V for Vegan: easyVegan.info » Intersections

Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs, No. 19: Brain Food (Vegan, Natch!)

Kelly Garbato — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:28:10 +0000

“Vegan Brain Food”: A mashup of book covers related to this latest edition of “Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs.” Clockwise from the upper-left: Sistah Vegan: Food, Identity, Health, and Society: Black Female Vegans Speak by A. Breeze Harper, ed. (2010); Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals by Anthony J. Nocella II and Steven Best, eds. (2004); Sisterhood Is Forever: The Women’s Anthology for a New Millennium by Robin Morgan, ed. (2003); The Pornography of Meat by Carol Adams (2004); The Year of the Flood: A Novel by Margaret Atwood (2009); Penelope by Marilyn Kaye (2007); Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism by Melanie Joy (2009); and VegNews, March+April 2010.
——————————

Sistah Vegan Book: Win a Free Copy!

Editor Breeze Harper is giving away a free, signed copy of her upcoming anthology, Sistah Vegan: Black Female Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health & Society. The catch? You have to answer a short essay question, which will (hopefully) get you thinking about issues of food, race, gender, and/or nonhuman animals in new (and fruitful!) way. The deadline is April 1st, so don’t delay!

Let Live Foundation: Food Justice w/ lauren Ornelas (3/21)

I’m so terribly jealous of all you vegan folks living on the east and west coasts; y’all always throw the coolest conferences and lectures! (There’s a reason I titled this link roundup “Brain Food,” yo!) This Sunday, March 21st, Let Live Foundation will be hosting speaker lauren Ornelas of the Food Empowerment Project. On the menu?: Food justice, veganism, and the intersections of human and animal exploitation. If you happen to find yourself in Portland this weekend, attend, take notes, and report back, mkay? (Pretty please? With an organic, raw, fair trade cherry on top?)

The Washington Times: Food For Life Global Is Coming Through Big In Haiti

Who says animal advocates only care about nonhumans, hmmm? Check out this nice writeup Food For Life Global received in The Washington Times, and then hop on over to Disaster Relief in Haiti: Animal Rescue & Vegan/Animal-Friendly Resources to see how else you can help with disaster relief efforts in Haiti (and Chile).

The Voracious Vegan: International Women’s Day: Why Feminism? and “Until We Are All Free”: International Women’s Day (@ Choosing Raw)

In honor of International Women’s Day (which took place on March 8th), the Voracious Vegan penned not one, but two posts. The first includes a short film that, in Tasha’s words explains why “women’s rights and feminism are still relevant and necessary in this day and age.” Additionally, in a guest post at Choosing Raw, Tasha discusses the intersections of feminism and veganism, including the shared ideologies and social systems which allow human, animal and environmental exploitation to thrive. It’s a lengthy piece but well worth it – she touches upon a number of salient points, including the objectification of women’s and animals’s bodies; the state’s (and businesses’) attempts to control the reproductive systems of females, human and nonhuman alike; food and environmental justice; and public safety and human health concerns.

Elaine @ Vegan Soapbox: Celebrating The Victories Of Vegan Women & Female Animals

Also in the International Women’s Day spirit (better late than never!), Elaine highlights the life stories and accomplishments of a few vegan/feminist/animal heroines (or sheroes, if you prefer), including several nonhumans. Little Red and Georgia are my persons of the day – and I long for a time when their rescue, recovery and rebirth will earn them a big fat feminist thank you from a certain popular third wave feminist blog (cough, cough).

Shannon Davis @ POP! goes The Vegan.: Penelope: A Nose by Any Other Name

In my newest baby’s very first guest post, Vegan Burnout Shannon Davis looks at the 2006 romcom Penelope – which stars a delightfully porcine Christina Ricci as the titular heroine – from a vegan-feminist perspective. Spoilers abound, so you may want to rent this one before checking out Shannon’s take!

Vegan Burnout: I do not want to live in a little house on the prairie.

In which The New York Times’s Peggy Orenstein attempts to coin the newest trend, the “feminist” keeping (and slaughtering) of nonhuman animals. Not if Shannon can help it!

What is “The Femivore’s Dilemma,” you ask? Is it reconciling one’s anti-oppressive beliefs with, um, one’s own participation in the exploitation of sentient beings? Perhaps the term refers to the obvious discord between hijacking the bodies and reproductive systems of female nonhuman animals – all in the name of “feminist” self-sufficiency?

None of the above, you say?

Hayes found that without a larger purpose — activism, teaching, creating a business or otherwise moving outside the home — women’s enthusiasm for the domestic arts eventually flagged, especially if their husbands weren’t equally involved. “If you don’t go into this as a genuinely egalitarian relationship,” she warned, “you’re creating a dangerous situation. There can be loss of self-esteem, loss of soul and an inability to return to the world and get your bearings. You can start to wonder, What’s this all for?” It was an unnervingly familiar litany: if a woman is not careful, it seems, chicken wire can coop her up as surely as any gilded cage.

I guess “egalitarian” relationships are, in Hayes’s estimation, only those in which the human animals involved share equal rights and considerations. How very…conventional. *sniff*

Sociological Images: “Lovers Special” Pizza Deal

Meat is for men, vegetables are for women. Different advert, same tired old stereotypes. Cue: exaggerated eye roll.

Sociological Images: The Difference Between Male and Female Vegetarians: Self-Sufficiency!

The difference between (teenage) male and female vegetarians? Young men tell their parents what to cook for them; young women cook their own meals alongside their parents, thus demonstrating what they can eat. With all this gender conformity, I’m surprised the website authors don’t also presume that mom still cooks 100% of the family’s meals. Or that there’s one mom (and one dad) in the picture at all.

The Vegan Ideal: Exploitation and Resistance: The Story of Tilikum

Ida deconstructs the discourse surrounding the killing of Sea World employee Dawn Brancheau by Tilikum, a captive orca whale, showing how the dominant narratives reflect our attitudes about nonhuman behavior, intelligence, and intent. Ultimately, “Tilly’s” actions can be viewed not as a purely instinctual, “wild,” uncontrollable, unpredictable outburst – but as a deliberate act of resistance. Unfortunately, Sea World has yet to receive the message, as Tilikum remains a prisoner.

Finally, over at the Bitch Blogs, guest bitch Brittany Shoot has been busy! In no particular order:

The Biotic Woman: Vegans of Color

Vegans of Color founder Johanna Eeva shares with us the genesis of VoC, gives several examples of white privilege in the vegan community, and discusses the reactions to her work, both positive and negative, from vegans and non-vegans alike. If you’re not already a VoC reader, get thee to vegansofcolor.wordpress.com and subscribe to the blog’s feed, stat. Just be sure to lurk before you speak, and do check out the resources section for additional reading.

The Biotic Woman: What Natural Disaster Means for Chilean Women

In times of crisis – earthquakes, war, tsunamis, religious and ethnic conflict, you name it – women and children often bear the brunt of hardship, and not uncommonly in physically and sexually violent ways. The recent disasters in Chile (and Haiti) are no exception; here, Brittany details the risks faced by Chilean women, and in questioning to what extent these (and other) disasters may be linked to our destruction of the environment, uncovers yet another intersection between women, nonhuman animals, and the planet we all call home.

The Biotic Woman: The Dirty Politics of Coal

Coal mining (and burning) is neither clean nor sexy, despite what General Electric would have you believe.

The Biotic Woman: My Enviro-Oscars Roundup

Avatar, Avatar, Avatar! Also: can a huge, conspicuously consumptive, Hollywood wankfest like the Oscars ever truly be “green”?

See also: Domination and Rape in Avatar: This Is “Respect” for Animals?, to which I simply cannot link often enough.

The Biotic Woman: Legal Representation for Animals in Switzerland

Seizing upon a Swiss referendum which sought to give nonhumans legal representation in court (sadly, it failed) as a jumping-off point, Brittany briefly examines the history of prosecuting nonhuman animals in court, oftentimes for “crimes” of which they were arguably victims. Looking back, Westerners tend to view these practices as archaic; and yet, animals are commonly “tried” and “executed” – more often than not, sans the “luxury” of a jury trial – in modern times. (Three words: breed specific legislation. Two more: Save Spork.)

See also: Egypt’s Pigs: Beaten, Stoned, and Burned Alive (Part 1) and Religious Discrimination and the Killing of Egypt’s Pigs (Part 2), which I wrote for “the other blog” during the swine flu scare of last summer.

The Biotic Woman: A Profile of Celeb Chef Katie Lee

Brittany uses a New York Times Magazine profile of celeb chef Katie Lee to segue into a mini-rant about how the current trend towards “eco” living (and eating) rarely intersects with vegetarianism and veganism, which is – for those living in Western/industrialized nations, at least – the greenest of the so-called “green” diets.

See also: “(Car) Bon Voyage” (VegNews, April 2010), in which Farm Sanctuary’s Jasmin Singer picks a similar bone with the eco-tourism industry.

——————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare patriarchy intersections parallel oppressions animals and women sexism misogyny gender feminism race racism violence stereotyping exploitation sex intersectionality kyriarchy megatheocorporatocracy pop culture speciesism flickr photos news in the news quick links link roundup link dump Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs international women’s day oppression food justice food for life global bitch the biotic woman coal green the oscars vegans of color sistah vegan race racism food Tilikum Sea World femivore The Femivore’s Dilemma sheroes heroines let live foundation lauren Ornelas Food Empowerment Project breeze harper books book covers flickr photos

Get right with D-O-G!:

On Carnism: Why Do We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows ?

Kelly Garbato — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:52:06 +0000

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.

Melanie Joy, PhD Demo – Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows
Dr. Melanie Joy explains “Carnism,” the psychological phenomenon behind why we eat certain meat and reject others. The condition could be harmful if it is misunderstood. She fully describes Carnism and all its ramifications in her new book, “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows”.

—————-

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

Get right with D-O-G!:

Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs, No. 18: My Bloody Valentine

Kelly Garbato — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:10:34 +0000

A neon red-and-white sign declares: “My Bloody Valentine sells out.”
CC image via Penningtron on Flickr.
——————————

Vegansaurus!: What creepy chefs do to get laid

Guest blogger Kristen looks at a Valentine’s Day article which highlights the foods that non-vegan chefs cook for their lovers. Surprise, surprise: many are animal-based, thus transforming the descriptions into an appalling spectacle of sex and death. The original article at Grub Street, for example, is decorated with a disgusting photo of scallops in an orange-and-green sauce/oil slick. Yuck.

Suicide Food: Happy Valentine’s Day: a digression

Just when you thought the butcher’s counter couldn’t get any more grotesque, behold: heart-shaped slabs of “meat”! I shit you not.

The Pursuit of Harpyness: Be A Bitch: To the New York Times Public Editor

In which Roman Polanski’s 13-year-old rape victim is likened to – wait for it – “quarry.” “Quarry” being another word for a hunted “game” animal.

The link above is to a complaint letter (good!) written in response to a piece which ran in The New York Times (bad!); you can read the original piece in its entirety here: Polanski’s Visions of Victimhood by Dennis Lim.

The Discerning Brute: Who Wears The Pants?

Joshua Katcher dissects a trailer for the upcoming documentary “An Emasculating Truth” – brought to you by, ahem, Dockers – which, surprise, is chock full of sexism and speciesism. In particular, the men appearing in the film advocate violence towards animals as an expression of one’s masculinity. Katcher ties this overt encouragement of violence with Levi’s own history of environmental and labor violence towards its employees and their families, many of them poor women of color.

Marji @ Animal Rights & AntiOppression: Olivera Farms, the Price of Eggs

In her discussion of California-based Olivera Farms, Marji provides a cogent study of animal rights and veganism as issues of human rights and food justice; “The price of eggs goes beyond the cost of a dozen at the grocery store.” Ditto: “meat” and dairy. The true price of these – which includes untold animal suffering, environmental degradation, and poor human health and declining quality of life – is kept hidden from us, by our government at the behest of corporate interests. It’s time we wake up and stop subsidizing these cruelties, both at the cash register and in the voting booths. Go vegan. Vote Green.

Elaine @ Vegan Soapbox: Guide To Analyzing PETA’s Nude Activism

Though Elaine and I generally disagree when it comes to PETA’s nude activism, I respect her opinion re: the intersections of feminism and veganism. Unlike PETA’s minion apologists, she’s actually taken the time to dissect, examine and analyze the issues involved, rather than defending PETA solely because the group (purports to) defend nonhuman animals.* Her guide to analyzing (PETA’s) nude campaigns is both useful and thought-provoking, if not entirely feasible on a post-by-post basis.

* Plus, she has a vagina and a BA in Women’s Studies! And I say (repeat) this with not a whit of sarcasm or mockery, as male privilege – much like white privilege – is very real, and not at all a laughing matter. (If you’ve no idea wtf I’m talking about, consider yourself lucky for missing Installment #3,625 of Twitter Wars.)

(Me @) POP! goes The Vegan.: CSI on Spike: Vegetarians who consume “meat.”

I report on an unexpected piece of televised vegetarian-feminist awesomeness, courtesy of a sixth-season rerun of CSI.

Institute for Humane Education (IHE): FEATURED CHANGEMAKER: LAUREN ORNELAS: SEEKING FOOD JUSTICE FOR ALL

In its February newsletter, IHE interviews lauren Ornelas, founder of the Food Empowerment Project. Ornelas discusses the genesis of FEP, as well as some of the group’s current projects:

Being an all-volunteer organization, we’ve been spending a lot of time working on a new website and putting together a series of newsletters that aim to help people go vegan or stay vegan. The newsletters will provide information about industrial animal factories and their impacts on the animals, people and the environment, the importance of recognizing the plight of farm workers, and also other injustices related to food.

We’re also working on addressing the issue of food deserts, starting with Santa Clara County, where volunteers spent hours surveying grocery, liquor and convenience stores to determine the degree of availability of healthy foods in both low and high-income areas. Our goal is to eventually work with the local communities and the city government in order to eliminate what we know to be inequities in lower-income neighborhoods.

Saying Goodbye to Target: Women

Last month, Sarah Haskins announced her departure from Current’s Target: Women series. (No, it’s good news! She’ll soon be penning scripts for Amy Poehler and Natalie Portman!) In light of this development, I think it’s high time I share these two Target: Women videos that I’ve been sitting on for 6+ months.

The topics raised in each segment indirectly touch upon nonhuman animals, the natural world, and how women are linked to each. In the first, Haskins has a little fun with the return of “the cougar” – i.e., older women who “prey” on younger men. Cougars are “wild” (read: free-living), dangerous, “exotic” – and seductive! What does it say about our culture that unconventional women are likened to these beautiful-but-menacing predators?

Sarah Haskins in Target Women: The Cougar (May 28, 2009)
Watch out young men. The Cougar is on the prowl. No, not the mountain lion kind. The lady kind.

In “Your Garden,” Haskins pokes fun at the many (many!) euphemisms for “lady parts,” a large number of which involve nonhuman animals and nature (even nature itself is given a feminine face in the form of “Mother Nature”). Also skewered: advertisements for “feminine hygiene products” that play into this cutesy talk (because dog forbid we call a tampon a tampon or “Aunt Flo,” menstruation!).

Sarah Haskins in Target Women: Your Garden (April 17, 2009)
Afraid of using technical terms to describe your lady parts? Try these fresh, mountain scented natural metaphors.

FYI: all of the previous Target: Women episodes are available for viewing here.

When Bitchy Meets Eco-Feminist

The Biotic Woman: Transphobia and Ecofeminism and

The Biotic Woman: Talking About Transphobia and Ecofeminism With Ida Hammer

In these posts, Brittany addresses the shameful history of transphobia and trans exclusion in feminist circles in general, and vegetarian-ecofeminist communities specifically. The series includes a (too-short, IMHO!) interview with trans activist Ida Hammer of The Vegan Ideal, whose posts on trans issues I’ve linked to on several occasions. There’s a lot to digest here, but I urge you to check it out, links and comments included.

Oppression is oppression, no matter the target; in our struggle for liberation, we can leave no one behind.

The Biotic Woman: You Say Tomato…

In a post that’s only intensified my spring fever, Brittany examines one side of the “veganism is a moral baseline” coin. While eating vegan is the single most important choice you can make at mealtime, food justice issues reach well beyond the cruelties and wastefulness of animal agriculture. Local, seasonal eating vs. global food swapping. Monoculture vs. diversity. Heirloom crops vs. genetically modified/standardized foodstuffs. DIY vs. industrialization. Politics, labor and free trade. So many issues; how to navigate them as both an animal and human rights advocate?

The Biotic Woman: What Big AR Gets Wrong

While PETA merits a brief mention, Brittany’s musings on Big AR instead gravitate towards cookies, vegetarian burgers, compromise and growth – and inevitably arrive at the conclusion that the revolution will not, in point o’ facts, be funded. (Speaking of Starfucks: What do we want? Vegan doughnuts at Dunkin’s! When do we want ‘em? 2011! That said, NOM. I’d have to try it, at least once.)

Academic Miscellany

New Zealand Centre for Human-Animal Studies: November 2009 Newsletter

Via vegansaurus!, I learned of the NZCHAS, which is (in vegansaurus’s words) “doing some pretty groundbreaking shit.” The Center puts out an occasional (but lengthy) newsletter, and though I can’t find a subscription sign-up, you can view a list of past newsletters here.

To give you an idea of what’s featured in a typical NZCHAS newsletter, the November ‘09 .pdf includes two book reviews (of A Kingdom for Animals – the History and Politics of the British Animal Rights Movement and Softening the Stony Heart of Eternity: Contributions to a Critical Theory for the Liberation of Animals); information on new associates, including select publications; and academic news and event information.

Lib Now! Conference Schedule, Registration Form, and Flyer are Up!

For what, you ask? The 9th Annual North American Conference for Critical Animal Studies, which will be held April 10, 2010 at SUNY Cortland in NY. Details and links at Lib Now!

Lib Now!: Anarchist Studies Initiative

Also at SUNY Cortland this April is the unveiling of the Anarchist Studies Initiative. If you happen to be in town for the aforementioned Critical Animal Studies conference, arrive a day early and take in double the radical awesomeness.

————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare patriarchy intersections parallel oppressions animals and women sexism misogyny gender feminism race racism violence stereotyping exploitation sex intersectionality kyriarchy megatheocorporatocracy pop culture speciesism flickr photos news in the news quick links link roundup link dump Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs sarah haskins target women cougar garden menstruation video peta nude activism transphobia ida hammer bitch magazine the biotic woman meat valentine’s day heart my bloody valentine food empowerment project hunting masculinity violence

Get right with D-O-G!:

Breeze Harper Introduces The Sistah Vegan Project

Kelly Garbato — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:34:40 +0000

I know, I know; long time no see. I’ve been a bit neglectful lately, and for that I apologize. I’ve spent all my free time working on POP! goes the Vegan., you see, either writing posts about CSI and The Colbert Report (which makes for a wonderful escape from talking about the horrors of animal exploitation or following the latest ARA-on-ARA internet wars, let me tell you what!) or working on a super-secret project (well, not so secret…more like tedious and slow going). So it’s not as though I’ve been sipping piña coladas in the sunshine, is what I’m saying.

Anyhow, today I’d like to share a few videos from Breeze Harper, of The Sistah Vegan Project blog and the soon-to-be-released Sistah Vegan anthology. Sistah Vegan is set to drop in March, and in anticipation of its publication, Harper has created a number of videos related to the book: she explains her background and the project’s genesis; delves into the topics raised within Sistah Vegan’s pages; and shares some additional resources (and recipes!).

It’s an excellent series – indeed, I listened to all but the most recent video blog the other night while doing some data entry for that aforementioned, no-longer-secret POP! project – but rather than overwhelm you with videos (thus reducing the likelihood that you’ll actually view them), here is a two-part introduction to Breeze Harper’s background, education and interest in “critical race studies, black feminisms, and critical food geographies.” (If you’ve got time to watch the others, they’re all available at sistahvegan.wordpress.com.)

I received an advanced review copy of Sistah Vegan (courtesy of Lantern Books) several weeks ago and am greatly enjoying it. Definitely put this one on your reading list!

Also, if you’d like to help promote the book and project, see this post from johanna at Vegans of Color for ideas and networking possibilities.

——————

(Why do I bother with Technorati tags anymore, hmmmm?)

Tagged: animals animal rights vegan veganism sistah vegan sistah vegan project breeze harper intersectionality race racism feminist feminism gender food critical race theory video lantern books books anthology

Get right with D-O-G!:

Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs, No. 17: F-O-O-D.*

Kelly Garbato — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:47:57 +0000

“assortment of vegan chocolates”: A dozen+ gorgeous vegan chocolates sit atop a white porcelain cake stand. Nom! CC image via quintanaroo (the chocolate-maker herself) on Flickr.
——————————

Regretfully, I spent most of the long weekend either tossing and turning in bed, or retching and heaving over the toilet (read: vomiting; either way, what a mental image, yeah?), and thus was unable to get much of anything done. The perfect time for a link roundup! The commentary is rather sparse, but seeing as I feel like I’ve been through the ringer and back, I hope you’ll forgive me.

johanna @ Vegans of Color: Vegan cookbooks: helping folks eat the Other

The Vegan Ideal: A Western Vegetarian ‘Foray’ into Non-Western Culture

johanna and Ida provide several examples of the “exotification” of non-Western foods (“African,” “Asian,” Hawaiian and Cambodian, respectively), with an eye on vegetarian/vegan contexts (cookbooks and a veg gathering at veg-friendly restaurant).

Stephanie @ Animal Rights & AntiOppression: Domination and Rape in Avatar: This Is “Respect” for Animals?

While I’ve seen many a discussion of Avatar’s problematic racial politics, anti-speciesist reviews appear to be few and far between. This piece from Stephanie is a must-read; the title says it all, really. (Mary also discussed the film back in December.)

Marji @ Animal Rights & AntiOppression: Sarah’s Diary: Remembering

Marji imagines what rescue hen Sarah’s diary might look like. It is predictably heart-breaking. I’ll be honest; I have not yet been able to read the entire piece.

Of course, I feel rather silly when considering Marji’s description of the “mock-diary”:

This is Sarah. She turns seven this February 14th. She is one of 2,000 hens we were legally permitted to pull from a small, 160,000 egg-laying hen operation. I know this diary is horribly anthropomorphic. I pulled Sarah out of that cage. For hours, I breathed what they breathed, saw and smelled their world. It was horrifying. I have tried, for years, to fathom what it must have been like for them from birth to grisly death. I can’t.

If there were a goddess, surely you’d find her volunteering at an animal sanctuary.

The Vegan Ideal: Why ‘Vegan Oppression’ Cannot Exist

I fear I’ll only mangle Ida’s post by attempting to paraphrase, so here’s a brief excerpt:

The barriers and opposition that we experience as vegans are meant to hold the structure of human supremacy in place, not oppress us as a group of humans. So while anti-veganism is a real and persistent occurrence, it’s important to remember that nonhuman animals are the true targets of this backlash, not us humans. So there is no appropriate metaphor in this regard for placing vegans in the position of an oppressed class of people.

The whole thing is well worth a read, comments included.

Lisa @ Sociological Images: “We’re Only Protecting Them From Themselves”

According to Toyota (or its Australian branch, anyhow), only urban sissies “use hairspray, put their polo collar up, drink lattes, have fuzzy little dogs, [...] eat tofu or soy sausages, carry a man bag, be a metrosexual, drink sparkling water, have designer luggage, wear cologne, have a sweater around your neck, wear crocks, shave your chest, use lip balm.” They manage get out two sexist/speciesist stereotypes in as many minutes, but no one’s a winner here.

Gwen @ Sociological Images: “Are You Turning Your Boyfriend into a Girlie Man?”

Wherein “girly” men “order chef salad with no cheese, bacon, or egg and fat-free dressing on the side” (among other things). Why, I do believe that salad might be vegan or vegetarian. At the very least, it’s got veggies, and lots of ‘em! (Also out: baking brownies while wearing an apron and oven mitts. Because “real” men walk around with scorched hands and brown stains running down the front of their slacks!?)

Food Empowerment Project: F.E.P. Newsletter: February 4th, 2010

In this issue of the Food Empowerment Project’s newsletter: F.E.P. Outreach in Bay View Hunters Point; Vegan Bake in San Francisco raises over $2,000 for F.E.P.; and Helping Haiti – Humans and non-humans alike. Sign up for e-delivery here!

Lantern Books: The Holocaust and the Henmaid’s Tale – A Case for Comparing Atrocities by Karen Davis (Reviews)

I read The Holocaust and the Henmaid’s Tale about a year ago, and decided I needed at least another skim-through before I could attempt a review (of course, it doesn’t help that my feelings on the topic are somewhat ambivalent and tinged with privilege). Luckily, Lantern Books links to a number of thought-provoking reviews on the book’s listing. Click through for a full list, and do check out Karen Davis’s extensive writings, available at United Poultry Concerns.

Meanwhile, Brittany Shoot is still chugging along at Bitch:

The Biotic Woman: Reclaiming “Cow”

In praise of / a lament for our bovine sisters.

The Biotic Woman: A Conversation About Rewilding with Caroline Fraser

Ecosystems—systems, mind you—are as much interconnected and interdependent on us as we are on them. It’s a simple premise, but understanding how to mitigate and undo the harm done to the planet by humans is another matter. Caroline Fraser, author of the recently released Rewilding the World: Dispatches from the Conservation Revolution, says it very simply: “Lose the animals, lose the ecosystem. Lose the ecosystems, game over.”

The Biotic Woman: A Conversation About Carnism with Melanie Joy, Part 1 and Part 2

In this two-part conversation with Melanie Joy (the author of Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism, which I recently discussed on challengeoppression.com, and hope to review here very, very soon), the author and the blogger explore the interconnectedness of “isms,” the psychology of carnism, and the violent ideologies which target humans and nonhumans alike.

The Biotic Woman: Ecopsychology

I love this part:

It reminds me of guys like Jonathan Safran Foer or Matthew Scully, who suddenly have an epiphany about eating meat or animal welfare and want to tell everyone (at least, when it’s politically convenient). Problem is, women have been working on these issues for decades without the recognition that comes from high-profile book deals or NYT Mag write-ups. Should we be thankful when these issues are covered by mainstream media or annoyed that our work has once again been relegated to the margins of the larger movement?

Click through to read my response in the comments.

Finally, a few academic notices:

Lib Now!: Now Accepting Commentary and Summaries for JCAS

The Journal for Critical Animal Studies (JCAS), published three times a year, “is now accepting for the first time commentary and summaries of events, forums, lectures. etc. [...] to build a bigger and better bridge between academics and activists.”

Sistah Vegan: Women of Color needed for Critical Animal Studies journal issue

Another notice from JCAS, this time via Breeze Harper: “The Journal for Critical Animal Studies (JCAS) seeks essays from women of color scholars and activists across a variety of disciplines and social justice initiatives to develop understandings on the issues of race, gender, and animality in critical animal studies.” The list of suggested topics offers a wonderful illustration of the many ways in which species, race and gender intersect with one another.

Royce @ Vegans of Color: Critical Animal Studies Conferences

Via Royce, “The 9th Annual North American Conference for Critical Animal Studies will be hosted at SUNY Cortland this year on Saturday, April 10th. The theme this year is ‘Abolition, Liberation, and the Intersections Within Social Justice.’” Sadly, I’m about a month late in relaying this info – the deadline for submitting proposals for the conference was yesterday.

Lib Now!: Call for Nominations for Annual 2010 Critical Animal Studies Awards

The Annual 2010 Critical Animal Studies Awards include awards in four categories: Critical Animal Studies Media of the Year; Critical Animal Studies Media of the Year; Critical Animal Studies Graduate Paper/Project/Dissertation of the Year; and Critical Animal Studies Faculty Paper/Project of the Year. This deadline is close but not expired: February 25, 2010.

* Hey, after three days of not eating (or throwing up whatever blandness I did manage to choke down), food is all I can think about!

————————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare patriarchy intersections parallel oppressions animals and women sexism misogyny gender feminism race racism violence stereotyping exploitation sex intersectionality kyriarchy megatheocorporatocracy pop culture speciesism flickr photos news in the news quick links link roundup link dump Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs

Get right with D-O-G!:

Colleen Patrick-Goudreau says, “Wake up, bacon breath!”

Kelly Garbato — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:05:54 +0000

(I’m paraphrasing, of course!)

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

Get right with D-O-G!:

Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs, No. 16: Breast is Best (and Vegan!)

Kelly Garbato — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:43:06 +0000

“IMG_1805″: Snout covered in milk, pink tongue flicking from her mouth, a young cow suckles her mother’s teat. CC image from destinyuk on Flickr.
——————————

Julie Urbanik @ Humanimalia: “Hooters for Neuters”: Sexist or Transgressive Animal Advocacy Campaign?

In the inaugural issue of Humanimalia, Julie Urbanik explores animal advocacy campaigns that trade in gender-based stereotypes in order to promote compassion. These include “Hooters for Neuters” events held by, among others, Best Friends Animal Society (et tu, Best Friends!?); LA-based Friends for Animals’s “Pimp Your Pit”; NYC’s Rescue Ink; and, of course PETA. (PETA, PETA, PETA!) While I don’t necessarily agree with the author’s conclusions, it’s a thought-provoking analysis nonetheless.

Mylène @ My Face Is On Fire: Fur and

Gary Francione @ The Abolitionist Approach: The State of the Movement

In a much lengthier post about single-issue campaigns (namely, anti-fur campaigns), Mylène refers to Professor Francione’s recent critique of PETA’s racist/sexist State of the Union Undress video. Both posts are worth a read, so rather than quoting gratuitously, I’ll just copy the point to which I responded in Mylène’s piece:

But is the fur industry really any more worthy of such ire? As one advocate recently pointed out Twitter, for instance, ‘fur’ is skin and hair while ‘leather’ is skin. To obsess over people’s wearing of fur while turning a blind eye to others’ wearing of leather (which is much more common and involves so much more loss of life) seems odd and illogical. Furthermore, as Prof. Francione often points out when discussing anti-fur campaigns, considering that a large percentage of those who wear fur are women, fur becomes a convenient and sexist target. After all, when’s the last time you saw PeTA demonstrators bombard a leather-clad biker with paint-balls?

Pause and savor that image for a moment, if you will, before we move on to less savory stuff.

The Veg Blog: ABC’s dairy expose

I can’t at all stomach undercover investigations of animal exploitation – particularly that which occurs in the animal agriculture industry – so I’m extremely thankful for other AR bloggers who are quick to pick up the slack. Ryan writes about Mercy for Animal’s latest exposé, this one of Willet Dairy in Locke, New York. The video received wide play, including on ABC News’s World News Tonight and Nightline. Of particular interest to this link roundup is point #3, “The artificial insemination footage”:

It was only about two or three seconds long and it only aired on the Nightline version of the story, but I think the very brief shot they showed of a farmhand elbow deep, artificially inseminating a dairy cow could be the most important piece of footage. I think the majority of people still kid themselves with visions of happy bovines humping in meadows of green grass. I’m also pretty sure the sentiment that “well, the cows have to be milked” is still prevalent. This very short piece of footage, though, is like a slap in the face: no, these dairy cows are not naturally pregnant and happily giving their milk to us. We’re raping them, confining them, and then stealing the milk meant for their offspring, all so we can have our next hit of cheese.

I’m hoping that short bit of video replays in people’s minds when they sit down with a glass of milk or a bowl of ice cream.

In its summary of the abuses cataloged on video, MFA includes these all-too-common bullet points, as well:

Evidence gathered during the investigation reveals:

Cows with bloody open wounds, prolapsed uteruses, pus-filled infections, and swollen joints, apparently left to suffer without veterinary care [...]

Newborn calves forcibly dragged away from their mothers by their legs, causing emotional distress to both mother and calf

Ryan, I’ll see you that bowl of Häagen-Dazs and raise you a blogger from Feministing.

Nadra Kareen @ The Race Card @ Bitch Media: From Adopting Haitian Kids to Giving Them Your Breast Milk

In the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake – which orphaned many children and separated many more from their parents – baby food and formula is in short supply. Enter: breast milk. Some human breast milk banks have reportedly requested that lactating women donate their excess milk to this most worth of causes (see, for example, the Human Milk Banking Association of America). Unfortunately, there doesn’t (yet?) seem to be any infrastructure in place to transport and store it. Even so, there are plenty of babies in need of human breast milk locally, so donations will not go to waste. Bonus points: when given willingly, human breast milk is 100% vegan!

Meanwhile, from Bitch Media’s Biotic Woman:

Talking to Ruby Roth – A lovely interview with the author of That’s Why We Don’t Eat Animals. While I love Ms. Roth’s feminist artwork, I’m still holding out for a barnyard-themed print from the book!

Strays and Breeders Edition – On classist/racist/sexist/speciesist douchebag – and Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina – Andre Bauer’s recent comments equating stray nonhuman animals with impoverished humans. (“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply.”)

Finally, at Animal Rights & AntiOppression:

Racism 101 and the Animal Rights Movement – Deb offers a number of racism 101 resources for white animal activists. Says she:

Animal Rights is about fighting exploitation and oppression, which makes fighting racism part of our Animal Rights fight. Even if that means we’ve got to fight ourselves, some of the time.

I couldn’t agree more.

————————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare patriarchy intersections parallel oppressions animals and women sexism misogyny gender feminism race racism violence stereotyping exploitation sex intersectionality kyriarchy megatheocorporatocracy pop culture speciesism flickr photos news in the news quick links link roundup link dump Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs

Get right with D-O-G!:

Sweeney Todd, a Caged Bird and the Devil’s Wife

Kelly Garbato — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:05:51 +0000

Caution: spoilers ahead!

Normally, I’m not one for musicals (Little Shop of Horrors and Grease notwithstanding!). That said, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street struck my fancy right away. Now, I could attribute this to the film’s macabre, Gothic Victorian setting, or to the dynamic star/director duo of Johnny Depp and Tim Burton; and, while these are both ginormous positives, I’d be lying if I said that either of these is what compelled me to dabble in a genre I tend to pass up. Nope, as much as I love a Goth Depp/Burton vehicle, Sweeney Todd reeled this vegan misanthrope in with promises of cannibalism. Cannibalism is the shit.

Sweeney Todd opens with the titular character’s arrival in London. “Return to London,” actually: in a former life, Sweeney Todd was one Benjamin Barker (also a barber). But we’ll get to Barker’s story in a moment.

We first meet Sweeney Todd as he and a young sailor dock in a London port. Whereas Todd’s traveling companion, Anthony, marvels at the beauty of London, Sweeney will have none of it. His gloomy, sullen mood sets the tone for the rest of the film: shades of black, gray and blue, colored only by the red crimson of blood spilt.

No Place Like London

[Anthony]
I have sailed the world,
beheld its wonders
from the Dardanelles,
to the mountains of Peru,
But there’s no place like London!

[Sweeney Todd]
No, there’s no place like London…

[Anthony]
(spoken)
Mr. Todd?

[Sweeney Todd]
(sung)
You are young…
Life has been kind to you…
You will learn.

There’s a hole in the world like a great black pit
and the vermin of the world inhabit it
and its morals aren’t worth what a pig can spit
and it goes by the name of London…
At the top of the hole sit the privileged few
Making mock of the vermin in the lonely zoo
turning beauty to filth and greed…
I too have sailed the world and seen its wonders,
for the cruelty of men is as wondrous as Peru
but there’s no place like London!

[Anthony]
(spoken)
Is everything alright Mr. Todd?

[Sweeney Todd]
(spoken)
I beg your indulgence, Antony,
But my mind is far from easy.
And these very streets are
filled with shadows,
Every last one of ‘em.

[Anthony]
(spoken)
Shadows?

[Sweeney Todd]
(sung)
There was a barber and his wife
and she was beautiful…
a foolish barber and his wife.
She was his reason for his life…
and she was beautiful,
and she was virtuous.
And he was naive.

There was another man who saw
that she was beautiful…
A pious vulture of the law
who, with a gesture of his claw,
removed the barber from his plate!
Then there was nothing but to wait!
And she would fall!
So soft!
So young!
So lost
and oh, so beautiful!

[Anthony]
(spoken)
Oh!
The lady, sir, did she, succumb?

[Sweeney Todd]
(sung)
Ah, that was many years ago…
I doubt if anyone would know.

Here, Sweeney Todd and Anthony part company. Still singing contemptuously of “people who are filled with shit,” Sweeney wanders onto Fleet Street, and right into Mrs. Lovett’s Minced Meat Pie Shop. The proud (?) purveyor of “the worst pies in London,” Mrs. Nellie Lovett breaks into a song about pies made of “pet” pussycats and stray animals “dyin’ in the street,” all due to the high “price of meat.” As she prepares a minced meat pie for Sweeney Todd, we’re treated to gratuitous images of bugs crawling on her kitchen counter and right across the dough. The minced “meat,” which Mrs. Lovett scoops into a raw pie with a ladle, looks like slop – not fit for human consumption. Indeed, it takes hard liquor to wash the taste of one of Mrs. Lovett’s pies out of Sweeney’s mouth.

It’s during the next musical number that we learn of the fate of Sweeney Todd’s wife and daughter. Mrs. Lovett’s establishment, you see, sits right under Sweeney’s old apartment.

Poor Thing

[Sweeney Todd]
(spoken)
You got a room over the shop, haven’t you? If times are so hard, why don’t you rent it out?

[Mrs. Lovett]
People think it’s haunted.

[Sweeney Todd]
Haunted?

[Mrs. Lovett]
Yeah. And who’s to say they’re wrong? You see, years ago something happened up here. Something not very nice.
(sung)
There was a barber and his wife.
And he was beautiful…
A proper artist with a knife,
but they transported him for life.
And he was beautiful…
(spoken)
Barker his name was.
Benjamin Barker.

[Sweeney Todd]
(spoken)
What was his crime?

[Mrs. Lovett]
Foolishness…
He had this wife, ya see.
Pretty little thing,
silly little nit.
Had her chance for the moon on a string…
Poor thing!
Poor thing!
There was this judge, ya see…
Wanted her like mad!
Everyday he sent her a flower
But did she come down from her tower?
Sat up there and sulked by the hour
Poor fool!
Ah, but there was worse yet to come
Pure thing!
Well, Beadle calls on her all polite
Poor thing!
Poor thing!
The judge, he tells her, is all contright.
He blames himself for her dreadful plight.
She must come straight to his house tonight!
Poor thing!
Poor thing!
Of course when she goes there…
Poor thing!
Poor thing!
They’re having this ball all in masks.
There’s no one she knows there!
Poor dear!
Poor thing!
She wonders, tormented and drinks!
Poor thing!
The judge has repented, she thinks.
Poor thing!
“Oh where is Judge Turpin?” she asks…
He was there, alright!
Only not so contrite!
She wasn’t no match for such craft, ya see.
And everyone thought it so drull.
They figured she had to be daft, ya see.
So all of them stood there and laughed, ya see!
Poor soul!
Poor thing!

Judge Turpin, coveting Sweeney Todd’s wife, had him imprisoned in exile on false charges. In Todd’s absence, he raped Mrs. Barker, who then – according to Mrs. Lovett – poisoned herself with arsenic. After Mrs. Barker’s tragic end, Turpin assumed guardianship of Barker’s baby daughter.

Upon learning his wife and child’s fate, Sweeney Todd devises a plan to exact revenge upon those who have wronged him. With the help of his trusty friends – a dazzling array of gleaming silver straight razors – Todd plots to revive his barber shop and establish a reputation as the most skilled barber in all of London, thus luring the Judge in for a shave – a shave dripping with “rubies,” that is. (Cue evil laughter.)

In the meantime, the story shifts back to Anthony, idly exploring the streets of London. Stopping to rest on a street-side bench, he spies a beautiful young woman across the way. Perched in the window of a foreboding, castle-like mansion, this Rapunzel-like figure sings a song of melancholy and sadness to the caged bird who flutters about next to her.

Green Finch and Linnett Bird

[Johanna]
Green finch, and linnet bird,
Nightingale, blackbird,
How is it you sing?
How can you jubilate
sitting in cages
never taking wing?
Outside the sky waits
beckoning!
Beckoning!
Just beyond the bars…
How can you remain
staring at the rain
maddened by the stars?
How is it you sing
anything?
How is it you sing?

My cage has many rooms
damask and dark…
Nothing there sings,
not even my lark.
Larks never will, you know,
when they’re captive.
Teach me to be more
adaptive.
Ah…
Green Finch, and Linnet Bird,
nightingale, blackbird,
teach me how to sing.
If I cannot fly…
Let me sing.

Mid-song, the woman notices Anthony noticing her, and her gaze shifts such that she appears to be singing to him. Abruptly, she vanishes from the window, as if interrupted by an intruder (her captor, no doubt). Inquiring of a nearby homeless woman, Anthony learns that “Rapuzel’s” name is Johanna – Johanna, ward of Judge Turpin, who

Keeps her snug he does. All locked up.
So don’t you go trespassin’ there or it’s a good whipping for you
or any other young man with mischief on his mind!

Later that night, lingering just outside Judge Turpin’s gate, Anthony vows to spring Johanna from her prison:

Johanna

[Anthony]
I feel you Johanna
I feel you
Do they think that walls can hide you?
Even now I’m at you window
I am in the dark beside you
Buried sweetly in your yellow hair
Johanna
I’ll steal you
Johanna
I feel you
Johanna
I feel you
Johanna
I’ll steal you

Like her companion the bird, Johanna is a prisoner. No, not just a prisoner: a toy, a plaything, a piece of property. After Mrs. Barker’s demise, Judge Turpin held onto the young girl, imprisoned her in a gilded cage, grooming her for marriage at a later date. (But not late enough: she is 16 years of age, if that.) Johanna is her mother’s “replacement.” She is not a companion, but a pet – like the flightless lark, she has been made slave to the whims of another.

While Anthony promises to rescue Johanna from her prison, he does not offer her liberation. Rather than free her, he intends to steal her: an illegal transfer of property, if you will. Things are bought, sold, traded and thieved; beings are not. Possibly this is just an unfortunate choice of words, forced by a need for rhyme (i.e., “I’ll steal you / I feel you”). Still, in the context of “Green Finch and Linnett Bird” – not to mention, Sweeney Todd’s half of the duo, in which he refers to Johanna as a “lamb” and a “pet” – Anthony’s use of “steal” over “free” or similar seems to be deliberate (and akin to Mrs. Mooney’s theft of the neighborhood cats). As a character, Johanna is never developed into her own person. To us, she’s only presented as the object of a man’s desires, be he her father, her suitor, or her guardian.

Back on Fleet Street, Sweeney Todd’s plans are taking shape. In short order, he challenges the reigning town barber to a shave-off and wins handily, thus cementing his reputation as the most skilled barber in London. His victory does not go unnoticed; Turpin’s associate Beadle Bamford is in attendance, and promises to stop by for a shave. But wait – a hitch! Adolfo Pirelli – the defeated barber and purveyor of Pirelli’s Miracle Elixir – recognizes Sweeney from his days as Benjamin Barker. The first visitor to Sweeney’s shop, Pirelli also becomes Sweeney’s first victim: when Pirelli tries to blackmail Sweeney, the latter responds with violence, slashing Pirelli’s neck open with a straight razor. Unsure how he’ll dispose of the body, he stuffs Pirelli in a trunk for safekeeping.

Shortly thereafter, Turpin himself stops in for a shave. It seems that Bamford encouraged his benefactor to avail himself of Sweeney Todd’s services in order to, ahem, soften the heart of a would-be fiancé. I think you know where this is going.

Ladies and their Sensitivities

[Judge]
(spoken)
Walk home with me, for I have news for you
In order to shield her from the evils of this world,
I have decided to marry Johanna next Monday.

[Beadle]
(spoken)
Ah, sir happy news.

[Judge]
(spoken)
Strange, when I offered myself to her, she showed a certain reluctance.

[Beadle]
(sung)
Excuse me my lord
May I request my lord,
Permission my lord to speak?

Forgive me if I suggest my lord
You’re looking less than your best my lord,
There’s powder upon your vest my lord,
And stubble upon your cheek.

And ladies my lord
Are weak

[Judge]
(spoken)
Perhaps if she greets me cordially upon my return I shall give her a small gift.

[Beadle]
(sung)
Ladies in their sensitivities my lord,
Have a fragile sensibility.
When a girl’s emergent,
Probably it’s urgent,
You differ to her gentility, my lord.

Personal disorder cannot be ignored,
Given their gentile proclivities.
Meaning no offense,
It happens they resents it,
Ladies in their sensitivities my lord.

[Judge]
(spoken)
Stubble you say?
Perhaps at times I am over hasty with my morning ablutions.

[Beadle]
(sung)
Fret not though my lord,
I know a place my lord,
A barber my lord of skill.
Thus armed with a shaven face my lord,
Some eau de cologne to grace my lord,
And musk to enhance the chase my lord,
You’ll dazzle the girl until.

[Judge]
(spoken)
Until??

[Beadle]
(sung)
She bows to your every will

[Judge]
(spoken)
Perhaps you may be right, take me to him.

The next scene, a musical duet between Johanna’s father and her captor/rapist, is one fraught with tension and more than a little nausea born of perversity. In “Pretty Women,” Turpin tells Sweeney all about his “true love,” with whom he is “infatuated,” and to whom he is an “ardent and eager slave.” (As if.) Playing along, biding his time, Sweeney can only smile and harmonize with his adversary, patiently waiting for the moment when steel meets flesh.

Alas, just as Sweeney is about to slash Turpin’s neck clean open, Anthony bursts into the room, a burst of nervous energy interrupting the scene’s climax. Immediately recognizing the boy, Turpin jumps from the chair, ranting and raging about the company Sweeney keeps. He storms from the shop, promising never to return.

Sweeney unleashes his rage on Anthony and Mrs. Lovett in turn, treating each to a verbal lashing; Anthony runs from the shop, while Mrs. Lovett manages to calm Sweeney (but barely). With Turpin gone, Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett are left with the dilemma that is Pirelli’s dead body.

A Little Priest

[Mrs. Lovett]
That’s all very well, but what we gonna do about him?

[Sweeney Todd]
Later on when it’s dark, we’ll take it to some secret place and bury him

[Mrs. Lovett]
Oh yeah. Of course we could do that. I don’t ’spose he’s got any relatives gonna come pokin’ ’round lookin’ for him.
Seems a downright shame…

[Sweeney Todd]
Shame?

[Mrs. Lovett]
Seems an awful waste…
Such a nice, plump frame
Wot’s ‘is name has…
Had…
Has
Nor it can’t be traced…
Bus’ness needs a lift,
Debts to be erased…
Think of it as thrift,
As a gift,
If you get my drift

Seems an awful waste…
I mean, with the price of meat
What it is,
When you get it,
If you get it…

[Sweeney Todd]
Ah!

[Mrs. Lovett]
Good, you got it!

Take, for instance, Mrs. Mooney and her pie shop!
Bus’ness never better using only pussycats and toast!
Now a pussy’s good for maybe six or seven at the most!
And I’m sure they can’t compare as far as taste!

[Simultaneously]

[Sweeney Todd]
Mrs. Lovett, what a charming notion

[Mrs. Lovett]
Well, it does seem a waste…

[Sweeney Todd]
Eminently practical
And yet appropriate as always!

[Mrs. Lovett]
Think about it…

[Sweeney Todd]
Mrs. Lovett, how I’ve lived
Without you all these years, I’ll never know!
How delectable!
Also undetectable!

[Mrs. Lovett]
Lots of other gentlemen’ll
Soon be comin’ for a shave,
Won’t they?
Think of
All them
Pies!

[Sweeney Todd]
How choice!
How
Rare!
For what’s the sound of the world out there?

[Mrs. Lovett]
What, Mr. Todd?
What, Mr. Todd?
What is that sound?

[Sweeney Todd]
Those crunching noises pervading the air!

[Mrs. Lovett]
Yes, Mr. Todd!
Yes, Mr. Todd!
Yes, all around!

[Sweeney Todd]
It’s man devouring man, my dear!

[Both]
And/Then who are we to deny it in here?

[Sweeney Todd]
(spoken) These are desperate times,
Mrs. Lovett, and desperate measures are called for!

[Mrs. Lovett]
Here we are, now! Hot out of the oven!

[Sweeney Todd]
What is that?

[Mrs. Lovett]
It’s priest. Have a little priest.

[Sweeney Todd]
Is it really good?

[Mrs. Lovett]
Sir, it’s too good, at least!
Then again, they don’t commit sins of the flesh,
So it’s pretty fresh.

[Sweeney Todd]
Awful lot of fat.

[Mrs. Lovett]
Only where it sat.

[Sweeney Todd]
Haven’t you got poet, or something like that?

[Mrs. Lovett]
No, y’see, the trouble with poet is
‘Ow do you know it’s deceased?
Try the priest!

Lawyer’s rather nice.

[Sweeney Todd]
If it’s for a price.

[Mrs. Lovett]
Order something else, though, to follow,
Since no one should swallow it twice!

[Sweeney Todd]
Anything that’s lean?

[Mrs. Lovett]
Well, then, if you’re British and loyal,
You might enjoy Royal Marine!
Anyway, it’s clean.
Though of course, it tastes of wherever it’s been!

[Sweeney Todd]
Is that squire, on the fire?

[Mrs. Lovett]
Mercy no, sir, look closer,
You’ll notice it’s grocer!

[Sweeney Todd]
Looks thicker,
More like vicar!

[Mrs. Lovett]
No, it has to be grocer –
It’s green!

[Sweeney Todd]
The history of the world, my love –

[Mrs. Lovett]
Save a lot of graves,
Do a lot of relatives favors!

[Sweeney Todd]
Is those below serving those up above!

[Mrs. Lovett]
Ev’rybody shaves,
So there should be plenty of flavors!

[Sweeney Todd]
How gratifying for once to know

[Both]
That those above will serve those down below!

[Sweeney Todd]
What is that?

[Mrs. Lovett]
It’s fop.
Finest in the shop.
And we have some shepherd’s pie peppered
With actual shepherd on top!
And I’ve just begun –
Here’s the politician, so oily
It’s served with a doily,
Have one!

[Sweeney Todd]
Put it on a bun.
Well, you never know if it’s going to run!

[Mrs. Lovett]
Try the friar,
Fried, it’s drier!

[Sweeney Todd]
No, the clergy is really
Too coarse and too mealy!

[Mrs. Lovett]
Then actor,
It’s compacter!

[Sweeney Todd]
Ah but always arrives overdone!
(spoken) I’ll come again when you have judge on the menu!

(singing) Have charity towards the world, my pet!

[Mrs. Lovett]
Yes, yes, I know, my love!

[Sweeney Todd]
We’ll take the customers that we can get!

[Mrs. Lovett]
High-born and low, my love!

[Sweeney Todd]
We’ll not discriminate great from small!
No, we’ll serve anyone,
Meaning anyone,

[Both]
And to anyone
At all!

Possibly this is my favorite number in the film; Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett ogle the Englishmen and women walking the street, wondering aloud which bodies might yield the tastiest flesh – much like shoppers browsing the different “cuts” of animal corpse displayed in front of a butcher’s counter. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: nonhuman animals are no more and no less “meat” than are humans. We’re all made of the same yummy stuff – and we’re all a potential meal to someone else.

Of course, Sweeney doesn’t act on a secret agenda of animal liberation; rather, he’s just a bitter and vengeful man, miserable in his old(er) age – and can you really blame him? However, after the cause of and would-be/should-be outlet for his anger escapes unharmed, he begins to take revenge on all the men of London.

[Sung angry]
There’s a hole in the world like a great black pit,
and it’s filled with people who are filled with shit,
and the vermin of the world inhabit it.
But not for long…

[Morbid thoughts, sung]
They all deserve to die.
Tell you why, Mrs. Lovett, tell you why.
Because in all of the whole human race, Mrs. Lovett, there are two kinds of men and only two.
There’s the one staying put in his proper place and the one with his foot in the other one’s face.
Look at me, Mrs. Lovett, look at you.
Now we all deserve to die.
Even you, Mrs. Lovett, even I.
Because of the lives of the wicked should be made brief.
For the rest of us death will be a relief.
We all deserve to die!

In order to maximize the efficiency (and secrecy) of their “slaughterhouse,” Sweeney constructs a trap door in front of his barber chair. Once he’s slaughtered an unwitting victim, he simply tilts the chair forward, thus dumping “his” corpse down a chute to the basement below the building. There, Mrs. Lovett dismembers, processes and bakes the bodies into all manner of delicious minced meat pies, turning her shop into an overnight success.

Ladies and gentlemen,
May I have your attention, please?
Are your nostrils aquiver and tingling as well
At that delicate, luscious ambrosial smell?
Yes they are, I can tell.

Well, ladies and gentlemen,
That aroma enriching the breeze
Is like nothing compared to its succulent source,
As the gourmets among you will tell you, of course.

Ladies and gentlemen,
You can’t imagine the rapture in store
Just inside of this door!

You might even say the deaths of Sweeney’s victims are more “humane” than those of the ten billion land animals Americans enslave, torture, slaughter, process and consume every year. Unlike virtually all of these animals, Sweeney’s “meat products” lived truly free-range existences prior to their deaths, were not cognizant of their fates until the very end, and thus suffered very little in comparison to our “food” animals. “Happy meat,” anyone?

Anyhow, as Sweeney commences with the bloodletting, Anthony and Johanna devise a plan to run away together. Given that the plan unfolds in the context of a dark comedy, naturally, it’s doomed from the start. Foiled by Turpin, Johanna is committed to a mental institution. No, “mental institution” is too kind a word – an insane asylum. Desperate, Anthony turns to Sweeney Todd for help. Sweeney proposes a plan: Anthony should visit the asylum disguised as a wig-maker’s apprentice, in search of women’s hair to purchase for use in wigs. Once inside, he can escape with Johanna.

Happily, Sweeney’s scheme works – and yet, he does not live long enough to reunite with his estranged daughter. Anthony rushes Johanna back to the barber shop, hiding her in the empty room while he heads out in search of a carriage. Subsequently, the homeless woman – a constant in the story’s background – heads up in search of Johanna, who hides from the stranger in the same trunk that once held Pirelli’s body. (You’ve got to wonder what she thought of all that blood!) As the woman flits about the room, Sweeney bursts in; the two exchange few words

[Sweeney Todd]
(spoken)
who are you? What are you doing here?

[Beggar Woman]
(spoken)
Evil it is, Sir. the stink of evil from below! From her! she’s the devil’s wife! beware of her sir. She, with no pity in her
heart!
(sung)
hey, don’t i know you mister?

before he slits her throat, too. Down the chute she goes, a beggar no more.

In bursts Turpin, hot on Johanna’s heels. Sweeney is able to entice him into the barber’s chair for a second round; this time, Sweeney emerges victorious. He slays Turpin and disposes of his body down the chute, where it falls with a thud on that of the homeless woman. Johanna witnesses the murder – and Sweeney witnesses her witnessing the murder. Dressed in men’s clothing, Sweeney mistakes his daughter for a young boy, and threatens her with his straight razor. Before he can harm his “pet,” a scream arises from the basement, and Sweeney rushes downstairs to find Mrs. Lovett shuffling the two corpses around. (The reason for her fright? It seems that Mr. Turpin was still alive and kicking upon arriving in the oven room. No matter, Mrs. Lovett dispatched of him forthwith.)

Now stooping to get a better look at the homeless woman – his first and only female victim – Sweeney Todd recognizes a face from his past.

[Sweeney Todd]
(spoken)
“Don’t I know you”, she said… you knew she lived.

[Mrs. Lovett]
(spoken)
I was only thinking of you

[Sweeney Todd]
(spoken)
you lied to me

[Mrs. Lovett]
no, no, not lied at all
no I never lied

[Sweeney Todd & Mrs. Lovett]
Lucy, said she took a
poison, she did,
I’ve never said that she
died! poor thing,
come she lived, but it
left her weak in the
home head all she did for
months was just lie
again there in bed. should
have been in
Lucy! hospital, wound up
in Bedlam instead
oh my poor thing, better
you should think she
God was dead, yes I lied
cause I love you.
Lucy I’d be twice the
wife she was I
what love you. could that
thing have cared for
have I you, like me?
done?

As their final duet reaches a crescendo – and the pair inch almost imperceptibly towards the oven, door open, fire raging – Sweeney Todd hurls Mrs. Lovett into the inferno, where she melts into the flames.

Having dispensed of the “Devil’s Wife,” Sweeney kneels beside his own wife, cradling her body in his arms. Out of the shadows of the sewer, Mrs. Lovett’s helper boy/surrogate son Toby comes, straight razor in hand. In the film’s final moments, Sweeney meets the same end as that of his countless victims, including Lucy, his “reason and his life.”

Amid the morbid, cannibalistic comedy lurks a commentary on the corrupting nature of hate, violence and vengeance. Consumed by the need for revenge, Sweeney did not see the possibilities for redemption that lay before him. His wife and daughter were still alive, still in need of him; and while life could never be as it once was, they Barkers might still have (re)built their family. Man the destroyer, vs. man the nurturer.

Also part of this twist is the Devil’s Wife, Mrs. Lovett. While young Toby, suspecting Sweeney of mass murder, fears for his adopted mother, in truth Toby should have been terrified of the both of them. They fed into one another’s “black pits,” creating a monster. (Although I’m afraid that there’s no small amount of misogyny in the story’s suggestion that Mrs. Lovett – the “seductress” – corrupted Sweeney Todd. To the extent that it does, anyhow; I suppose it’s open to multiple readings.)

Of course, there’s also the unfortunate use of “vermin” to denote death, decay and rottenness. While rats do thrive in unsanitary environs, they do not create these conditions; no, I am afraid that that is the job of humans!

Nor does the film pass the Bechdel test or include any people not of European descent.

————————

Tagged: animals animal rights pop culture cultural studies movies film musical comedy sweeney todd johnny depp tim burton intersections intersectionality rape slavery misogyny feminist feminism animals and women bird pet companion animal animal companion macabre cannibalism meat cannibal soylent green mined meat pie helena bonham-carter play theatre cat feline cat meat london victorian gothic sexual slavery violence ableism flickr photos

Get right with D-O-G!:

Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs, No. 15: BEEF!, Bitches & “Bruised Feelings”

Kelly Garbato — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:55:23 +0000

vegansaurus!: BEEF!: nicht für Frauen–unless your Mann gives it to you

In which “beef” has its own magazine (and it’s a gentleman’s magazine, natch!): BEEF! for Men with Taste. Luckily, vegansaurus is all over that shit.

Ida @ L.O.V.E.: Political Correctness, Political Expediency, and Veganism and

Royce @ Vegans of Color: notes on “Veganism Overly Defined”

Ida (taking a break from The Vegan Ideal to guest post at L.O.V.E.) and Royce respond to a guest post at Vegan Soapbox (Veganism Overly Defined) in which the author dismisses an intersectional approach to veganism and animal advocacy as “attach[ing] favorite causes” and “baggage” to “Veganism.” Likewise, vegans who object to human-based “isms” “get so involved in the bruised feelings of some humans that the plight of voiceless animals becomes a marginalized issue.” Emphasis on “bruised feelings.”

Carol J. Adams: Remembering Mary Daly and

jenna @ L.O.V.E.: Feminism and Animals: What You Won’t Find in the 101

Mary Daly, a self-proclaimed “radical lesbian feminist,” recently passed away at the age of 81. While much has been written of Daly’s radfem theology, I didn’t realize that she was also an animal rights advocate and vegetarian until I read a memorial written for Daly by Carol Adams. Herself a former student of Daly’s, Adams’s obit is rather charming and provides a glimpse of what it must have been like to be a young adult attending college in the ’70s.

Unfortunately, Daly was also something of a transphobe, perhaps most famously referring to trans people as “Frankensteinian.” On this point, jenna’s post at L.O.V.E is well worth a read; in it, she illustrates why, as advocates for justice, compassion and respect, it is ill-advised and hypocritical for vegans to leave any marginalized group, human or non, behind. (Also click through the many links jenna provides to The Vegan Ideal, where the intersection of ecofeminism and transphobia is discussed in much greater detail. That is, if you haven’t yet; I’ve included many of these posts in past link roundups.)

Brittany Shoot @ Bitch Blogs: The Biotic Woman: Intro to ecofeminism

In their quest for global interweb domination, the bitchy bitches at Bitch magazine – no, wait, make that Bitch Media! – have expanded their web presence over the past year. The new(ish)-and-improved Bitch Blogs feature a rotating lineup of guest bloggers, most of whom focus their super-bitchy powers on disassembling a single topic from a feminist perspective. Past areas of discussion include (dis)ability, female pop culture (super)heroes, athletics, lesbian representation, and female sexuality, to name but a few. And while animal advocacy has popped up on the regular and guest bloggers’ radars now and again, it’s been some time since animals were granted serious consideration by a vegan or vegetarian Bitch blogger.

Enter Brittany Shoot, otherwise known as “The Biotic Woman,” who will be guest-blogging about issues of ecofeminism and intersectionality for the next few (eight?) weeks. Topics of interest include:

the human cost of chocolate, the use of fur in northern climates and indigenous cultures, soy and soybean farming, nuclear power’s environmental effects, ideas for carbon-free transit, the links between racism and animal oppression, and how you can be a pro-choice vegan. I’ll deconstruct and highlight ecofeminist issues in the news, like today’s New York Times editorial about Big Food. I’ll also be looking to a lot of female and feminist leaders on environmental and animal rights issues and featuring their words hopefully even more than my own. I’m looking forward to critically engaging in these issues, receiving your feedback and comments, and learning from the Bitch community!

Now go dance a happy, wiggly dance on over to Bitch and show Brittany (and Bitch!) some love, mkay? (And yes, I’m tickled green to have been included in the above link roundup!)

The Guardian: KFC accused of racism over Australian advertisement

KFC advert showing Australian cricket fan placating West Indies supporters with chicken has caused anger in America:

Via Racialicious.

Also, Lisa at Sociological Images poses the question: Are They Racist or Are We Ethnocentric?

Finally, on Animal Rights & AntiOppression, check out:

On Corporate Personhood and Animal Rights – Mary examines the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate personhood and First Amendment rights vis-à-vis campaign donations, asking whether the proposed cure is any better for nonhuman animals than is the underlying problem.

We Sell Body Parts – Marji beats me to the punch re: PETA’s objectification of women. This makes me very, very happy, for discussing PETA – be it with non-veg/an feminists or non-feminist veg/ans – is about as fun and productive as beating one’s head against the Great Wall.

Emotion vs Logic: Sexism, Psychology and Advocacy – Deb looks at our societal bias for “logic” over “emotion” – a bias that sometimes extends into the animal advocacy movement. Pay special attention to the discussion taking place in the comments – interesting stuff!

—————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare patriarchy intersections parallel oppressions animals and women sexism misogyny gender feminism race racism violence stereotyping exploitation sex intersectionality kyriarchy megatheocorporatocracy pop culture speciesism flickr photos news in the news quick links link roundup link dump Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs beef transphobia mary daly emotion logic peta corporate personhood campaign finance amendment constitution bitch magazine ecofeminism

Get right with D-O-G!:

Blog for Choice Day: On being a pro-choice vegan.

Kelly Garbato — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:06:24 +0000

Blog for Choice Day 2010:
Trusting Women, Honoring Dr. Tiller

I wrote the bulk of this post last June, in the days and weeks following the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Initially – and still – intended as part of a series called “Killing in the Name of,” this piece attempts to reconcile my pro-choice and vegan beliefs, which as it turns out, isn’t a difficult task at all. Harder still is defending some of the “terrorist” tactics employed by the animal rights movement while condemning similar tactics when used in service a “pro-life” agenda. It’s an emotional and confusing endeavor, and one I’m still working on. If ever I do figure it all out, I’ll post Part 2 of this series.

In the meantime, I’d like to share my thoughts “On being a pro-choice vegan” as part of today’s Blog for Choice Day (5th annual, bitches!). It doesn’t exactly fit with this year’s theme, but seeing as “Trusting Women” was chosen in honor of Dr. Tiller, I think it’s appropriate anyhow. If you disagree, hop on over to Animal Rights & Anti-Oppression; my post there follows the assignment to a “t” (“v”?).

———————

“Killing in the Name of”: Introduction

My apologies for the brief blogular absence. I’ve got a ton of posts lined up in the queue, but my attention has turned elsewhere – from animal rights to reproductive rights (which aren’t completely unrelated) – since the murder of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday.

News of Dr. Tiller’s death came like a kick in the gut. The last time an abortion doctor was murdered was in 1998; I was only 20 at the time, and somewhat apolitical. Even though Dr. Barnett Slepian’s murder occurred not far from my hometown, I really can’t recall what I felt – if anything – at the news. But now – now I know better. Dr. Tiller’s murder, far from an isolated crime committed against a single individual, was intended to terrorize abortion providers and reproductive health clinics all over the United States. Doctors and clinics that provide vital health care, primarily to women. Scared women, marginalized women, women in need, women with nowhere else to go. To this end, it was an atrocity perpetrated against women everywhere, women who want nothing more than control over their own lives – and bodies. Women who simply want to be regarded and treated as fully human.

Dr. Tiller was one of a handful of doctors who perform abortions in the later term of pregnancy (whereas “late term” defies definition, and may mean anything from 3 to 6 months on). He saved countless women’s lives, even in the face of unrelenting threats and danger, including an assassination attempt and the bombing of his clinic. Dr. Tiller was a hero – a hero who became a martyr. It’s difficult to describe, but Dr. Tiller’s murder – and all the anti-choice rhetoric that’s littered the media since – well, it’s hit me. Hard. It feels like women are under siege, our very bodily sovereignty up for grabs.* We’re so, so much worse off without him.

Of course, our collective loss pales in comparison to the loss suffered by his family, which includes his wife, 4 children and 10 grandchildren. My heart bleeds for them.

Naturally, many on the left have labeled this an act of domestic terrorism, and criticized the media and government for not doing so. They also point to the extreme right wing rhetoric that inflamed passions against abortion providers, implicating it in the murder. Scott Roeder may have pulled the trigger, the reasoning goes, but pundits and anti-abortion crusaders put the gun in his hand.

All of which has brought to the fore related issues with which I’ve been grappling for quite some time, particularly those involving parallels between the animal rights and anti-choice movements. For example, while animal rights “terrorists” have never killed a human, they do engage in campaigns of harassment and intimidation against individuals involved in animal exploitation – campaigns that are uncomfortably similar to the forms of “protest” carried out by “pro-lifers” against abortion providers. While animal rights activists are deemed the #1 domestic terrorist threat, anti-abortion groups (not-so-)curiously slip under the radar. And yet, is the answer to label them “terrorists” – or to rethink the very definition of “terrorism”?

Fetal Rights vs. Animal Rights

While it may escape the layperson, at their core, the animal rights and anti-abortion movements share little in common. “Pro-lifers,” who purport to be “pro-life,” are nothing of the sort, while the animal rights philosophy elucidates an ethic that’s truly respectful of all life.

As Ryan notes in “Anti-Abortion and Animal Rights Terrorists,” the anti-abortion movement is largely rooted in religion – including its patriarchal dominance of women. We mustn’t “kill babies,” say “pro-lifers,” because they have “souls,” are “gifts from God” (or an “irresponsible” – read: slutty – woman’s punishment for having sex/being raped; take your pick), and/or miniature humans. To anti-choicers, a seven-day-old blastocyst – or even the day-old fertilized but not-yet implanted egg – deserves the same – nay, greater! – rights than the fully formed, adult woman in which it exists, simply by virtue of its parentage.

While an embryo or fetus does possess human DNA, it doesn’t start to resemble a “little person” until well into the pregnancy; we begin as tiny clumps of 70-100 cells called blastocysts, spend 8 weeks as embryos, and then undergo six more months of fetal development prior to birth. During much of this time, we lack many of the brain functions that make us…well, functioning humans. PZ Myers points out that fetuses cannot even feel (sense) pain until at least the 25th week of gestation, for example.

Thus, anti-choicers have a difficult time pointing to one single criteria which marks an embryo as “human” (what is “human,” anyway?) and thus deserving of basic human rights. Sentience – the ability to feel pain and suffer – is often cited as an argument against “late term abortion,” yet the lack of sentience in earlier stages certainly doesn’t prevent anti-choicers from railing against all abortions. (And indeed, even birth control, including but not limited to that which might prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.) A “soul” is necessarily a religious concept – therefore, “ensoulment” might prohibit you from having an abortion, but as a religious belief, it’s not something you can push on the rest of us via legislation. Remember, we live in a secular country that guarantees freedom of – and from – religion; just as I cannot prohibit you from believing in ensoulment at conception, no matter how stupid a concept I find it, you cannot force me to abide by it.

But what of sentience? As an animal rights advocate, certainly a fetus’s capacity to suffer and feel pain means that I must include it in my sphere of compassion and afford it the same right to life I extend to nonhuman animals? In order to avoid hypocrisy, shouldn’t I support a ban on abortion after the 25th week or so? Well, no. Here’s why.

For lack of a better term, I believe that all sentient beings – not just humans – have a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – as long as one being’s pursuit of happiness does not infringe on another being’s right to life or liberty. And no, this doesn’t mean that I want to extend suffrage to dogs, any more than I want to extend it to three-year-old children. One’s (civil) liberties rely upon one’s ability to exercise them, and thus are species-dependent. An entirely different matter are (human) rights – those most basic of rights which we extend to all humans, regardless of age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, ability, etc. Animal rights advocates wish to extend certain basic protections – e.g., the right to live free from enslavement and exploitation – currently enjoyed by humans to nonhuman animals. A chimp has no interest in voting, however, she does have an interest in not being kidnapped from her family, shipped to a research facility overseas, subjected to gruesome experiments, and “retired” to a roadside zoo once she’s no longer needed. In short, all beings have a right to live, and to live free from exploitation. (Or, to phrase this in less masculine terms, we should treat our fellow earth-dwellers with respect and compassion – the way we’d like to be treated. Causing another being to suffer unnecessarily is not compassionate.) “My” cat is no more my property, or a means to an end, than “my” child.

Pregnancies present a unique case wherein the “right” of the fetus to live is diametrically opposed to the woman’s right to bodily sovereignty. Frankly, I can’t think of a more basic freedom than the ability to decide what – if anything – resides in one’s own body. In this case, the woman’s right trumps any “rights” the fetus or embryo may have; doubly so when you consider that, in the early stages of pregnancy, the blastocyst/embryo/fetus hardly resembles a human baby, is lacking in cognitive function, and would die outside the mother’s womb. Strictly speaking, the embryo/fetus is a parasite, wholly dependent on the mother’s organs and life force for survival. I’d no more force a woman to carry and birth a fetus against her will, than I’d force a man to live with a six-pound tapeworm in his intestine.

Nor would I force parents to donate blood, bone marrow, organs or other “expendable” body parts to children in need. While I may believe that it’s morally incumbent upon them do so, legislation requiring that they do so would strip them of sovereignty over their very bodies; and to this heathen vegan feminist, if you can’t control your body, your very being – you are anything but “free.” Put another way, parents shouldn’t have less of a right to bodily autonomy than non-parents, simply because they engaged in sex resulting in offspring. One doesn’t sign away control over one’s own body upon parenting children. It matters not if the offspring is a developing fetus or a 19-year-old kid.

Interestingly, I’ve yet to hear a “pro-lifer” advocate for forced organ donation, even though their arguments in favor of forced birth logically lead to this conclusion, namely, that by having sex and creating a fetus (which grows into a baby which grows into a child), parents are responsible for sustaining that being’s physical well-being, no matter how much this may encroach on the parent’s body. (Not-so-) curiously, this logic is only employed when it’s the bodies of women/mothers which are being hijacked. But why should relinquishing one’s body and its organs – so long as it does not kill you** – end with birth? “You created this child,” the logic goes, “now it’s your responsibility to sustain it.” And yet, this burden is only hoisted on the bodies of those carrying would-be babies – a population which is necessarily 100% female. At its core, the movement to legislate pro-life beliefs is misogynist.***

Furthermore, for all their wailing about THE BAYBEEZ!, anti-choicers do little to actually, practically reduce the need for/number of abortions – the most effective method being to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Such strategies include comprehensive sexual education and affordable and widely available contraception, including Plan B. Yet, anti-choicers usually stand opposed to each of these: they tend to support abstinence-only education, agitate for their “right” to deny women contraception via conscience clauses, and mischaracterize Plan B (which prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg, thus preventing pregnancy) as an “abortifacient.” In fact, the extreme, vocal religious right faction of the “pro-life” movement is intent on outlawing not just abortion, but contraception as well, in order to force today’s “liberated” women back where they belong – in the home, barefoot, pregnant and uneducated, subservient to God and their Husbands.

If “pro-lifers” were really as pro-life as they claim to be then, in cases where women do find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, certainly the pro-lifers, being so pro-life and all, help her to obtain an abortion as early as possible in the pregnancy, so that the being she’s aborting is less likely to feel pain and suffer…right? Rhetorical question, natch. (Lol ur nayevetay!)

Which brings us to cases of “late term” abortion – the kind provided by the late Dr. Tiller. Most of these abortions are performed out of medical necessity, when the life or health of the mother and/or fetus is endangered. Many of these pregnancies were planned and wanted, and it’s only with great despair and desperation – and at the urging of a physician – that the mother turns to abortion. Few women carry a fetus for five or six months and then “suddenly” decide that they no longer wish to have a baby.

On the contrary; the seemingly “reasonable” roadblocks thrown in front of women seeking abortions (such as mandatory counseling and ultrasounds and spousal and parental consent), not to mention the dearth of abortion providers, mean that women, encountering difficulty in obtaining an abortion, must push the date further and further back. Of the relatively small percentage of women who seek medically unnecessary late(r)-term abortions, many do so because they were unable – vs. unwilling – to obtain abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The simplest way to reduce the number of late-term abortions, again, is to make contraception and abortion affordable and available. The “pro-life” movement’s failure – nay, active opposition – to do so makes them anything but. In the case of late-term abortions, where they’d rather see both mother and fetus suffer – and possibly die – together, it makes them absolutely anti-woman, anti-child, anti-human – anti-life. (And, um, that’s not even taking into account their dietary habits.)

On being a pro-choice vegan.

Animal abolitionists, in contrast, tend to be a more ethically consistent lot (emphasis on tend to). While animal rights philosophy is both nuanced and diverse (and given that this is an animal rights blog, aimed at animal rights activists, I don’t think it’s necessary to delve into the details), for me it boils down to the following:

Is unnecessary suffering bad?
Can nonhuman animals suffer?
Does my immediate survival directly depend on using or harming an animal?

As the answers almost always amount to “yes,” “yes,” and “no,” I believe that it’s almost always unacceptable to “use” nonhuman animals as if they are resources or a means to an end. An animal’s species membership is no more relevant to this discussion that his sex, gender, color, breed, sexual orientation, (dis)ability, etc. What counts is sentience, and if an animal is sentient, he has the same interest in avoiding suffering as you and I. As the supposedly “evolved” and “superior” species, we should recognize and abide by this.

In granting nonhuman animals the right to live free from human exploitation, I’m not taking rights (or compassion) from humans, rather, I’m extending rights to animals. (Animal advocates are no more about subjugating humans than feminists are about subjugating men.) Again returning to Ryan’s post, a human has a right to eat what she needs to survive – she doesn’t, however, have a right to kill and eat another animal (human or non) if there’s a non-sentient alternative food source available.

Admittedly, individual animal advocates (and I have been one) differ in their application of this philosophy to both human and nonhuman animals. For instance, the above argument seems to me to rule out the death penalty, as executing a criminal, no matter his crime, is not necessary to my survival (or the survival of society as a whole). He’s already been caught and imprisoned; his execution amounts to retribution, not self-defense, and is therefore inconsistent with the animal rights ethic laid out above.

With few exceptions, you’ll also find that animal rights philosophy rests largely on reason, logic, compassion and justness, as opposed to the religious fanaticism and misogyny that drives the anti-choice movement. Animal exploiters may not agree with our conclusions, but we do base them on evidence and observation, something which cannot be said of “pro-lifers.”

Of course, there’s also the issue of “killing” fetuses, which I’ve tackled above. In a perfect world, abortions would be safe, legal, rare – and performed as early as possible in the pregnancy. But absent that, I still don’t believe that whatever “right to life” a fetus may have trumps the right of a woman to live free of exploitation – and yes, the unwanted use of her body is tantamount to exploitation. When two very basic rights are in conflict, it’s every animal for herself. For what it’s worth, I also support the reproductive rights of cows, gorillas, pigs, mice, chickens, and bats. If a chimpanzee was capable of self-inducing an abortion – or of expressing her desire for one – I’d be the first to march on Capital Hill for her right to abort her nonhuman fetus.

As many animal advocates fall on the liberal end of the spectrum, no doubt a large segment of us support sex ed, contraception, higher education, religious freedom, women’s equality – and all the other shiny stuff that helps to make abortion as safe, legal, rare and early as is possible. Do you?

I am pro-choice, and a vegan.

These values are not mutually exclusive.

Only a meat-eating misogynist would argue otherwise.

Notes

While the bulk of this post was written quickly, off-the-cuff and without referring to any specific books, articles, etc., I relied heavily upon Cristina Page’s How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex (which I recently read and reviewed) for the sections on the anti-choice movement and reproductive rights. Much of my general knowledge vis-à-vis reproductive rights and religion comes from years spent consuming feminist media and lurking on feminist and atheist blogs. Likewise, my views on terrorism have been shaped by years spent engaged in animal rights activism, as well as Steve Best and Anthony J. Nocella II’s introductory chapter in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals.

Footnotes

* I tried to describe the feeling of knowing that a sizable and vocal minority wants to subjugate your body and will to that of another being to my husband by referencing the Alien franchise: try to imagine, if you will, the idea of an alien squatting in your body, of not wanting it there but being unable to eject it, and of knowing that, in time, it’ll rip right through your guts and burst out your chest. Now imagine that there’s a cure, but scientists refuse to administer it, as they’ve fetishized the alien to such a degree that they’ve granted him more rights than you. And btw, did I mention that this indignity is only visited upon men, simply because they had the misfortune of being born men? And oh yeah, something like 80% of the scientists are women – howdya like them apples?

** That said, some extreme anti-choicers think women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, even if it does kill her.

*** Please note that I refer specifically to those who would force their pro-life beliefs on others (i.e., are pro-life and anti-choice), as opposed to those who consider themselves pro-life but believe that abortion should remain legal and with few restrictions for others (pro-choice pro-lifers).

Photo credits, top to bottom

Trust Women: Blog for Choice Day 2010 logo courtesy NARAL.

George Tiller: Pro-choice Martyr – CC image via Flickr user Liza Sabater.

Get your laws away from my uterus. – CC image via Flickr user bitchplz.

Anti-abortion Leaders: 77% of anti-abortion leaders are men. 100% of them will never be pregnancy. CC image via Flicr user smiteme.

Pregnant Toque Macaque: Pregnant macaque in the Berlin Zoo. She seemed so heavy that she could barely move. CC image via Flickr user Sebastian Niedlich.

Brave survivors of the Midwest floods: A mother and her piglets find refuge at Farm Sanctuary. Image via Farm Sanctuary on Flickr.

Brave survivors of the Midwest floods: A mother pig peers beyond the camera. She and her babies are safe from the dinner plate at Farm Sanctuary. Image via Farm Sanctuary on Flickr.

Rows of farrowing crates: Breeding sows live in metal crates which are lined up in rows. CC image via Farm Sanctuary on Flickr.

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare animal advocacy abolition meat carnival blog for choice day dr. tiller abortion pro-choice vegan veganism terrorism pro-life anti-choice organ donation forced birth feminism feminist misogyny religion patriarchy kyriarchy flickr photos pigs sow piglets farm sanctuary killing in the name of Scott Roeder Kansas Wichita ethics pregnancy fetus blog swarm roe v. wade sexism sexist speciesism speciesist intersections intersectionality animals and women reproductive rights human rights exploitation january 22 may 31 events anniversary oppression violence murder meat is murder blog for choice

Get right with D-O-G!: