet, in makeup, I’d feel as though I were in drag; and I’d feel nekkid without my nose rings (I have a big honker; the rings make me feel purty). I guess what I’m saying is there’s a difference between “toning it down” and compromising yourself to please others (especially others’ stereotyped images of what you “should” be or do). The former is okay as needed, the latter, not so much.

Sorry, I think I’m at that point where I’m tired and repeating myself. Will go delete that first comment now :)

I do agree that animal activism works in a vacuum, at times; but whereas you see the mainstreaming comment as reinforcing it, I see it as obliterating it. But here, we’ll just have to disagree. 10 years ago, I’d have probably agreed with you. Now, not so much.

Thank you for a good discussion.

P.S. Could you remove the comment I’d written with my email address in it? That was my bad.

Don’t get me wrong; overall, I enjoyed Strategic Action. I gave it four stars instead of five not for the “sexist comment that she never made”, but because it wasn’t as thorough a discussion as I thought it could have been. My Amazon review barely touches upon these other issues we’re discussing. Since the book raised them for me, however, I thought the blog post would be a good enough jumping-off point for further discussion.

And, for the record, I don’t think Joy’s comments re: dress and appearance (which, to the best of my recollections, she raised several times throughout the book – it wasn’t just one throwaway comment) were necessarily sexist; rather, they were more generally just “ist”. Depending on who defines “conservative” or “conventional”, they could be sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, [insert your "ism" here]. Since she did mention these other “isms” elsewhere, I expected her to at least address them in relation to her advice. That’s the crux of my disappointment.

However, I was really disappointed in your interpretation of Joy’s brief advice to dress conservatively. Where in the world does she say anything about women wearing makeup or anything about wearing chinos? I looked through my book again, wondering how I could miss it, and saw nothing.

The “makeup and chinos” comment was meant to be snarky. I never actually quoted Ms. Joy as saying that women should wear those things – because she never actually said that. Rather, she argues that activists, when in the public eye, should dress conservatively, unassumingly, to the mainstream (and again, I’m paraphrasing). To most Americans, “mainstream” for women includes makeup. (Even the so-called “natural” looks involve makeup…usually, loads of it!) It may also include khakis or chinos, possibly skirts, etc. I mean, do you get any more mainstream America than the stereotypical khaki-clad preppy? ;) Hence the “makeup and chinos” joke. I could just as easily have said “lipstick and heels” or, if I was a WOC, “hair relaxer and American Apparel”.

I understand the reasoning behind “dressing conservatively”, but such admonitions can reinforce discrimination against people who don’t conform to the mainstream…women who aren’t sufficiently womanly (and men who aren’t sufficiently manly), gays and lesbians, transgendered persons, people of color who act “too black” (or “too white”), etc., etc., etc. Sure, perhaps it’s a good idea not go out of your way to antagonize the people you’re trying to persuade through your choice of dress…but on the other hand, you shouldn’t feel pressured to be someone you’re not, just because that’s what society expects of you. If you feel comfortable as a punk, you should be a punk – and if others are going to hold that against you, that’s their problem, not yours. It creates a barrier, yes, but it’s another barrier in need of breaking. In addition to eradicating their speciesism, you need to eradicate their classism (misogyny, homophobia, racism, whathaveyou) as well. I don’t think challenging the non-animal related “isms” of others is “gratifying my own ego”, as you put it.

That’s really all I was getting at. I don’t think Ms. Joy is sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.; rather, I just wish her argument in favor of “dressing conservatively” had been more nuanced. (Particularly considering her dismissal of activists who engage in direct activism – ie., those whose actions she disapproves of – elsewhere in the book.) Lately I feel as though the animal advocacy movement is operating in a vacuum, oblivious to the interconnectedness of various forms of oppression, sometimes even relying on other “isms” to advance the AR cause. As a woman, an atheist, a feminist, a secularist, an anti-racist, and a GLBT ally, that hurts me, on so many levels.

So I agree that it’s a book that individuals and organizations should read, if only (but not only) because it gives opportunities for reflecting on these kinds of issues, in addition to issues about the practicalities of running (and building) an organization for animals, etc. I think it’s also an excellent primer (especially for the new activist) on what a strategic movement is and on the stages a movement goes through (the backlash part was interesting to me–there begins external pressure that results in internal pressure, and people squabbling about “freakiness” vs. “mainstreaming”).

I couldn’t agree more with you on your agreement and support of the book’s focus on inclusiveness. Racism, sexism, and etc. definitely can and does exist amongst activists, just as it does in the wider world.

However, I was really disappointed in your interpretation of Joy’s brief advice to dress conservatively. Where in the world does she say anything about women wearing makeup or anything about wearing chinos? I looked through my book again, wondering how I could miss it, and saw nothing.

Chapter 1: At the same time, activists must do everything in their power to come across as conventional as possible. If the aim is really to liberate animals, and not to gratify our own egos, we must be willing to wrap ourselves in the garb of the mainstream.

Chapter 4: For instance, when talking to a Buddhist, you should refer to basic Buddhist tenets such as nonviolence and compassion for all beings; and when advocating to a Quaker you should connect animal liberation with peace, justice, and conscientious objection. You should also dress and act in accordance with the norms of the group you’re reaching out to, so that your message is more likely to be heard.

Chapter 5: When planning to engage in civil disobedience, activists should prepare ahead of time by learning about their rights and the tactics of intimidation used by law enforcement officials, and by dressing as conservatively as possible so as not to be perceived as “terrorists.”

In regards to chapter 1, I think how one responds indicates what their priorities are. Is it more important to me to look like a punk (which I once was) or is it more important to me to reach out to as many people as possible, including…people of other races and ethnicities, as the quote from chapter 4 alludes to. In regards to chapter 5, again, I think the quote speaks for itself. Is the message more important or the medium? Is animal activism a style, or it is a meaningful political and ethical action?

That you spent a portion of your review rallying against Joy for a sexist comment that she never made (about makeup) is really disingenuous.