A subsidiary of the department store Beymen, blender bills itself as a “concept store.” (Caution: meat-loving hipsters ahead!) The “concept” (scare quotes because the whole concept of a concept store is way too fucking pretentious for this thrift store shopper to stand), as you may have already surmised, involves the pairing of fashion with misogyny, the conflation of sex and violence, and the linkage of women and nonhuman animals: consumable objects, unite!

With several locations in Istanbul and Ankara, Turkey, blender doesn’t just sell clothing and assorted shiny baubles; oh no! Nor are body dysmorphia and low self-esteem its only wares. Ever the hipster-catering douchebags, each blender store is also home to a butcher shop! Because nothing accents a $500 white angora scarf quite like ghastly blood smear stain. (No, really!)

Curiously, blender attempts to sell its audience on this concept by treating at least half of them like pieces of meat, too!

In what is perhaps the most egregious example of the “woman as meat” meme that I’ve seen yet, this ad for “concept store” blender hits a new misogynistic low. Set against a monotone backdrop, a woman – almost mannequin-like in her blankness – hangs suspended in a supine position. Her nearly-naked body – her photographer/exploiter has so generously allowed her a gaudy amount of jewelry as well as black “fuck me” stiletto pumps – is carved into pieces. Each cut reveals a cross-section of “meat” – muscle, gristle, bone – underscoring the similarity between “us” and the “other,” the nonhumans who are our “meat.” Discrete links of chain dangle from the ceiling; at the end of each is a large “fish” or “meat” hook.
In each hook, a dismembered body part.

As always, the model/meatstuff is predictably thin, light-skinned, blond-haired, and conventionally attractive. Her stare is blank, emotionless, creepy;
think Paris Hilton’s “sex tape,” minus the night vision.

The advert’s tag line reads, “The concept store with a butcher shop.”

Fittingly, Ads of the World refers to this ad as “Blender Concept Store: Butcher Shop.”
——————————

Though the misogynist “Butcher Shop” ad above suggests that blender caters primarily to men, it does sell women’s clothing and accessories as well. Once you enter the website past the landing page, the first image to appear is that of a pair of men’s jeans – coupled with a bloody, raw steak.

The text under the slide reads, “These JBrand jeans | go well with a manly dinner.”

From there, you can continue browsing the men’s clothing items, or navigate (somewhat clumsily) to other categories of goods.

The website’s main feature is a series of four slideshows: one each representing men’s and women’s clothing (rtw) and accessories (shoes & bags). Each individual slide juxtaposes an item of clothing with a concept, feeling, or activity: a goes well with b; if you like x, you will like y. Whereas the men’s slideshows are featured more prominently, more total slides are dedicated to women’s clothing and accessories. (The men get 14 clothing and 2 accessory slides; the women, 20 and 8, respectively. See Appendix A for a rundown.)

The images are somewhat subject to traditional gender stereotyping, with greater potential for gender transgression in the women’s slides. For example, the men’s slides stress danger and adventure; cue: motorcycle stunts, road trips, boxing, and retro acts of rebellion. All served with an unhealthy side of meat.

Oh, the meat! 3 out of 14 of the men’s clothing slides (or 3/16 total) involve thick, “juicy” (read: bloody) hunks of manly meat. (Nothing says masculinity like heart disease, constipation and e. coli!) In addition to the very first slide (mentioned above), there’s:

Slide #6, in which a super-sized piece of steak is coupled with a photo of a strutting male model, decked out in black skinny jeans, a black and white checked (flannel?) shirt, a black scarf and matching cap, and a gray (wool? fleece?) jacket. (Forgive me; a fashion maven, I am not.) “If you like our Dukkan steak | you might also like this J.V. Star USA jacket.”

and

Slide #13, which pairs a thick, greasy hamburger with an image of two jeans-and-tee-wearing teenage slackers hanging out in a industrial park or similar. (There’s lots of graffiti, concrete and metal around.) “If you like our Dukkan hamburger | you might also like this [sic] DeHoghten jeans.”

An additional image of “manly” animal exploitation – a comical caricature of masculinity in and of itself – involves (wait for it!) BEAR WRESTLING!

Slide #8 depicts the same red and gray checked flannel shirt, both draped on a hanger and worn by a slightly wild-eyed man. He prowls the forest, fists balled tightly at his side, angrily searching for a hapless bear to brutalize (at least, this is what we’re meant to assume). “This manly John Varvatos Star USA shirt | goes well with wrestling a bear.”

MANLY, MEAT-EATING MEN ARE SO MASCULINIST AND MANLY AND MERCILESS IN THEIR MASCULINITY! I bet that dude could flagellate a bear into unconsciousness with his bare penis! (The puns, I bring ‘em.)

In contrast, only 1 out of 20 of the women’s clothing slides (or 1/28 total) promote meat consumption:

Slide #9 pairs a photo of a female model strutting down a runway with a rather amateurish photo of a plate of meatballs. “This Paul & Joe cardigan | goes well with a dinner of Swedish meatballs.” I don’t know about y’all, but when I see an overpriced, dry clean only cardigan, I immediately start craving greasy finger food!

(This example in particular highlights a key difference between the male and female slideshows: whereas the men’s images seem to be matched on the basis of feelings and emotions, the women’s are more literal or aesthetic. The women’s images complement each other visually, the men’s, viscerally. E.g., in this slide, the shape of the meatballs mirrors the circular, button-like shapes that decorate the runway. Ditto: the brown color of the meatballs and the brown and beige tones found in the model’s backdrop. But I digress.)

Not surprisingly, both the men’s and women’s slideshows also include depictions of positive human-nonhuman relationships with “pet” animals:

Slide #6 – This playful Love Moschino blouse | goes well with your best friend. (I.e., an uber-adorable, totally cute and fluffy dog wearing a large, red bow.)
——————————

Slide #2 (in men’s shoes & bags) – This retro John Varvatos Star USA boot | goes well with the next punk revival. (As is represented by a kitten sporting a mohawk, striped face paint, multiple ear piercings, and a skull necklace; note to Lemmy: your future Halloween costume, you’re looking at it!)
——————————

thus reflecting our culture’s inconsistent and speciesist attitudes toward different “types” of nonhuman animals: some are for loving; others, eating; and still others, wearing. (And, if blender has its way, some are even potential UFC contestants!) Of course, this dissonance is only compounded by the clothing and accessories available for purchase at blender, many of which appear to be made of animal skins and fibers.

In summary, most of men’s interactions with nonhuman animals are marked by dehumanization, objectification, domination, dismemberment, and/or consumption. Though they receive greater visual representation, only one of the women’s slides overtly shows women engaging in cruelty toward animals. Even while reinforcing traditional gender roles vis à vis our treatment of nonhuman animals, blender tries to hawk its wares – including freshly butchered farmed animals – to men and woman alike.

That they do so using images of human women, similarly butchered and brutalized, is a bit of tragikarma (like a tragicomedy, but minus the lolz) in and of itself. For as long as we accept that some of our sentient kin – brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers – are ripe for consumption, we risk being turned into consumable items ourselves.

Hat tip to Katrina Fox for the image.

—————-

* Hate that “joke.”

** Trigger warnings for images of violence against animals, both human and non: yay or nay? Or are visual and textual descriptions of violence against animals a given on this blog?

—————-

Appendix A: blender Slideshows

Man, rtw

01 – These JBrand jeans | go well with a manly dinner.
02 – This Lot 78 top | goes well with staring out of a Manhattan diner all day.
03 – This Love Moschino coat | goes well with eating a marmalade sandwich.
04 – This Paul & Joe suit | goes well with a good corset.
05 – This DeHoghton jacket | goes well with speed racing.
06 – If you like our Dukkan steak | you might also like this J.V. Star USA jacket.
07 – This Paul Smith jeans-shirt | goes well with an evening listening to Joy Division.
08 – This manly John Varvatos Star USA shirt | goes well with wrestling a bear.
09 – This John Varvatos Star USA jacket | goes well with some vintage badges.
10 – If you like this William Rast outfit | you might also like being a rebel.
11 – This so-edgy-it-hurts Zadig & Voltaire outfit | goes well with an attitude people can feel across the room.
12 – This tight Zadig & Voltaire tee | goes well with a smouldering stare.
13 – If you like our Dukkan hamburger | you might also like this [sic] DeHoghten jeans.
14 – If you like this Paul Smith shirt | you might also like road tripping.

(Slides 1, 6, 8 and 13 include images of animal exploitation; none are suggestive of positive human/nonhuman interactions.)

Man, Shoes and Bags

01 – This John Varvatos Converse | goes well with Babyshambles.
02 – This retro John Varvatos Star USA boot | goes well with the next punk revival. [omg it's a kitten with a mohawk!]

(Slide 2 is ADORABLE!)

Woman, rtw

01 – These super-tight JBrand jeans | goes well with a spot of cowgirl chic.
02 – This Love Moschino designer outfit | goes well with being in charge of a designer office.
03 – The details on this timeless DeHoghten jacket | go well with a knight in shining armour.
04 – This sumptuous Elisabeth & James dress | goes well with a night at the cabaret.
05 – This 3.1 Phillip Lim dress | goes well with getting your priorities straight .
06 – This playful Love Moschino blouse | goes well with your best friend. [i.e., a dog wearing a large, red bow]
07 – This Maison Martin Margiela dress | goes well with a Whirpool galaxy.
08 – These Maje Jeans and long sleeved shirt | go well with a baguette fight.
09 – This Paul & Joe cardigan | goes well with a dinner of Swedish meatballs.
10 – If you like this William Rast outfit | you might like the open road.
11 – If you like this Tara Jarmon dress, you | might like picnics in the country. [the second image is that of a mother cow and her child grazing in a small backyard yard, seemingly on a bucolic "small farm" in the country]
12 – If you like these Tara Jarmon pants | you might like being a femme fatale.
13 – If you like this Williams Rast outfit | you might also like being a rebel.
14 – If you like this Zadig & Voltaire top | you might also like a wild night out.
15 – These Maje Jeans | go well with a ride on the Highway to Hell.
16 – This Paul&Joe jacket | goes well with a girl’s best friend. [i.e., diamonds and other shiny baubles]
17 – If you like this Zadig & Voltaire knitwear | you might like being a little bit spooky.
18 – If you mike this Tara Jamon dress | you’ll like a little bit of mystery. [the second image is of a black horse with inflated black balloons obscuring her head]
19 – If you like this Zadig & Voltaire vest | you might like this very expensive diamond skull.
20 – This gorgeous Elisabeth&James top | goes well with a late afternoon ride on this schwable.

(Slide 9 includes an image of animal exploitation, whereas slide 6 is suggestive of a positive human/nonhuman relationship. Also featuring nonhuman animals, slides 11 and 18 are a bit more ambiguous.)

Woman, Shoes and Bags

01 – This 3.1 Phillip Lim bag | goes well with a perfect shade of red lips.
02 – This Marc by Marc Jacobs bag | goes well with your own private transportation. [i.e., a horse]
03 – This uber-slick Australia Luxe Collective | goes well with a stylish boyfriend.
04 – If you like this Dr. Martens | you might also like digging for gold.
05 – This Pierre Hardy boot | goes well with a walk under the clouds.
06 – This Marc by Marc Jacobs lace up boot | goes well with a quiet boat ride with friends. [on what looks like a fishing boat?]
07 – This velvety smooth Australia Luxe Collective boot | goes well with a midnight rendezvous.
08 – If you like this Pierre Hardy sneaker | you’ll like the new General Elektriks album.

(Slides 2 and 6 include images of what could be interpreted as animal exploitation.)

Trigger warning: while the picture primarily rests on the narrator’s face, there are a few brief flashes of disturbing images, including a “downed” cow and a “dairy” cow suffering from mastitis. You can listen to the audio alone if this is likely to upset you.

This video made the rounds on Facebook a few weeks back, and – while I meant to post it right away – I wanted to transcribe the audio first, so that those who can’t view the vid can at least get its gist. So if I seem late out of the gate, that’s why.

This is a short but powerful piece; whereas one vegan described it as

Angry and strident, but well-done and packs a wallop.

and, in the same breath,

Likely counterproductive for viewers over, say, age 20, but perfect for pissed off teens.

(let head-scratching commence), this 32-year-old begs to differ. Angry and strident, yes; but also a heart-wrenching appeal to our shared kinship with nonhuman animals – who, like us, love and care for their families; experience a wellspring of emotions, including pain, fear, joy and empathy; and are traumatized by the unceasing bodily violations to which they are subjected in the name of convenience and privilege. A mother is a mother is a mother. Sisters, us all.

In my estimation, this is a message that only becomes more powerful and potent with age.

###

You’ve got something that I want. And do you know what I’m going to do to get it?

I’m going to confine you in a rape rack and I’m going to forcibly impregnate you. I’ll likely confine you afterwards.

Then, when your baby’s born, I’m gonna kill it. Then I’m gonna take what I wanted from you.

I’m going to hook you up to a machine that’s going to suck your secretions from you until you bleed. You’ll likely get infections. Your body will swell with puss from where the machines have been sucking you. And after a while, you’ll be so sore that you won’t be able to walk.

Then I’m going to market your secretions as a “product.”

I’m going to tell everyone that if they want to be healthy and strong, they must drink your secretions.

I’m going to put posters up in schools.

I’m going to tell parents that if they want their children to grow up big and strong, then they must feed your secretions to them.

I’m going to make your secretions part of the standard food pyramid, so that everyone will accept that drinking your bloody, puss-filled secretions is healthy for them.

I’ll add addictive flavors and sugars to make people drink more and more of your secretions.

I’ll make them love it.

I’m going to make it so ingrained into their culture that anyone who argues that drinking your secretions isn’t healthy is deemed as “crazy.”

You know that this is blatant violation of your rights to your own body – but I’m going to call it “farming.” “Dairy farming.”

And you know why I’ll get away with it?

Because you look different from me.

And you can only moo.

###

Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet by Bill McKibben (2010)

Let’s start with Bill McKibben’s eaarth, which is by far the more radical of the two books. eaarth opens with a terrifying premise: that, when it comes to climate change, humanity has already altered the earth’s environment to the point of no return. For the bulk of human existence, the level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere has remained somewhat stable at 275 parts per million (ppm). Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels have been on the rise, as has been scientific debate over its safest uppermost concentrations. Initially, 550 ppm was the supposed ceiling; in 2007, climatologist Jim Hansen identified 350 ppm as the “safe number.” This is problematic to say the least, as currently the planet has almost 390 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if we drastically reduce emissions overnight (an impossibility, both practically and politically speaking), we’ve already reached the tipping point; our home’s climate is changing, and for the worse.

“Worse,” anyhow, for most of the species that have evolved to live on earth as it was, humans included. The “new earth” – christened “eaarth” by McKibben – will be a planet of much harsher living conditions and more extreme weather patterns; a planet “with dark poles and belching volcanoes and a heaving, corrosive sea, raked by winds, strafed by storms, scorched by heat.” McKibben looks to current climatological trends as indicators of what’s to come: warmer air and water temperatures, melting glaciers and ice caps, rising sea levels, increasingly acidic oceans, more powerful storms, prolonged droughts, a decrease in biodiversity and corresponding increase in invasive “pest” species – all of these phenomenon are interconnected and influence one another in myriad ways; sometimes unpredictable, almost always tragic.

I’m no climate scientist, so I can’t speak to the veracity of McKibben’s predictions – but the data presented in eaarth (buttressed by 25 pages of end notes) certainly makes for a striking argument. If nothing else, McKibben clearly demonstrates the degree to which seemingly disparate natural occurrences are interdependent; a change in one aspect of the earth’s climate affects all others. Human-driven climate change is real, and it’s really happening. Even if you accept this as a scientific truth, however, McKibben’s solution will be hard to swallow (not that you’ll necessarily have a choice, mind you).

In the second half of eaarth, McKibben shares his vision of a new way of life for a new planet. Though he doesn’t describe it in so many words, McKibben’s eaarth strikes me as somewhat anarchist in nature, marked by a number of small, mostly self-sufficient city states functioning under a shared moral code or social contract.* (It’s hard to pin down this new society exactly, as MicKibben doesn’t elaborate on such minor details as systems of government or human rights. I guess those things will just…work themselves out? Sarcastic, who me?) Rather than “regressing” to older ways of life, McKibben sees us living lightly on this changed planet by retaining some necessary and beneficial aspects of our current culture (e.g., the internet, new energy technology) and discarding those which are unnecessary and unsustainable (most of our current, bloated economy, including but not limited to the entertainment industry. No word on traveling bards, fwiw.)

Of course, the most obvious contributors to climate change – energy (i.e., fossil fuels) and food (particularly animal agriculture) – merit a drastic overhaul in this new world. Conservation coupled with a transition to renewable energy can make us energy independent, while a switch from industrial “factory” farming – necessarily reliant on the input of petroleum-based chemicals and focused on short-term gains – to farming that’s small, local, organic and works with nature rather than against it, will provide us with healthy food and a healthier environment: for the people, by the people.

Naturally, this next agricultural revolution must involve a significant shift toward a plant-based diet. While purveyors of local / organic / free-range / “happy” meat (and milk and eggs) would have you believe otherwise, animals exploited (I’m sorry, “raised”) sustainably simply cannot provide enough animal-based foodstuffs for us all, and certainly not in the volumes to which we’ve become accustomed. Sustainability isn’t just about you; it’s about all of us humans – all seven billion and counting. Animal agriculture requires a massive input of resources – energy, land, water, plants – and results in a relatively small return in food. Eaarth will not support such a system, even by McKibben’s own (speciesist) account.

Not that McKibben would have us all become vegans, nosiree! While he’s able to accept that animal flesh and secretions will become a rare delicacy on eaarth, McKibben is reluctant to give up his sirloin steak altogether. In light of the other proposals set forth in eaarth, forgoing the occasional glass of milk or chicken breast seems a downright conservative “sacrifice” to make. And yet, even as he argues in favor of a radical restructuring of human society, McKibben stubbornly refuses to welcome nonhuman animals – our friends and neighbors on this new planet – into his moral circle. Such is the degree to which human exceptionalism has poisoned our consciousness. It may not be in our best interests to enslave, slaughter and exploit other animals – but we reserve the right to do so, dammit!

To this end, McKibben spends quite a bit of time praising small-time animal exploiters. The many scribbles, underlining, explanation points of outrage, and all-caps commentary – most of which reads simply “YUCK!” – that you can find in the later chapters of my copy of eaarth speak to the disgust I felt at McKibben’s shameless displays of speciesism. Establishing a nonprofit to encourage meat and chicken farming?** “Swine clubs” in which pigs are kept in drained swimming pools? Livestock mortality composting? Yuck, yuck, yuck.

In the forward to Diet for a Hot Planet, McKibben writes, “Three times a day, we’re reminded of what is, and what could be.” Indeed.

As long as we’re rebuilding society, why not create a more compassionate world for all? Now that’s a truly radical idea.

Three out of five stars, with one star deducted each for speciesism and a failure to explore this new eaarth beyond the bounds of food.

Diet for a Hot Planet: The Climate Crisis at the End of Your Fork and What You Can Do about It by Anna Lappé (2010)

In Diet for a Hot Planet, Anna Lappé also looks at agriculture’s contribution to climate change. In contrast to McKibben’s eaarth, Diet for a Hot Planet’s comparatively narrow focus results in a more cohesive and comprehensive discussion of the topic. Unfortunately, like eaarth, it too is riddled with speciesism.

From farm to plate and everywhere in between, Diet for a Hot Planet identifies and examines the many unsustainable aspects of our food production and distribution systems. This necessarily involves standardization, industrialization, waste, pollution, and – perhaps above all else – a dependence on fossil fuels, resulting in a glut of energy-dense foods. (It’s all connected, yo!) As McKibben notes in the forward, “[T]he entire industrial food system essentially ensures that your food is marinated in crude oil before you eat it.”

In order to compensate for the degradation of soil quality, farmers have moved away from crop rotation and the use of leguminous crops (which bind with atmospheric nitrogen) to the over/use of synthetic, petroleum-based fertilizers and animal waste (which may solve the problem of soil fertility in the short-term, but actually exacerbate it in the long run). Food travels across countries and around the globe before reaching our dinner tables, requiring the use of fuel and attendant carbon emissions. Consumers travel by car to supermarkets and groceries – many of which are concentrated in the suburbs – to buy this food, most of which is heavily processed. (Not even the fruits and veggies escape such a fate: about half of the vegetables consumed in the U.S. are canned, frozen or dried!) In anticipation of our patronage, grocers store perishable items in massive, continuously-powered refrigerators and freezers – some of which consist of open cases. (Explain that one to your ten-year-old!)

As if this isn’t appalling enough, roughly 27% of our edible food is wasted – simply thrown away – at both the individual and institutional levels. As Lappé points out, most of this waste finds its way not into compost piles, but the garbage; some municipalities report that food waste represents 50% of the contents discarded into their landfills. Instead of feeding people or nourishing the soil, this uneaten food becomes waste – waste that’s the second-largest source of methane, next only to enteric fermentation (read: animal agriculture).

And then we have the most egregious offender of them all: meat, eggs and dairy. In Lappé’s own words,

[L]ivestock production is one of the biggest contributors to the country’s greenhouse-gas emissions, both from pastures and from feed-crop production, from smallholder farms to large-scale ranchers to multinational corporations. The deforestation driven by pastureland and cropland is only one reason livestock contribute so much to global warming, as we’ll see.

Globally, livestock account for as much as 18 percent of all global greenhouse-gas emissions, according to the U.N. study mentioned earlier. That figure includes almost one tenth of carbon emissions, more than one third of methane, and roughly two thirds of nitrous oxide. (Livestock is responsible for other polluting emissions as well, including two thirds of all human-made ammonia.) (p. 19)

Yet, like McKibben, Lappé simply isn’t able to imagine in world in which humans don’t retain their supremacy over nonhuman animals:

All told, 70 percent of all agricultural land in the world is tied up with livestock production. But livestock don’t need to cause such ecological harm. Traditionally and still today, in much of the world, livestock have been integrated into diverse farms and their communities, playing a range of roles: providing companionship, manure to enrich soils, muscle for farm work, and as a source of protein as meat. [...L]ivestock can be an integral component of sustainable systems. Well-managed livestock can even nurture the land. All that stomping and tromping helps to press seeds into the earth, fostering plant growth. The action of hooves on the ground can also break up the soil, allowing in more oxygen and improving soil quality. Today’s self-described “carbon farmers” are adopting these proven practices and mimicking time-honored grazing methods to increase carbon content in the soil. (p. 19)

While I agree that nonhuman animals “can be an integral component of sustainable systems,” I don’t understand why humans must enslave them in order to realize this. Nor can I comprehend why a diet comprised of no meat is so much harder for Lappé, McKibben & Co. to swallow than one involving a serving of meat once every few weeks or months. Lappé (daughter of Frances Moore Lappé, a longtime vegetarian and author of Diet for a Small Planet) describes herself as an “on and off” vegetarian since her teen years – so you’d think she’d know better than to, say, categorize nonhuman animals as “plants.” Then again, perhaps the “and off” part explains it.

All snark aside, as with eaarth, a good deal of Diet for a Hot Planet is devoted to celebrating small, local, organic farmers – including those who make a buck off the bodies of others. While Lappé does at least broach the idea of vegetarianism – according to my notes, McKibben only mentions the v-word (vegan) once and, if I remember correctly, it’s to make a very unfunny joke at our expense – it’s in a rather wishy-washy, noncommittal way that’s guaranteed to have abolitionists rolling their eyes. Sandwiched between the glorified animal exploitation, however, sits a wealth of facts and figures, tables and numbers, including some original reporting by Lappé. Additionally, she tackles a number of common myths surrounding climate, industrial agriculture – and biotechnology’s ability to save us from the perils of each.

If you can get past the speciesism, both books are interesting reads. Whereas eaarth is more thought-provoking in its subversiveness, Diet for a Hot Planet leaves the reader with the information necessary to counter climate change skeptics and corporate apologists for our existing food industries.

Three out of five stars, with two stars deducted for speciesism – including Lappé’s inability to promote a plant-based diet without objectifying nonhuman animals.

Updated to add: I posted variations of these reviews on Amazon and Library Thing; if you enjoyed them and are so inclined, please click on through and vote them as helpful, mkay?

eaarth: Amazon | Library Thing

Diet for a Hot Planet: Amazon | Library Thing

————-

* That said, my first and last introduction to anarchism was Bob Torres’s Making A Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights, which is equally short on the specifics in regards to building anarchistic societies. While an interesting read, in trying to present the case for veganism to anarchists – and anarchism, to vegans – Torres necessarily abbreviates both discussions, to the detriment of each. (imho, anyhow.) Making a Killing piqued my curiosity, but I haven’t had the opportunity to follow up on the topic as of yet. So I could be completely off-base in identifying McKibben as an advocate for anarchism, is what I’m saying.

** As if, um, chickens aren’t also animals and thus included under the rubric “meat”?

In this someecard, a woman sits at a dining table, seemingly ashamed as two older men berate her. The remnants of the night’s meal, including what looks like a bird corpse, scatter the tabletop. The caption reads, “Your Tufurkey has brought shame to this family.”
——————————

As with several holidays past (most notably, Mother’s Day), I spent some of yesterday sending out Thanksgiving-related tweets. Most of these focused on the 45-48 million turkeys who were enslaved, slaughtered, dismembered and consumed in order to “show thanks” for [insert your irony here: friends? family? freedom? life?]. A few also addressed the racist and colonialist origins of the holiday. (Such a Debbie Downer, I am. Errr, make that Kelly Killjoy.)

For those of you who don’t follow me on twitter, I’ve included a digest of yesterday’s tweets. There’s lots of interesting reading there – some of which I linked to in yesterday’s edition of Friday Food – so enjoy!

Perhaps you’ll join me in tweeting the next problematic holiday or observance? It’s a surprisingly satisfying – and relatively simple – form of protest, though I’m not sure whether it has any practical effect beyond the personal. But hey, it made me feel a teensy bit better. That counts for something, right?

Oh, and at the end of the digest is a snarky little video from Sarah Silverman and the folks at Funny or Die: Sarah Silverman’s ThanksKILLING Special. “God bless America, and its greedy, self-righteous heritage.” Definitely check it out, even if you’re already familiar with the story of how Silverman became a vegetarian.

• Edna Byrd: “Memoir of a Wild Turkey” bit.ly/dKZCOo #happythanksgiving www.govegannow.com #
• Rethinking Tradition from jenna @ LOVE bit.ly/fTDhlt #happythanksgiving #
• Our #Turkey Celebration at Catskill Animal Sanctuary by Kathy Stevens huff.to/g4sd32 #happythanksgiving #govegan #
• Ian's Crossing @ Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary bit.ly/haV2Sk This #Thanksgiving remember him. www.govegannow.com #
• #Thanksgiving and Tradition by @thevegblog bit.ly/fSi4zl #happythanksgiving #
• #Thanksgiving and #Turkeys by @DorisLin @ About.com bit.ly/erANPN #happythanksgiving #
• Will your #Thanksgiving be a gentle one? www.gentlethanksgiving.org Go #vegan now, friends. www.govegannow.com #
• A Tale of Two Turkeys by Karen Davis @upcnews bit.ly/fyYTQA #happythanksgiving #
• RT @GuerillaMonk #Thanksgiving Celebrating The Genocide Of Native Americans bit.ly/hWBjOn #p2 #indigenous #
• #Thanksgiving Boycott by Peace Chicken bit.ly/fPYSTt #happythanksgiving www.govegannow.com #
• The Turkey in America by Karen Davis @upcnews bit.ly/dEzf2H #happythanksgiving #
• RT @liberationbc: Animal Person: On Individuals and Thanksgiving bit.ly/hA9RSN #happythanksgiving #
• A Mother Turkey and Her Young – “Their Kind and Careful Parent” bit.ly/er9XXx #happythanksgiving #
• Turkeys: Who are They? by Karen Davis @upcnews bit.ly/gcsevp #happythanksgiving #govegan #loveturkeysdonteatthem #
• Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs: A #vegan #feminist book review, w/ (#veganmofo) recipes! bit.ly/hqYPnh #happythanksgiving #
• Black Thursday: The Plight of the Turkeys by @WoodstockFarm bit.ly/ef9PNF #happythanksgiving #govegan #
• RT @VeganMudblood Checked your human privilege lately? tiny.cc/bh7k9 #vegan #feminism #
• Tonight’s #veganmofo #thanksgiving dinner: Tofurky pizza, frozen apple pie & @So_Delicious ice cream. Lazy, who me? #
• RT @quarrygirl VEGANS: send me your vegan thanksgiving pix and i will post them on the blog!!!!!! quarrygirl@gmail.com (please RT) #
• To My Friends at #Thanksgiving by @mary_martin bit.ly/gfZmHu #happythanksgiving www.govegannow.com #
• “We Should All Be So Lucky” from Stephanie @AntiOppression bit.ly/ifrEpx #happythanksgiving www.govegannow.com #
• Why #turkeys RULE! from @vegansaurus bit.ly/gJCCi3 #happythanksgiving www.govegannow.com #
• #Vegan #Thanksgiving Menu Suggestions from I Eat Trees: bit.ly/filqWi #veganmofo #happythanksgiving #
• This #Thanksgiving sponsor a #turkey instead of eating one. May I suggest Amelia? bit.ly/g3S3h0 #
• What We're Thankful For @ Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary bit.ly/ePamKa #happythanksgiving #
• A #Vegan #Thanksgiving: The 2010 Version from @thevegblog bit.ly/e8Mfa4 #veganmofo #
• Another View on "Turkey Day" by Delisa Renideo bit.ly/eJTXV3 #HappyThanksgiving #
• #Vegan #Thanksgiving Ideas from C'est La Vegan bit.ly/fI7rWx #veganmofo #happythanksgiving #
• Walle’s Shadow by Marji @AntiOppression bit.ly/eWBjyk No exploitation is good exploitation. #happythanksgiving #govegan #
• A Tribute to #Turkeys by Karen Davis @upcnews bit.ly/dEP2vL #happythanksgiving www.govegannow.com #
• […] Also: my friends & family, human & non; animal sanctuaries; @daiyacheese; heroines, real & imagined; & ZOMBIES! #happythanksgiving #
• Today & always, I’m thankful for vegan-feminists (w/special emphasis on the lack of space between). #happythanksgiving […] #
• #Vegan #Thanksgiving Menu Ideas: A Cornucopia of Recipes from/for a Happy Healthy Life bit.ly/av0g5O #veganmofo #happythanksgiving #
• #Thanksgiving without blinders by #Vegan #Feminist Agitator bit.ly/dW0aJy #happythanksgiving www.govegannow.com #
• Try a DIY #vegan roast this #Thanksgiving Tempeh Roulade en Croute @ VegSpinz: bit.ly/93DFqu #veganmofo #happythanksgiving #
• Sarah Silverman's ThanksKILLING Special @funnyordie: bit.ly/gs3Y82 "God bless America & its greedy, self-righteous heritage." #
• #Frugal #Thanksgiving #Recipes (in 4 Parts) from MELOMEALS: #VEGAN FOR $3.33 bit.ly/fsaMu4 #
• Friday Food (on a Thursday Holiday): Season Finale! bit.ly/gwdvdZ #veganmofo #happythanksgiving #vegan #

Two holiday-themed Bizarro strips.
In the first, a group of turkeys looks on in horror and disgust as a farmer, clad in the requisite red flannel, hauls two of their terrified brethren from the barn, seemingly for slaughter. Two turkeys in the foreground discuss this all-too-predictable turn of events: “This is all about ‘thanks.’ Next month, the massacre starts all over again in the name of ‘peace on Earth.’”
The second strip shows a turkey angel visiting with a reindeer, who looks a little mopey despite the festive bells slung around his neck. The wizened turkey advises, “I’m just saying, WATCH YOUR BACK. I was a holiday icon too, & look what happened to me.
Images copyright Dan Piraro.
——————————

I realize that a review of an animal rights book isn’t wholly in keeping with the theme of veganmofo; so, to compensate, I’ve included a number of yummy, egg- and bird-free recipes at the bottom of this post. Hopefully this will help drive home that point that the atrocities described in Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs are 1000% unnecessary while also placating the veganmofo goddesses! (No smiting of my person, mkay? Nevermind that I also have a blog named Smite Me!)

Out of respect for my fellow mofo’ers, I’ve purposefully omitted any visual representations of animal exploitation from this post, so you can scroll through without worry.

Or, if you’d rather not read the review, you can jump straight to the recipes!

Book Review: Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs: An inside look at the modern poultry industry by Karen Davis (1996; revised 2009)

[FYI: you can download a pdf copy of the first edition here. Also, by way of disclaimer, I received a free review copy of this book from the the publisher, The Book Publishing Company. As in, nearly a year ago. Slow, who me?]

In the United States, nearly 10 billion chickens are slaughtered every year; worldwide, the number is 40 billion and growing, as agribiz continues to export America’s extremely unhealthy, meat-laden diet – as well as its industrialized method of animal “farming” – to developing nations. At any given time, 5 billion hens “live” in battery cages on American “farms,” so that their bodies may be exploited for eggs. Because male chicks are an unwanted byproduct of this system, 250 million of them are discarded – suffocated, gassed, ground up or merely thrown out, alive – annually.

While chickens – hens, roosters and chicks; mothers, fathers and children – represent the single most exploited species of farmed animals, they receive perhaps the least consideration. More chickens are enslaved and slaughtered per year than cows, pigs, sheeps and goats combined – and yet, along with cold-blooded mammals such as reptiles, chickens and other birds are not even considered “animals” under the U.S. Animal Welfare Act. (Granted, animals farmed for food and fiber are also not covered under the AWA, but this is perhaps small consolation, as they still fall under the rubric of “animals.”) Perhaps it’s their “alien” faces, what with rigid beaks where expressive mouths “should” be, but humans seem to have more trouble empathizing with chickens and birds than other farmed animal species, such as pigs and cows (who, of course, receive less consideration than “pet” species, such as dogs and cats).

In the intro to Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs, Karen Davis – founder and director of United Poultry Concerns (UPC) – reports that, when she first became involved in advocating on behalf of chickens in the late 1980s, these beautiful and abused creatures were largely overlooked in animal welfare and rights campaigns:

I was told by some that people weren’t “ready” for chickens. This proved to be false. The point, in any case, was to make people ready.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of folks like Davis, chickens are now central to the vegan and anti-factory farming movements. Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs – first published in 1996 and revised in 2009 – provides an accessible and compressive, if horrifying and hard-to-read, overview of industrialized chicken egg and “meat” production. (Something similar is sorely needed for fishes and other “seafood,” who seem to be the chickens and birds of this decade. But I digress.)

What with a 19-page reference list and copious quotations culled from industry publications and decades-old news clippings, Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs is meticulously researched and brimming with information. I’d hoped to include a list of talking points or key facts, but the sheer breadth and detail makes this nearly impossible. (That, and I’m not exactly about brevity, as regular readers well know!) Instead, let’s take this summary chapter by chapter, shall we?

Mayfly. The sole survivor of a school hatching project, Mayfly was rescued by Farm Sanctuary in 2002 and lived out his life in safety at its New York shelter. Sadly, he passed away last winter. You can read more about Mayfly on Farm Sanctuary’s website,
and view more pictures of this beautiful bird on Flickr.
Image copyright Farm Sanctuary; all rights reserved.
——————————

Davis begins the discussion by tracing the human-chicken relationship to its roots; namely, back to the jungle fowl living in Southeast Asia thousands of years ago. Although our treatment of chickens has not changed qualitatively – humans have always exploited chickens for their meat and eggs (and fought them for entertainment) – it has undergone a dramatic shift in scope. With the advent of the modern factory farm in the 1950s, the environment and numbers in which we “kept” chickens transformed. Instead of outdoor pens that at least accommodated the chickens’ natural behaviors (e.g., roosting), farmers – and, later, agribusiness – began to house chickens in massive, filthy, crowded sheds that housed hundreds of thousand of birds at a time. When a chicken’s natural constitution proved inconvenient to a farmer (and his bottom line), the solution was to force the chicken’s body to conform to its unnatural environment, rather than change the environment to suit the individual or species. Enter: debeaking, starvation (i.e., forced molting), blackouts, the overuse of antibiotics and artificial insemination. From “animal” to “machine.”

Like most books that describe an animal exploitation industry, Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs is arguably feminist in nature – inasmuch as the abuses necessitated by such systems are gendered and rely on continued rape and forced pregnancy and birth. (Culminating, almost always, with the interruption and severing of the mother-child bond.) However, Davis – a previous contributor to at least one ecofeminist anthology, and author of The Holocaust & the Henmaid’s Tale: A Case for Comparing Atrocities – goes a step further, weaving various feminist and otherwise intersectional anecdotes and analyses into the text.

Consider, for example, the following excerpts from Chapter 1:

Most of us know deep inside that we are members of a single family of living creatures, yet many people resist this knowledge and its implications. Evolution is accepted, but the sentiment of kinship still struggles to evolve. (pp. 17-18)

Before the Second World War, women were the primary caretakers of poultry in the United States. According to American Poultry History, many men felt it was beneath them to “spend their time fussing with a lot of hens.” Mrs. W. B. Morehouse told a Wisconsin’s Farmers’ Institute audience in 1892, “A good many of the masculine gender tell us that it will so lower their dignity as to actually become a poultry keeper.” On most farms, the housewife and children looked after the flock, using the pin money received to buy groceries. [...] However, as poultry-keeping changed from a small farm project to a major business enterprise, it wasn’t long until, as one woman put it, “my” flock became “our” flock and ultimately “his” flock. (pp. 7-8)

The morality of forcing human beings to subsist in an alien environment to serve economic objectives was analyzed by Karl Marx in terms that provide insight into the experience of chickens shunted into human-created environments that are alien to their nature. Marx described four interrelated aspects of alienation: from the product [or from their own products], from the productive activity, from the species life, and from nature. We can look at chickens and other captive animals from a similar viewpoint. (p. 12)

This – the kinship between humans and chickens, and hens and women – is a theme Davis returns to throughout the book, with heartbreaking results.

A hen stands watch over her three chicks. Photo taken in Guatemala.
CC image via Flickr user Dave Wilson Photography.
——————————

Before moving on to the pitiable “living” conditions of “laying” hens and “battery” chickens, and the horrific death common to them all, Davis describes the family, social and emotional and intellectual lives of hens, roosters and chicks in loving and lovely detail. For generations, hens have been utilized as a symbol of motherhood and the maternal instinct, and for good reason – hens are protective, devoted and brave mothers.

An annoyed hen will confront a pesky young rooster with her hackles raised and run him off! Although chickens will fight fiercely and successfully with foxes and eagles to protect their family, with humans such bravery usually does not win. A woman employed on a breeder farm in Maryland wrote a letter to the newspaper berating the defenders of chickens for trying to make her lose her job, threatening her ability to support herself and her daughter.

For her, “breeder” hens were “mean” birds who “peck your arm when you are trying to collect the eggs.” In her defense of her life and her daughter’s life against the champions of chickens, she failed to see the comparison between her motherly protection of her child and the exploited hen’s courageous effort to protect her own offspring. (pp. 28-29)

Likewise, while polygamous, roosters form deep bonds with their mates and are an integral part of the family unit.

Most striking is Davis’s description of the egg (and embryonic development occurring within); even if you slept through high school biology, it’s hard not to be impressed by how complicated this seemingly simple process/product really is. You’ll never look at an egg – or a mother hen – the same way again.

Intertwined with the wonder of chicken birth are the horrors of school hatching projects and commercial egg hatcheries – the largest of which might “produce” two million chicks per week. The conditions into which these babies are born stand in stark contrast to the loving comfort of a mother’s wing. This is but a prelude for what’s to come next.

An ex-battery hen; one of hundreds rescued
by Brinsley Animal Rescue in Brinsley, Nottingham.
CC image via Flickr user 東京へ行きましょう.
——————————

“Battery” or “laying” hens are essentially female chickens enslaved and exploited for their eggs. These hens are commonly “housed” in a cage measuring 15-16″ high x 12″ deep x 18-20″ wide – with five to ten hens per cage. Cages stacked one on top of another in seemingly endless rows result in anywhere from 150,000 to 380,000 “layers” in a single building, and up to 2 to 5 million birds in a multi-building complex. Hens may live this way anywhere from one to two years, until their bodies are “spent” and no longer able to produce the desired number of eggs – at which time they are unceremoniously slaughtered or simply discarded. Because their flesh is sub-par, meat from “battery” hens often winds up in

chicken soups, pies, and nuggets, commercial mink and pet food, livestock and poultry feed, and school lunches and other institutionalized food service and government purchase programs designed by the egg industry and the Department of Agriculture to dump dead laying hens onto consumers in diced up form.

Since their “purpose” is to produce eggs and not meat, the bodies of “battery” hens undergo brutal exploitation; so many essential nutrients are diverted toward egg production that their skeletons become brittle and prone to breakage.

Hens living in these unnatural, unsanitary and physically and psychologically stressful conditions are prone to a number of other maladies, including:

* foot and leg deformities (from a life spent standing on sloping, rectangular metal wire);
* cellulitis or “swollen head syndrome”;
* osteoporosis – the loss of bone tissue resulting in weak and brittle bones – also caged layer “fatigue”;
* caged layer “hysteria” or “fear” (a “diagnosis” which essentially pathologizes a normal and understandable reaction; see below);
* fatty liver syndrome;
* Salmonella poising (spread by rodent droppings);
* manure and ammonia “burn”;
* coccidosis (caused by coccidia, a parasite that’s normally present in the gut and not harmful under natural conditions);
* cannibalism (a result of overcrowding, hunger and stress);
* acute and chronic pain and an inability to eat, leading to starvation, due to “improper” debeaking (which is itself an industry “solution” to cannibalism and hen-on-hen attacks);
* heat stress;
* mouth ulcers;
* psychological distress and disorder caused by the stifling of a hen’s natural instincts, including nesting and dustbathing; and
* a general susceptibility to disease

Additionally, starvation in the form of “forced molting” is not only acceptable, but standard industry practice, meant to eke out an extra laying cycle or two from a nearly-”spent” flock:

The U.S. poultry and egg industries use food deprivation and nutrient restriction as an economic tool to manipulate egg production in commercial laying hens and in male and female birds used for breeding of both egg-type and meat-type birds. In the United States, hens used for commercial egg production are depopulated at seventeen or eighteen months old, or they are kept for another laying cycle and depopulated at two years old. The dwindling number of survivors may even be kept for a third cycle until they are two and a half years old, and then destroyed, whichever is cheaper.

Birds to be re-used are force-molted – “recycled” – to prepare them for the next laying cycle. In this procedure, they are partially or completely starved for two to five to fourteen days or longer to give them a “rest.” Their food is removed or nutritionally reduced, causing the hormone levels that induce egg production and inhibit feather growth to drop. New feathers push out old ones ["molting"], and the hen stops laying for one or two months instead of four. [...]

Poultry researchers invent, duplicate, and refine starvation and nutrient-reduction methods in experiments designed for commercial use and to perpetuate research. The three main methods of forced molting are (1) elimination or limination of food and/or water, (2) feeding the birds low-nutrient diets deficient in protein, calcium, or sodium, and (3) administration of drugs and metals including methalibure, enhepton, progesterone, chlormadinone, aluminum, iodine, and zinc. (pp. 75-76)

Davis’s description of egg laying as it transpires in a battery cage is agonizing. In a book filled with horror and suffering, these passages are among those that affected me the most:

The actual laying of the egg is a complex process involving nervous signals from the brain to the muscles of the uterus and vagina, and the influence of hormones released from the posterior pituitary gland. Just as prolactin and other hormones that initiate maternal behavior are the same in both mammals and birds, so the hormones that stimulate muscular contractions in birds are the same ones that stimulate the uterine contractions in mammals leading to birth. This commonality, as noted in The Chicken Book, is one of many biological signals showing that despite evolutionary divergences, “chickens, and ourselves, are still members of a family, and a single family at that, of living creatures.” [...]

If pride and satisfaction are an important part of egg laying in chickens, then the following description of the caged hen’s ordeal may be cited in contrast:

“The frightened battery hen starts to panic as she vainly searches for privacy and a suitable nesting place in the crowded but bare wire cage; then she appears to become oblivious to her surroundings, struggling against the cage as though trying to escape…

“Take a moment to imagine yourself as a layer chicken; your home is a crowded cage with a wire floor that causes your feet to hurt and become deformed; there’s no room to stretch your legs or flap your wings and they become weak from lack of exercise; but at the same time, you can never be still because there is always one of your miserable cell mates who needs to move about; one of the other chickens is always picking on you and you cannot get away – except by letting others sit on top of you; the air is filled with dust and flying feathers that stick to the sides of the cage splattered with chicken shit from the inmates in the cage upstairs; it is hard to breathe – there is the choking stench of ammonia in the air from the piles of manure under the cages and you don’t feel at all well; the flies are unbearable…[E]ventually, despite your wretchedness and anguish, and the tormented din of thousands of birds shrieking their pain together, you lay an egg and watch it roll out of sight; but the joy of making a nest, of giving birth, of clucking your chicks is absent – laying the egg is an empty, frustrating, and exhausting ritual.” (pp. 31-32)

[Excerpt from Old MacDonald's Factory Farm: The Myth of the Traditional Farm and the Shocking Truth About Animal Suffering in Today's Agribusiness, C. David Coats, 1989, pgs. 93-94.]

The laying of an egg has been degraded by the battery system to a squalid discharge so humiliating that ethologist Konrad Lorenz compared it to humans forced to defecate in each others’ presence. (p. 49)

Poultry researchers have described the futile attempts of caged hens to build nests and their frantic efforts to escape the cage by jumping at the bars right up to the laying of the egg. (p. 50)

Also interesting from a feminist perspective is a section on “Caged Layer Hysteria, Fatigue, and Fear” (pp. 52-54) in which Davis describes several afflictions common to layer hens:

Caged layer fatigue is the term that is used to describe the condition of osteoporosis – loss of bone tissue – in laying hens kept in cages.

As with humans, osteoporosis in chickens can lead to bone fragility and bone fractures, as well as “an inability to stand” and paralysis.

Related to cage layer fatigue are hysteria and fear. Birds whose bones become paralyzed cannot reach their food and water. Videotapes show hens beating wildly against cage bars, shrieking, and hens with their heads and wings stuck between cage bars, their terror frozen in their faces and their eyes.

In 1981, Klaus Vestergaard cited 84 studies conducted between the 1940s and 1970s on the effect of cage systems versus non-cage systems on frustration, fear, and hysteria responses in laying hens. No matter how “flighty” the genetic stock was, cages produced the worst effects. [...] The studies showed that “hens are more fearful in battery cages than in pens” and “the fear tends to increase with density. Hysteria, which is characterized by sudden wild flight, squawking (fear squawking?), and attempts to hide, has been interpreted as an abnormal fright-fear behaviour.”

More than 20 years later, Commercial Chicken Meat and Eggs Production talks about “emotionality (fearfulness, hysteria)” and fatigue in caged laying hens.

When applied to human females, adjectives like “emotional,” “flighty,” and – especially – “hysterical” are loaded terms with a lengthy history of sexist usage. Consider, for example, this brief summary of “hysteria” from Wiki:

Until the seventeenth century, hysteria was regarded as of uterine origin (from the Greek “hustera” = uterus) in the Western world. Hysteria referred to a medical condition, thought to be particular to women, caused by disturbances of the uterus. The term hysteria was coined by Hippocrates, who thought that suffocation and madness arose in women whose uteri had become too light and dry from lack of sexual intercourse and, as a result, wandered upward, compressing the heart, lungs, and diaphragm. The belief was that hysterical symptoms would emanate from the part of the body in which the wandering uterus lodged itself. Originally defined as “a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus” (“Hysterical”).

The same general definition, or under the name female hysteria, came into use in the middle and late 19th century to describe what is today generally considered to be sexual dysfunction. Typical treatment was massage of the patient’s genitalia by the physician and later vibrators or water sprays to cause orgasm.

“Female hysteria” even has its own entry:

Female hysteria was a once-common medical diagnosis, made exclusively in women, which is today no longer recognized by modern medical authorities as a medical disorder. Its diagnosis and treatment were routine for many hundreds of years in Western Europe. Hysteria was widely discussed in the medical literature of the Victorian era. Women considered to be suffering from it exhibited a wide array of symptoms including faintness, nervousness, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and “a tendency to cause trouble”.

While a comprehensive discussion of sexism in psychiatry, psychology, and medicine is well beyond the scope of this post (if you’re interested, I have written about sexism in personality disorder diagnoses elsewhere), it’s worth noting that descriptors such as “hysterical” and “flighty” are much more likely to be applied to women than men. Indeed, emotionality, nervousness, and fearfulness are all stereotypically “feminine” traits; in this context, it’s worth noting how the hens’ reactions to their oppressive and torturous environment are interpreted and labeled 1) in feminine terms and 2) as somehow dysfunctional (as if you wouldn’t similarly try to escape from a laying cage!). Similarly, women who exhibit anger, fear, upset, complaint, and other “negative” or “unwomanly” emotions may be labeled “hysterical,” “emotional,” “crazy,” or “angry” (or “man-hating feminazis”) – irregardless of whether circumstances warrant such “extreme” emotions.

Chapter 3 concludes with a brief look at “laying” operations outside the United States (specifically, Canada, the European Union, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Australia and New Zealand), including welfare reforms. Though Davis is consistently critical of “organic,” “free range,” and “humane” animal exploitation throughout Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs – and, likewise, UPC promotes veganism rather than vegetarianism or “humane” meat (an oxymoron if ever there was one!) – abolitionists will likely take issue with her begrudging acceptance of welfare reforms in Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs, e.g.:

The battle to liberate hens from battery cages has begun, and it includes all of us. Wherever we are, we are morally obliged to end the oppression. Battery cages should be abolished in the United States and throughout the world. Until they have been discontinued, our species stands condemned of a criminal relationship with the living world. People should boycott battery eggs and discover the variety of egg-free alternatives. (p. 96)

Without digressing into a discussion of my own views on welfare reform, suffice it to say that, while I think most reforms are borderline useless – riddled with loopholes and lack of enforcement as they are – I don’t find all single-issue campaigns necessarily speciesist or reinforcing of other types of oppression. (Ditto: single-issue human rights campaigns.) Really, it depends on the campaign: how it’s devised and framed, the language employed therein, the solutions it posits, the groups it welcomes into its coalition, etc. That said, I rarely if ever volunteer my time or donate my money to such campaigns, though I may support them at the ballot box. (Missouri’s recent Proposition B is a good example of a bill I disliked but voted for anyhow.)

Considering this, I still found Davis’s position on welfare reforms – as voiced in Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs – to be a little confusing at times. Using the above excerpt as an example, Davis advocates in favor of the abolition of battery cages – just 35 pages after dismissing its precursor and likely alternative (i.e., group housing on shed floors) to be equally inhumane and unacceptable. While clearly devices of torture, battery cages aren’t the problem; rather, the human consumption of chicken eggs and “meat” is. Which, of course, can be further attributed to speciesism, anthrocentrism and our general tolerance (encouragement, even) of discrimination and oppression.

“Macro chicken.”
CC image via Flickr user mark lorch.
——————————

Whereas egg production used to be the poultry industry’s primary source of revenue, “broiler” chickens – i.e., chickens raised specifically for their flesh – now dominate the market; in 1992, for example, “meat” was responsible for 61% of the $15 billion total “producer value,” according to Davis.

“Broiler” chicks are birthed in hatcheries, far removed from the hen and rooster who created them. (These animals are held captive in another type of building, coined the “breeder house.” A chick’s mother may outlive him, but not by much; “breeding” chickens are “liquidated” after 40 weeks.) From the time they’re born until the day they’re packed into cages, loaded onto trucks, and transported to the slaughterhouse, these chickens grow and “live” in massive “chicken houses” – sheds or “tunnel housing” – along with tens of thousands of other chickens, as well as the accumulation of their collective waste, which (as with “laying” hens) is only cleaned up when the flock is “depopulated.” Because they have been bred for rapidly accelerated growth, these chickens – babies, really – may be “ready” for slaughter in just over a month.

Like “laying” hens, “broiler” chickens suffer a number of physical diseases and behavioral issues that are a direct result of so-called scientific “advances” in breeding and rearing:

* growth-related mortality: bred for forced rapid growth, the bodies of many “broiler” chickens simply give out, resulting, for example, in congestive heart failure – in babies;
* arthritis and skeletal issues, again due to unnatural, rapid growth and the stress that this excess weight exerts on the body;
* ulcers on the feet and blisters (similar to bed sores) on the legs and breast, which are both painful and invite “bacterial rot”;
* ulcerative and necrotic diseases, such as femoral head necrosis and gangrenous dermatitis;
* orthopedic (bone) disorders, including skeletal abnormalities, such as bowed or twisted legs, bone fractures and fissures, and dislocated vertebrae;
* ascites syndrome (also called “waterbelly” or “leaking liver”), a metabolic disease of the cardiovascular system that often results in sudden death;
* suffocation, either due to computer failure or poor air quality and pollution;
* damage to the respiratory system caused by ammonia, released into the air by the breakdown of manure;
* kertaconjunctivitis, an inflammation and erosion of the eye cornea, also caused by exposure to ammonia;
* aggression and stress caused by overcrowding and a lack of personal space;
* chronic and acute pain; and
* physical and psychological pain due to all of the above

To add insult to injury, “small” (a relative term, no?) and injured birds are “culled” on a regular basis, so as not to “waste” any additional resources on them. Many are just tossed into bins like so much garbage. Likewise, “breeding” hens and roosters undergo blackouts and starvation, and suffer aggression because of confinement and too-early sexual maturity. They also suffer many of the same physical disorders as do their offspring, since they too are bred for morbid obesity. Occasional mass “depopulations” due to avian influenza (BIRD FLU!) scares are actually funded by taxpayer dollars – and sometimes include suffocation by firefighting foam, which under normal circumstances, is a tool used to save lives, not snuff them out.

While it isn’t necessarily the focus of Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs, Davis also points to the negative impact that industrialized chicken egg and “meat” production has on public safety, human health and the environment. No doubt readers are already familiar with many of these; they include:

* workers exposed to unsanitary conditions, particularly sheds reeking of ammonia and other pollutants;
* the feeding of industry waste to farmed animals, possible transmitting communicable diseases from one or more individuals to others, and even potentially across species;
* the processing of diseased and injured animals into “meat” for human consumption;
* the overuse of antibiotics (e.g., as a preventive rather than a treatment, or in lieu of providing chickens with a healthier environment – and bodies – in which to live), leading to bacterial resistance/decreased antibiotic effectiveness, including in humans; and
* the leaching of toxic waste into the environment

As with most social problems, it’s oftentimes marginalized humans who bear the brunt of these inequities.

A young chick looks up to the sky.
CC image via Flickr user Arwen Twinkle.
——————————

Whether kept for eggs, meat or breeding purposes, a chicken’s fate on a farm – even so-called “humane,” “free-range,” and “organic” operations – is the same: an excruciating, early death, usually at the hands of an overworked, underpaid slaughterhouse worker.

The numbers are staggering:

Of the 10.5 billion animals slaughtered in 2006 in federally inspected [U.S.] facilities, 9,252,320,000 were chickens, turkeys, and ducks. Of these, 8,968,916,000 were chickens, including 8,837,755,000 chickens raised for meat. The remaining 131,161 chickens were “spent” fowl, including hens usd to produce eggs for human consumption, and roosters and hens used for breeding. (pp. 131-132)

The beginning of the end starts with the catch and transport of the doomed chickens to the slaughterhouse. Birds are chased, grabbed, thrown, kicked and otherwise manhandled as they are crammed into cages and packed onto trucks. Many chickens suffer broken bones during this ordeal, while others may freeze to death on the truck while it’s being filled – or succumb to the heat during hotter months. These problems only intensify during transport, as the changing conditions inside the truck result in more extreme temperatures, both high and low. Truck accident en route mean more injuries, fatalities and slow deaths by neglect.

What comes next – “dumping, shackling, ‘stunning,’ throat-cutting, bleeding, [and] scalding,” as Davis titles the section on slaughter – will bring tears to your eyes (and, along with the chapter on “laying” hens, gave me nightmares). Suffice it to say that a chicken’s death, much like her life, will not end quickly and with mercy. There’s much waiting around; waiting to die. Waiting while you breathing in the stench of death, pain and fear. The cacophony of one’s terrified neighbors and kin the only thing you hear; the final thing you hear.

“Stunning,” in which a chicken, shackled upside-down and by one leg to a conveyor belt, is “dipped” into an electrified, cold-water bath, is designed to paralyze the bird – not render him unconscious and unable to feel pain, contrary to popular belief. A chicken is awake and aware throughout the entire, hellish ordeal.

Spent “laying” hens sometimes even skip the “stunning” bath, as this could further damage their already frail bodies. Instead, they’re left to thrash in shackles, potentially causing injury to themselves. Other “laying” hens, not deemed “worthy” of the slaughterhouse, might be killed on-site, usually by gassing. As already mentioned, some animals are simply discarded: left to suffocate or be crushed to death in garbage bins; shredded, alive, in wood chippers; or electrocuted. 250 million of these unfortunate souls are newborns, considered worthless because of their male gender.

Nor are chickens the only birds tortured in this way; an estimated 2.3 billion ducks, 691 million turkeys, 533 million geese and 63 million pigeons were farmed and slaughtered worldwide in 2003. On Thanksgiving day alone, Americans consume the corpses of 48 million turkeys (up from 45 million in years past). Although chickens enslaved and exploited in U.S. animal agriculture operations are the focus of Davis’s investigation, as with “laying” hens, she briefly examines the plight of chickens and turkeys farmed for their flesh in Chapters 4 and 5.

True Whitaker spends quality time with the California turkeys at
Farm Sanctuary’s 2008 Celebration FOR the Turkeys.
To adopt a turkey this Thanksgiving, go to www.adoptaturkey.org.
Photo by Connie Pugh for Farm Sanctuary; all rights reserved.
——————————

At a crossroads (we’re always at a crossroads, it seems), we have but two choices: reject the objectification, exploitation and oppression of nonhuman animals, most notably by adopting a vegan diet – or continue down the road we’re on, finding newer and more sadistic ways to profit off the bodies of our fellow earthlings.

To anyone who’s watching, it’s clear where humanity is headed – namely, toward continued exploitation. On the one hand, we have “organic,” “free range” and “humane” egg, milks and meat producers, meant to lull concerned consumers into mindlessly accepting the delusion that enslavement and needless death can ever be anything but cruel and immoral. Here, Davis deftly refutes each of these labels in turn.

Perhaps scarier still are the frontiers currently being forged by agri-science: featherless chickens. De-winging and de-tailing live birds. The introduction of contact lenses to reduce “feed usage.” The breeding of blind chickens. Studies involving the insertion of inflated balloons, shell membranes and tampons into the uteri of hens (!).

Imagining the future of egg production, one engineer described a spectacle that seems ripped from the pages of a Margaret Atwood novel:

“Mature hens will be beheaded and hooked up en masse to industrial-scale versions of the heart-lung machines that brain-dead human beings need a court order to get unplugged from. Since the chickens won’t move, cages won’t be needed. Nutrients, hormones, and metabolic stimulants will be fed in superabundance into mechanically oxygenated blood to crank up egg production to three per day, maybe five or even ten.

“Since no digestive tracts will be needed, it can go when the head goes, along with the heart and lungs and the feathers, too. The naked, headless, gutless chicken will crank out eggs till its ovaries burn out. When a sensor senses that no egg has been dropped within the last four or six hours, the carcass will be released onto a conveyor, chopped, sliced, steamed, and made into soup, burgers, and dog food.” (p. 183)

[Excerpted from "The Future of Eggs" by Robert Burruss; published in The Baltimore Sun on December 29, 1993.]

ChickieNobs, anyone?

Throughout Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs, Davis argues passionately in favor of another future – a future in which we not only recognize but embrace the kinship we share with nonhuman animals. Vegetarianism isn’t enough; in Davis’s words, “milk and eggs are as much a part of an animal as meat is.” (p. 166). Veganism – not just in diet, but worldview as well – is the only way. One cannot profess to “love” animals while exploiting them. And we will never know peace until the killing – of even the “least” among us – stops.

A giant metal chicken, made out of old auto bumpers by Larry Godwin of ARTWORKS of Brundidge Al.
CC image via Flickr user whiteforge.
——————————

Conclusion

I received a review copy of Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs in early 2010. While I read through it rather quickly – it’s an accessible, if disturbing book – this review has literally been six months in the making. Partially, this is because of the sheer volume of information that Davis manages to pack into just 183 short pages – I found it difficult to distill it all down to a short and pat review. Even more so than the amount of detail is its horrific quality; much of Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs reads like something out of the Seventh Circle of Dante’s Inferno.

Only…infinitely worse, because it’s real. It’s happening. Right this very moment, as you sit in your office perusing the ‘net during lunch break, or lounge in bed while a laptop and cat vie for precious lap space, hundreds of millions of “laying” hens remain trapped in their own filth: eyes burning, stomachs empty and cramping, feet aching, skeletons collapsing, hearts and minds crying out for relief, freedom – and their disappeared babies. These are our sisters, suffering; alone and not. For no reason other than that the products of their reproductive systems taste yummy to human palates.

Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs is an exquisitely difficult story to read. And yet, read we must. Davis gives voice to the billions of forsaken chickens that we Americans enslave, exploit, kill and dismember every year. (Even if you do not work in a slaughterhouse or own stock in Tyson, if you consume chickens or their eggs, then yes, you are directly complicit in the suffering described above.) She puts the chicks, roosters and – especially – hens front and center, daring the reader to live their shared experiences, if only vicariously.

Should you ever find yourself face-to-face with a rescued “battery” hen, dear reader, tell me this: will you be able to return her gaze without flinching?

One of many chickens I met on a recent trip to the farmed animal sanctuary
Cracker Box Palace in Alton, NY.
——————————

Further Reading

Davis, Karen. 2001. More than a Meal: The Turkey in History, Myth, Ritual, and Reality. Brooklyn, New York: Lantern Books.
(You can download this book as a free .pdf file here.)

United Poultry Concerns | www.upc-online.org
Many of Davis’s writings, including first editions and excerpts from published books, as well as a number of essays and poems, are available on United Poultry Concern’s website. As a former English professor, Davis’s writing is beautiful, lyrical and heart-wrenching – and tinged by a feminist sensibility that, too often, is missing from animal rights commentary. I can’t recommend her written work highly enough.

“Twisty the rescued egg-laying hen often preferred cat food kibble to chicken feed because her beak deformity made it difficult for her to pick up small bits of chicken food.”
CC image the HSUS on Flickr / Ariana Huemer of Oakland, California.
——————————

Last but not least, I’ve included a variety of egg- and meat-free recipes to demonstrate that a diet devoid of chicken suffering need not be considered a “sacrifice.”

Please note that a much, much shorter version of this review is posted on Amazon and Library Thing. Helpful votes are appreciated; sharing, encouraged!

Today, dear grasshopers, is Blog Action Day – the fourth annual. Held every October 15th, the goal is to focus attention on a given topic via mass participation (this year, the White House is even getting in on the act!). Whereas previous year’s topics have included poverty, the environment and climate change, Blog Action Day 2010 is all about water. Pollution, scarcity, waste – you name it. Water it is.

As I noted last year, pretty much any and every topic under the sun can be tied to veganism and animal advocacy in some way, shape or form. Last year ’twas simple; the consumption of animal flesh and secretions is a major contributor to climate change. So too does our exploitation of nonhuman animals impact water, in myriad ways: waste from animal agriculture operations pollute our waterways; the production of “meat,” eggs and dairy requires the use (waste) of more water than does eating lower down on the food chain; and, by contributing to climate change, animal ag. has a further negative impact on weather patterns, including precipitation. Etc., etc.

Unfortunately, looking at change.org‘s Blog Action Day page, one might not know this. Of its 18 featured post ideas, only one mentions “meat” production, and with little context – only by clicking through to The Water Project’s website does the reader learn of “meat’s” “water cost” relative to, say, an apple. Since most of us consume three meals a day throughout our lives (while only purchasing a new cell phone or pair of jeans sporadically), food should really be a primary focus of this action day as opposed to an afterthought, don’t you think?

Because I’m feeling both lazy and cynical (the former perhaps owing to the latter), I really don’t have the heart to delve too much more into the topic. Luckily, Elaine did, so instead I shall direct you to her post, and leave you with the following tables to consider:

Table: The water cost of food
Source: The Water Project. Click through for a plain-text version.
——————————

Table: Approximate Crop Water Requirements to produce Food Harvested
Source: The world’s water 2000-2001: the biennial report on freshwater resources by Peter H. Gleick.
——————————

Table: Water Used to Produce Some Common Items (#2)
Source: VRG / Chapagain A, Hoekstra A (2004) Water Footprints of Nations Volume One: Main Report. Value of Water Research Report Series No.16. Delft (The Netherlands): UNESCO – IHE Institute for Water Education. Click through for a plain-text version.
——————————

Table: Water Used to Produce some Common Items (#3)
Source: VRG / Chapagain A, Hoekstra A (2004) Water Footprints of Nations Volume One: Main Report. Value of Water Research Report Series No.16. Delft (The Netherlands): UNESCO – IHE Institute for Water Education and Aldaya M, Hoekstra A. (2009) The Water Needed to Have Italians Eat Pasta and Pizza. Value of Water Research Report Series No.36. Delft (The Netherlands): UNESCO – IHE Institute for Water Education. Click through for a plain-text version.
——————————

www.govegannow.com, mkay?

Back in March, Farm Sanctuary came to the rescue of six calves who were left to starve at a farm in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. Some were left tethered to a tractor, while others were found locked in a garage; all were abandoned by their “owner.”* Most likely castoffs of the dairy industry, the calves were weak, frail and sickly and required immediate medical care:

After learning about the suffering calves, Farm Sanctuary immediately launched a rescue effort, and staff drove to pick up the calves halfway between the Pennsylvania farm and our New York Shelter. The calves we greeted were a terrible sight. Their eyes were sunken in from severe dehydration, and they were pale, coughing and extremely weak. They were fighting life-threatening infections, and most were unable to stand on their own. Four of the calves weighed less than they would have at birth, and their prognosis looked grim. Medical care was urgently needed to stabilize the calves, so our rescue team rushed them to the Cornell University Hospital for Animals for critical emergency care.

The following weeks were filled with constant care and anxious waiting as these sickly calves struggled to become well. But slowly, their fragile, battered bodies began to heal, and, in time, each came home from the hospital.

Though their lives began in violence and suffering, these babies are now safe, valued and loved. And in need of a forever home!: Farm Sanctuary is currently looking for one or more individuals to adopt dear Jasper, Sasha, Filipe, Teddy, Amigo and Pancho – as well as Vito and Clancy, two young Holstein steers who managed to escape from their captors before finding Farm Sanctuary. Thanks to Farm Sanctuary (as well as the Hillside SPCA and an anonymous tipster), these someones now have names whereas only numbers hinted at their unique, individual identities before. They are so much more than cogs in a capitalist machine, or producers of milk and flesh. They are sons, brothers, friends.

If you are willing and able to adopt any of these sweethearts (all of whom must be rehomed in pairs), you can find contact information and addition details here.

Faced with a recent influx of farmed animal cruelty cases, Farm Sanctuary is also hoping to expand its Farm Animal Adoption Network (FAAN). FAAN – the website for which I’ve been browsing for years, all whilst fantasizing about tending to my own pack of rescued “food” animals – is a network of individual rescuers who are interested in adopting farmed animals, including cows, pigs, goats, sheep, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese and rabbits. Once you’re accepted into FAAN, your name is entered into a national farmed animal adoption database maintained by Farm Sanctuary, which will match you up with an animal in need. (Think of it as eHarmony for humans and farmed animals – but without the homophobia and credit card fraud!) Potential adopters must be willing to adopt animals in pairs and – I love this part – belong to at least one animal protection organization and adhere to a “vegetarian [or vegan, natch] lifestyle and [demonstrate a] commitment to animal rights.”

Obviously, the need for homes is great, hence Farm Sanctuary’s efforts to grow the program. If you have a home and heart to share, please consider joining FAAN – and spread the word! Download this graphic:

and display it on your website, blog or social media page, linking back to the Farm Animal Adoption Network: www.farmsanctuary.org/rescue/adoption/faqs.html (FYI: I’ve hosted it on Flickr so you can easily download a few different sizes.)

Or use this graphic to let folks know about Jasper, Sasha, Filipe, Teddy, Amigo and Pancho: action.farmsanctuary.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=17601.0&printer_friendly=1

Please and thank you – and stay vegan, friends.

——————–

* A “small,” “family,” “organic” and/or “local” farmer, perhaps? You know the type: the kindly Old MacDonald figure/archetype/myth who treats “his” animals “just like pets” …right up until the day he ships them off to a needless death? But I digress!

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights intersections intersectionality animals and women veal dairy milk farm sanctuary farm animal adoption network faan animal rescue adopt farmed animals factory farming small farmers family farmers video flickr photos cow bovine

Recently, I had the pleasure of reviewing Melanie Joy’s Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism (2010) though the website Basil & Spice. As a former psychology major and vegan of five years (and vegetarian for eight years on top of that), Carnism is right up my alley. Dr. Joy, a social psychologist and animal advocate, deconstructs our “meat culture,” identifying a number of key defense mechanisms that shield Westerners from an uncomfortable reality: how can we claim to “love” and “care for” nonhuman animals, yet enslave, torture, slaughter, dismember, process and consume them to the tune of tens of billions* per year? The answer lies in our carnistic system.

Carnism 101

Carnism, Joy posits, is the invisible belief system (or ideology) that underlies our unthinking consumption of “meat.” We have so internalized this behavior – “meat”-eating – that we do not even recognize it as a choice, but rather blindly accept it as a normal and necessary way of life; “meat” consumption is “just the way it is.” Carnism is the logical counterpart to vegetarianism: just as one can decide not to eat meat, so too is meat-eating a choice. And yet, while the terms “vegetarianism” and “veganism” are part of common parlance, we have no such word for “carnism.” Because the ideology that supports “meat” consumption remains unnamed, it’s seen as something natural, inevitable, existing outside of a belief system. Or it’s not seen at all – it’s invisible. We can avoid thinking about it because we lack the tools (words) with which to talk about it. In naming, there is power. Words matter.

This is, I think, is Carnism‘s greatest strength. With the introduction of one simple, short word, Joy gives us a tool with which to single out our “meat” culture for criticism and critique. “Carnism” unveils the choices behind the curtain – choices which are so incongruous with our innate sense of compassion, Joy argues, that we must go to great lengths to defend these choices from scrutiny. At a macro level, this is called psychic numbing: “we disconnect, mentally and emotionally, from our experience; we ‘numb’ ourselves. [...] Psychic numbing is adaptive, or beneficial, when it helps us to cope with violence. But it becomes maladaptive, or destructive, when it is used to enable violence.”

On both an individual and institutional level, we engage in a number of defense mechanisms that help us to achieve psychic numbing:

1. Denial: Also called “practical invisibility,” denial (as proposed by Joy) is the process by which the horrific realities of “meat” (and egg and dairy) production are literally kept invisible to us. For example, we “grow” billions of chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows, lambs, etc. for food every year; but where are they!? Few of us rarely, if ever, witness these animals grazing the land, rearing their offspring, sunning themselves in the grass or preening in the dirt. But they’re out there: crammed by the tens of thousands into massive, windowless buildings, located in large complexes on the outskirts of town. These animals are trucked to and from slaughter in unmarked vans; their only exposure to the outdoors comes when they await sale or death, on the auction block or at the slaughterhouse. Practically speaking, they remain invisible to us, as does their suffering. Because many of us enjoy eating “meat,” eggs and milk, this is how we like it.

2. Avoidance: The counterpart to denial, avoidance involves “symbolic invisibility”; it is “knowing without knowing.” The animal agriculture industry – with no small amount of help from the other major social institutions, such as the government and news media – feed us ridiculous, transparent lies about “meat” production, and we eagerly gobble them up. “Humane meat” is a joke; labels such as “organic,” “free range,” “grass fed,” etc. are rendered meaningless through industry lobbying and self-policing, and besides, no unnecessary death can ever be called “humane.” While the government has ostensibly established myriad rules regarding food safety, animal welfare, and environmental responsibility, again, these rules remain full of loopholes and usually go unenforced. For example, chickens aren’t considered “animals” under either the Animal Welfare Act or the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. Polluting animal ag. monopolies may be ordered to clean up their fetid shitholes (read: manure-filled lagoons) – but it’s usually the public footing the bill through tax monies.

3. Justification: We use a series of myths in order to convince ourselves of the “justness” of carnism. These myths typically involve the 3 Ns, as Joy refers to them:

Normal – Carnism has become normalized, such that its tenets are social norms. Social norms are both descriptive (telling us how things are now) and prescriptive (dictating to us how things ought to be).

Natural – If something is “natural,” it’s assumed to be “justifiable”: “The way ‘natural’ translates to ‘justifiable’ is through the process of naturalization. [...] When an ideology is naturalized, its tenets are believed to be in accordance with the laws of nature.” “Natural” = “the way things are meant to be.”

Necessary – Closely tied to the supposed “naturalness” of carnism, “meat’s” perceived “necessity” makes it seem inevitable; not a choice. But clearly “meat” consumption is a choice – in industrialized nations, anyhow – as any vegan or vegetarian can attest.

4. Objectification: Via objectification, we reduce living, sentient beings to nothing more than objects; we objectify them. Clearly, a cow is nothing like a television set – but both are considered pieces of property in our “modern,” “civilized” society.

5. Deindividualization: Through deindividualization, we strip animals of their individual identities, viewing them as pieces of a group and nothing more. One individual in the group is thought of as indistinguishable from all the rest; thus, the singular sentient beings become unfamiliar abstractions. (This is why Americans recoil at the thought of eating dog meat; most of us have either lived with or known at least one dog on a personal level. Dogs are individuals, familiars, whereas cows, pigs, fishes and chickens are not.)

8. Dichotomization: Dichotomization involves grouping animals into two distinct, often diametrically opposed, categories: food/not food, cute/ugly, dirty/clean. These categories are usually arbitrary and based on our own prejudices and stereotypes rather than any semblance of reality. Along with objectification and deindividualization, dichotomization allows us to “distance” ourselves from “food” animals at will.

9. Rationalization: To rationalize a behavior is to attempt to provide a rational explanation for a behavior that is, at its core, irrational. Animal agriculture is wasteful, unsustainable, harmful to human health and the environment, and – above all else – inherently cruel to the billions of nonhuman animals who are enslaved and killed for nothing more than human “taste” and “convenience” and corporate profits. Yet, our culture is replete with rationalizations for this most irrational of business and ethical models (for a few dozen examples, see the Defensive Omnivore Bingo cards).

10. Dissociation: Described by Joy as “the heart of psychic numbing,” dissociation is “is psychologically and emotionally disconnecting from the truth of our experience; it is the feeling of not being fully ‘present’ or conscious.” Often times, dissociation is triggered by a traumatic experience, for example, experiencing or witnessing a physical assault. Given that “meat” production involves the assault and murder of tens of billions of sentient beings per year – and “meat”- eating is, literally, the consumption of a once-living, once-feeling individual – it makes sense that the same psychological defense mechanism that protects us from reliving our own distressful experience also shields us from the uncomfortable truth that, with every animal-based meal, we are directly participating in another being’s living (and dying) hell.

A Call to Action

In order to counter carnism, Joy says that we must “bear witness” – that is, make the invisible, visible. At its core, bearing witness involves naming, identifying, and challenging our “meat”-eating culture. This can be as simple as living vegan in a non-vegan world – indeed, for many, veganism is the moral baseline – thus acting as an example of an alternative way of being. Volunteering at or donating to an animal sanctuary, attending protests, writing, photography, art-as-activism, adopting a homeless animal in need, organizing a vegan bake sale, procuring vegan and animal rights books for your local library, raising a compassionate vegan child, engaging in open rescues, shooting undercover footage of a local animal exploitation business – all of these (and more!) are examples of bearing witness. Bearing witness begins – but does not end – on one’s plate.

Carnism: A Review

Since first beginning this review (it’s taken me way too long to finish, I tell you what!), I’ve compiled and posted a sort of “outline” of Carnism on Animal Rights & AntiOppression (see: Carnism: Meat, Deconstructed); the points and comments to which Dr. Joy has kindly responded, so be sure to check it out, if you haven’t already! Additionally, Brittany Shoot – aka, The Biotic Woman – recently interviewed Joy as part of her stint at the Bitch Media Blogs; you can read parts 1 and 2 of the conversation here and here. Many of the questions and criticisms I had after first reading the book are addressed in these two spaces, and the below “pros” and “cons” reflect this accordingly.

First and foremost, I love that Joy ties carnism to similar, human-directed “violent ideologies.” Throughout the text, she gives examples of how denial, avoidance, routinization, justification, objectification, deindividualization, dichotimization, rationalization and dissociation have been – are being – used to support sexist, misogynist, racist, anti-Semitic, nationalist, and colonialist systems of oppression. In my outline of Carnism, I urge the reader to think of additional examples, beyond those offered by Joy. Hopefully, Joy’s inclusion of intersectionality in Carnism will spur her audience to make these connections for themselves, in their everyday lives. Once you open your eyes and your mind to the idea that all oppressions are linked at a root or cellular level, these intersections become evident everywhere. Perhaps this can prove a useful route to veganism for unrepentant speciesists who insist on placing humans at the top of their hierarchy? (i.e., rather than persuade them to reorder their hierarchy, demonstrate why it’s in their own best interests to dismantle the system altogether.)

Similarly, the concept of the book itself – naming carnism – is both useful and timely. Admittedly, I approached Carnism with a touch of skepticism – what is carnism, how does it differ from speciesism (if at all), and why do we need two separate terms for what seem like the same/similar concepts? However, my doubt quickly turned to excitement; while carnism is obviously related to and informed by speciesism – carnism may best be described as a subset of speciesism – the two are distinct processes. In particular, Joy won me over with her likening of carnism to vegetarianism (and veganism); all are belief systems that form the basis for our dietary habits. “Carnivore” simply can’t be substituted in place of “carnism,” as the former describes one’s biological need for meat, while the latter does not. Or, as I summarized it in my outline,

Carnism is to vegetarianism as
carnivore is to herbivore as
meat-eater is to planter-eater.

‘Carnism’ and ‘vegetarianism’ describe philosophical or ethical systems that justify a specific diet;
‘carnivore’ and ‘herbivore’ describe one’s biological constitution; and
‘meat-eater’ and ‘plant-eater’ describe specific behaviors.

Carnism is related to speciesism – and many of the same psychological mechanisms are at play in each – but the two are clearly not the same. While this became plainly evident to me as I progressed through Carnism, those who are less familiar with veganism and animal advocacy issues may have more trouble making the connection. To this end, Joy doesn’t clearly situate carnism within the more global concept of speciesism in the book.

Of course, it’s worth noting that Carnism was obviously written with two audiences in mind: vegans and vegetarians who want to learn more about the psychological underpinnings of our “meat”-obsessed culture, and omnivores who are curious about or perhaps beginning to question their diet. Seeing as the latter group may not even know what the term “speciesism” means, possibly Joy deliberately avoided a more comprehensive discussion of “isms” in order to keep it simple – and unintimidating or inoffensive – for “meat” eaters. (For additional clarification, see this comment Dr. Joy made at Animal Rights & AntiOppression.)

From past conversations I’ve had with authors and publishers, I’ve come to understand that (oftentimes, and especially in this tight economy), it makes the most financial sense to cast as wide a net possible when writing and marketing a book. Many books simply wouldn’t make it to market otherwise; and two books, penned on the same topic, but for different audiences? Fuhgeddaboudit! So while I understand the need for…multitasking?….I’m still sometimes disappointed by the results.

The lack of discussion of speciesism mentioned above is one example of this. Another is the amount of time Joy spends explaining the basics of animal agriculture – cage size, feedlots, slaughter lines, etc. – of which many vegetarians and vegans are already aware. Much of the book involves descriptions of animal agriculture; while Joy provides quotations from her own doctoral research, she also draws heavily from several animal welfare staples, including Gail Eisnitz’s Slaughterhouse (1997), Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation (2005), and Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma (2006). Having read the first over a decade ago; been exposed to excerpts from the second here and there; and nothing but disdain for the third, I found myself skimming or even skipping past these passages. While I’ve no doubt that these discussions are both necessary and useful for convincing omnivores to eschew “meat,” for me personally, those pages would have been better spent delving further into the psychology (and even sociology) of carnism. It’s a trade-off for which I blame neither Joy nor her publisher; if Carnism had been written with a smaller, already-vegan audience in mind, the book might never have been published. **

Similarly, while Joy does mention eggs and dairy, most of the focus is on “meat” consumption. Over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression, she explains her choice of word usage:

In my book, I discuss the production and consumption of all animal products, including eggs, dairy, and sea “food.” Because I want the book to appeal to a meat-eating audience, for simplicity and clarity I refer to “meat” more often than “animal products” but only after having explained, in detail, the violence inherent in the production of all animal products.

Presumably, the same processes at play in carnism also work to prop up the consumption of other animal-based foodstuffs. However, because of her use of “meat” as a sort of catch-all term throughout the book, I found myself zeroing in on animal flesh to the exclusion of eggs and dairy. (It’s all about framing, yo!) Indeed, the term Joy chooses to describe the ideology of consuming animal flesh and by-products uses the Latin carne – meaning ‘flesh’ – as its root, thus suggesting that these processes only apply to “meat” consumption. Not that I have a better, more inclusive alternative in mind – carnism seems to be the best choice, particularly considering its correlates. But given the possibility for confusion, I think it might have been wise to name eggs and dairy alongside “meat,” even at the risk of alienating the omnivores in the audience. (Really, it’s only a few extra words: “meat, eggs and dairy.”)

Finally – and also owing to Joy’s diverse audience – I wasn’t especially impressed with the book’s “Resources” section. Not a few of the recommended organizations and books promote animal welfare (which is still a fundamentally speciesist ethical system) as opposed to animal rights; for example, Joy provides links to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Humane Farming Association (HFA), and describes Matthew Scully’s Dominion as “a ‘conservative case’ for animals rights.” (It’s not; in the book’s final chapter, Scully argues in favor of animal welfare, even though he spends the previous few hundred pages laying out the case for animal rights.) Puzzlingly, Joy also gives PETA mention, which seems to me a no-no if the goal is to avoid alienating one’s audience; PETA is perhaps the most divisive animal advocacy group out there, hated by omnivores and vegans alike.

Conclusion

I hope it’s evident from my lengthy review that I quite enjoyed Carnism, even if the amateur psychologist in me might have preferred book more scientific in nature (and the vegan, more radical in scope). Psychological theories and research of speciesism, animal exploitation and “meat” (and eggs and dairy!) consumption can only help us in our vegan activism and outreach, no matter the form it takes. To this end, Carnism is a valuable addition to the anti-oppressive literature.

Footnotes

* In the United States, for example, ten billion land animals – the majority of whom are chickens, but also including no small number of cows, pigs, turkeys, lambs, etc. – are killed for food every year. Up to another half a billion land animals die at the hands of the animal agriculture before reaching the dinner table, and perhaps ten billion sea-dwelling animals are similarly farmed, killed and consumed every year. That’s 20.5 billion sentient creatures, killed strictly for the dietary wants of Americans, in the time it takes our fair planet to make just one trip around the sun!

** I had a similar issue with Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animals Rights (Bob Torres, 2007), which I read last winter. Torres discusses animal rights in relation to anarchism, but because the book seems geared towards both non-anarchist vegans and non-vegan anarchists, I didn’t feel as though he made a particularly compelling case for either. I came away intrigued by anarchism – and its potential to transform society for the better, particularly that of nonhuman animals – but not knowing a whole lot about anarchism as a social system. To this end, if anyone can recommend a decent introduction to anarchism, I’m all ears. Errr, eyes.

Videos (!)

In promotion of Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism, Dr. Joy produced the following videos explaining the book and its concept. For those of you who prefer your book summaries in A/V form – enjoy!
 
“Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism” book trailer
Book trailer for “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism.” Video Produced and Directed by Beacon Street Films.
 

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare psychology sociology books book review melanie joy carnism meat eggs dairy animal agriculture food defense mechanisms denial avoidance routinization justification objectification deindividualization dichotimization rationalization dissociation intersectionality intersections parallel oppression oppression violence racism sexism misogyny ism prejudice violent ideology videos

It’s been a few months since last I wrote about Colleen Patrick-Goudreau’s series of short videos addressing the issues of veganism and intersectionality. (Dear Mozilla: It’s 2010, and yet you still do not recognize the word “veganism.” For reals!? Get with it, mkay?!) In the interim, she’s released three additional segments.

Thus far, she has covered a number of topics, including:
gender-based exploitation;
the universality of the maternal instinct;
violence in the animal agriculture industry;
raising compassionate children;
the agricultural revolution and animal ownership;
forming connections with nonhumans; and
the impact of slaughterhouse work on the human spirit. (Wheh!)

(As an aside, does the cute green top she sports throughout the series make you terribly nostalgic for summer or what?)

In “Growing Food for People,” Patrick-Goudreau touches upon the intersection of “meat” consumption, hunger and poverty, noting that we have the resources (land, water, technology) to feed the world’s population – if only we stop using so much of our existing food supply to fatten up the “farmed” animals birthed, raised and destined for slaughter. “Meat,” dairy and egg production are terribly inefficient – and increasingly inadequate, given our burgeoning population.

In “Becoming Empowered and Making a Difference,” she notes that each of our actions represents a choice made, whether consciously or not. Continuing on one’s present path of “meat” consumption is as much of a decision as is the adoption of a vegetarian or vegan diet. Because our society is centered around animal exploitation, however, only the latter is recognized as a belief system, while the former remains unnamed and invisible – a given. (For more on this, see Carnism: Meat, Deconstructed.)

Likewise, when we decide to take control of our lives, to base our patterns of consumption on reliable information, and to widen our circle of compassion, we become empowered. No, scratch that; we empower ourselves. We seize control – of our bodies and our lives – from those who seek to manipulate and exploit us in order to turn a profit.

“Becoming Awake” is an extension of this theme. Here, Patrick-Goudreau recounts her own vegan awakening.

Recognizing the effect we have on the world around us – our individual and collective capacity to inflict suffering on or inspire joy in others – is a gift. Far from a burden, veganism is liberating. In choosing compassion and justice over oppression and exploitation, we liberate ourselves as well as the animals who would be our food (and the humans charged with harming them).

Rather than asking “why veganism?,” we must wonder “why not veganism?”

—————-

Videos in this post

Growing Food for People: Colleen Patrick-Goudreau of Compassionate Cooks (www.compassionatecooks.com) explains why people are going hungry when we have everything we need to feed them. (1:06)

Becoming Empowered and Making a Difference: Colleen Patrick-Goudreau of Compassionate Cooks (www.compassionatecooks.com) talks about the empowerment of making informed food choices and about the fact that it’s not that we CAN make a difference; it’s that we DO make a difference with every choice we make. We only get to decide whether we want to make a negative diffedrence or a positive difference. (2:03)

Becoming Awake: Colleen Patrick-Goudreau of Compassionate Cooks (www.compassionatecooks.com) recounts her own personal experience of having grown up eating meat, dairy, and eggs and becoming desensitized to the suffering of animals – only to become reawakened as an adult. (3:38)

—————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare intersections intersectionality parallel oppressions intersections animal and women feminism feminist gender violence race racism class classism farmed animals factory farming animal agriculture compassionate cooks Colleen Patrick-Goudreau videos video blogging animal exploitation compassion children

If you are lucky enough to find yourself in Deer Trail, Colorado this Sunday, stop by Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary for a Vegan Valentine’s Day Brunch. In a delightful re-imagining of an otherwise blasé day, filled with tired gender roles and patriarchal mores, the Peaceful Prairie celebration will include a commemoration of animal love – that shared by chickens Libby and Louie – told over a plate of cruelty-free waffles, quiche, tofu scramble, fruit and coffee cake, of course!

A lame, silent hen and a handsome, fire-red rooster, respectively, these rescued birds have sought solace in one another’s presence – and one another’s presence alone – for the past five years and counting. If anything, their story serves as a gentle reminder that human animals do not have a monopoly on love – nor on kindness, compassion, selflessness, sacrifice, devotion, and family.

In Libby and Louie, A Love Story, Joanna Lucas writes of a love so pure and so true, undying and never-ending, such that any human would count herself lucky to be caught in its bonds.

And there they were. Just the two of them in the world. A monogamous couple in a species where monogamy is the exception. Determined to stay together even though their union created more problems than it solved, increased their burdens more than it eased them, and thwarted their instincts more than it fulfilled them.

It would have been easier and more “natural” for Louie to be in charge of a group of hens, like all the other roosters, but he ignored everyone except Libby. He paid no attention to the fluffy gray hen, the fiery blonde hen, the dreamy red hen, the sweet black hen dawdling in her downy pantaloons, or any of the 100 snow-white hens who, to our dim perceptions, looked exactly like Libby. Louie, the most resplendently bedecked and befeathered rooster of the sanctuary, remained devoted only to Libby – scrawny body, scraggly feathers, missing foot, hobbled gait and all. It’s true that, with our dull senses, we couldn’t grasp a fraction of what he saw in her because we can’t see, smell, hear, touch, taste, sense a scintilla of the sights, scents, sounds, textures, and tastes he does. But, even if we could see Libby in all her glory, it would still be clear that it wasn’t her physical attributes that enraptured Louie. If he sought her as his one and only companion, if he protected that union from all intrusions, it wasn’t because of her physique but because of her presence.

It would have been easier for Libby too – so vulnerable in her stunted, lame body – to join an existing chicken family and enjoy the added comfort, cover and protection of a larger group, but she never did. She stayed with Louie, and followed him on his daily treks in the open fields, limping and gimping behind him, exhausting herself only to be near him.

What bonded them was not about practical necessities or instinctual urges – if anything, it thwarted both. Their union was about something else, a rich inner abundance that seemed to flourish in each other’s presence, and that Libby nurtured in her silence and that Louie voiced, sang out loud, celebrated, noted, catalogued, documented, expressed, praised every day of their 1,800 days together.

Should we all – humans and nonhumans alike – be so blessed.

If, like me, you cannot attend the celebration, set aside an hour or two over the weekend (along with the big ole box of tissues), and read through just a few of the achingly beautiful sanctuary stories on the Peaceful Prairie blog. And then pledge to go vegan, if you haven’t already.

Peaceful Prairie has also put together a stunning, nonhuman animal-themed eCard for Valentine’s Day; the photo of Libby and Louie at the top of this post is a screenshot of their panel in the presentation. Share it with everyone you love, particularly those who eat “meat,” eggs and dairy – because everyone they eat has someone who loves them, too.

(And don’t forget your animal friends this Valentine’s Day, either!)

—————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare action alert events valentine’s day v-day colorado peaceful prairie peaceful prairie sanctuary animal sanctuary libby louie libby and louie a love story ecard chickens rooster hen love love is animal intelligence animal behavior animal emotions vegan veganism go vegan vegan brunch factory farming farmed animals flickr photos