Here we have the Wyoming state quarter, which on the back features its state motto – “The Equality State” – and, to its left, is the silhouette of a “cowboy” riding a bucking horse.

The website TheUS50 explains:

The bucking horse and rider symbolize Wyoming’s Wild West heritage. “Buffalo Bill” Cody personified this in his traveling Wild West show. First settled by fur trappers, Fort Laramie, Wyoming, later became a popular destination for pioneers traveling the Oregon Trail.

Wyoming was nicknamed the “Equality State” because of its historical role in establishing equal voting rights for women. Wyoming was the first territory to grant “female suffrage” and became the first state in the Nation to allow women to vote, serve on juries and hold public office. In 1924, Nellie Tayloe Ross became the first woman elected Governor of Wyoming. In 1933, Ross became the first woman appointed as the Director of the United States Mint.

As per usual, “equality” by default applies only to human animals; the irony of choosing to feature an image of animal exploitation alongside the state’s nickname was apparently lost on the US Mint. This is hardly surprising, given the speciesist world in which we live. So ubiquitous is our oppression of animals that it’s rendered mostly invisible; like water to a fish. Try as we might, sometimes it can be difficult to recognize it all.

Although this particular quarter was released in 2007, I didn’t catch on to the irony until last winter.* The husband, having taken the dogs walking in a nearby park, accidentally left the car’s lights on, thus draining the batteries. Long story short, I ended up stuck behind the wheel for a half hour while we jumped the battery. Bored to tears, I started rummaging through the car’s various cubbies and compartments and found a few state quarters. Though I’d probably glanced at a Wyoming state quarter countless times by then, for some reason the contradiction struck me; equality for whom? Certainly not the horses imprisoned, enslaved, raped, abused, maimed and killed in rodeos (not to mention other horse-related industries). But nonhumans – much like women before them – simply aren’t deemed worthy of our consideration. I can only hope that history will once again prove us wrong.

* Yes, this is on average how long my posts languish in draft purgatory. Bad blogger, bad.

Image: A smiling, curly-tailed, adorable pink cartoon pig looks up at a checklist that reads:

COPS ARE NOT PIGS

Pigs are our friends
Cops are not

Pigs mind their own business
Cops do not

Pigs have curly tails
Cops have guns

Pigs defecate freely
Cops are anal-retentive

Pigs grunt with joy
Cops grunt with aggression

Pigs are highly intelligent
Cops are mindless clones

HOW DARE YOU INSULT A PERFECTLY GOOD PIG!

By way of disclaimer, obviously I don’t think that all cops are mindless, cruel bullies, more interested in asserting (and abusing) their authority than protecting and serving the public. I’d certainly argue that the system – increasingly militarized in nature and always protective of its own – encourages such behavior; however, in spite of this trend, some cops are perfectly nice people, and remain so throughout their careers!

This graphic simply refers to that subset of cops worthy of insult (and more) – for example, cops who rape vulnerable women and shoot cowering dogs with impunity – with the gentle reminder that such insults must not further marginalize already oppressed groups: animals (pig, cow, rat, jackass, wildebeest, etc.), women (bitch, cunt, pussy, etc.), and people of color (a whole slew of words that I, as person of Italian and German descent, don’t feel comfortable typing here), to name but a few.

Words are powerful – so use them wisely!

Speaking of the police, overheard on tumblr:

Don’t just fuck the police.

Take the police out on a couple dates. Take the police to the movies or a nice stroll in the park. Feed the police some delicious fondue. Make the police fall in love with you. Then, fuck the police. And then out of nowhere, stop taking calls from the police. Ignore the police. Make the police miss you. Make the police cry.

Love this!

Also, there’s a guide to knowing your rights during encounters with the police – for example, how to refuse searches – that’s been circulating on tumblr, but I’ll be damned if I can find it (this, maybe?). Instead, I’ll send you here: flexyourrights.org. Plenty of handy videos, and they may or may not have written that checklist I so liked (and then so promptly lost!).

For those who can’t view the image, it’s a series of four panels, all of which are animated gifs:

1) A white, blond, bearded man is animatedly addressing the camera: “Instead of deriving ‘bad words’ from sex, we should derive it from bad musicians.”

2) The same man is shown walking down a hallway and into a living room. Not paying attention to where he’s going, he walks right into a sofa, presumably hurting his leg or otherwise sustaining injury.

3) Hopping around on one leg, gripping his knee, the man screams out, “NICKELBACK!”

4) And, grimacing, “THAT HURT LIKE A KATY PERRY SINGLE!”

Fin.

Originally spotted on tumblr! I don’t usually take the time to repost stuff from tumblr in this space, but this was just too good not to share! (That’s a not-so-subtle hint that you should follow me on tumblr, people!)

Added bonus lolz: when the husband and I first started dating, I found a Nickelback CD in his car. Note how I say “found” as though it was some horrific discovery … cause it was. Ten years later and his liking Nickelback enough to shell out $15 for their CD is still a running joke/insult.

* Credit where credit’s due; I so did not think of this one!

Pages 206 and 207 of Anna Lappé’s latest book, Diet for a Hot Planet (Bloomsbury, March 2010). Principle #2 in her “Seven Principles of a Climate-Friendly Diet” is “Put Plants on Your Plate.” So far, so good, yes? Not so fast! Under “Resources for Principle 2,” Lappé lists the following bullet points: “Viva veggies”; “Support real meat and dairy farmers”; and “Go for grass fed [beef].” Epic Animal, Vegetable, Mineral FAIL.
(Click through to enbiggen the image, the most offensive parts of which I have helpfully marked up with my trusty red Photoshop pen.)
——————————

Nonhuman animals (“meat” and “beef”) and their secretions (“milk”) are not plants, mkay? Unlike, say, pinto beans or watermelon, “beef” has a family and friends; can think, feel and suffer; and screams bloody fucking murder when you cut into its her live flesh. While it’s true that I’ve become all too accustomed to raw, shameless speciesism from environmentalists -

- for example, I just finished reading Eaarth, which was penned by the same stubborn “green” omnivore who penned the intro to your own latest stubbornly non-vegan “green” tome, in which he mentioned vegetarianism but twice (and veganism, not at all), despite a discussion of animal agriculture’s sizable contribution to climate change, i.e., the very focus of his book -

- your recommendation to adopt a plant-heavy diet by consuming animals and animal by-products is beyond mind-boggling; it’s at once factually incorrect and completely lacking in compassion. (Cows as cantaloupes? Hello, objectification!)

I mean, really – how do you expect me to take the rest of your Diet for a Hot Planet seriously after such a fundamental gaffe?

Signed,

x A vegan-feminist environmentalist

P.S. There is no such thing as “humane meat.” An unnecessary and involuntary death is, by definition, inhumane.

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights intersections intersectionality environment green meat objectification language plants books Anna Lappé Diet for a Hot Planet Diet for a Small Planet climate change global warming meat’s not green humane myth beef milk factory farming grass fed beef flickr photos Frances Moore Lappé Small Planet Institute cow bovine vegan veganism vegetarian vegetarianism Bill McKibben Eaarth

Don’t fear, Ms. Kaylee is here! lol dog sez, “wonder beyatch – be hear 2 smash ur kyriarchy, mkay?” She brought her Wonder Woman undies, but she’ll need to borrow a hammer. You got a problem with that, human?
——————————

Last November, I penned a brief letter to the editors of VegNews, in which I questioned Rory Freedman’s casual use of the term “fur hag” – “hag” being a sexist, ageist and lookist slur. (VegNews subscribers can read the exact quote in context in Freedman’s column, “Prison or Bust,” which appeared in the December 2009 issue.) Fast-forward several months; my letter was published, albeit with several edits, in the March+April 2010 issue.

Not surprisingly – given the popularity of the term, as well as PETA’s “fur hag” campaigns – some readers disagreed with my comments, including Annie Hartnett of change.org‘s newly-rebranded Animals blog. (Many thanks to Marji of Animal Place for bringing the post to my attention!) In Are Animal Lovers Sexist?, Hartnett argues that, ahem, attacking women for their femaleness is not sexist because most fur-wearers are women.

While I have previously deconstructed the term “fur hag” – as well as the campaigns’ associated imagery – what follows is a line-by-line response to Hartnett’s piece. Rather than rehash points that I’ve made elsewhere, however, I’ll use this as an opportunity to build upon my previous argument. If you haven’t already, please go read last January’s On “fur hags” and “fucking bitches.” before continuing on; doubly so if you’re surfing on over here from change.org. (Also related, and referenced in passing below: ARA PSAs: Women, Men and Fur and ARA PSAs: Attack of the Killer Cosmetics.) (1)

Before we begin, though, I’d like to reprint my letter, as Hartnett did not/would not do so, even upon request.

Here is the original letter, in its entirety:

As a vegan feminist, I’m increasingly disturbed by the number of animal advocates who are willing to engage in sexism (and other “isms”) in the course of their advocacy – “for the animals,” of course (as if women are not sentient beings as well). Take, for example, Rory Freedman’s use of the term “fur hag” to describe those who wear fur (“Prison or Bust,” December 2009 issue). “Hag” – a gendered slur that is synonymous with “witch” – literally means “an ugly old woman.” While fur-wearers may indeed be ugly on the inside, a person’s gender, age and physical appearance say nothing of her character. If Ms. Freedman – or any other animal advocate – feels the need to resort to insults, please keep them “ism”-free. “Jerk,” “loser,” “asshat”: all convey a point – without further marginalizing already-marginalized groups of animals, human or non.

Kelly Garbato
Kearney, MO 64060

kelly.garbato [at] gmail.com

www.easyvegan.info

By the way, I wrote a lengthy piece on the term “fur hag” last year, wherein I expound upon the sexist, ageist and sizeist nature of the phrase in much greater detail than is possible in 250 words or less. Additionally, I employ PETA’s associated “fur hag” campaign imagery to further illustrate my point. You can read the post in its entirety at bit.ly/vl8sB

Seriously, tho’, enough with the misogyny!

And here is the letter as it appears in VegNews:

IsmIre

As a vegan feminist, I’m increasingly disturbed by the number of animal advocates who are willing to engage in sexism (and other “isms”) in the course of their advocacy. For example, Rory Freedman’s use of the term “fur hag” to describe those who wear fur (“Prison or Bust,” December 2009 issue). “Hag” is a gendered slur; it literally means “an ugly old woman.” While fur-wearers may indeed be ugly on the inside, a person’s gender, age and physical appearance say nothing of her character. If any animal advocate feels the need to resort to insults, please keep them “ism”-free. “Jerk,” “loser,” and “asshat” all convey a point, without further marginalizing already-marginalized groups of animals, human or non.

Kelly Garbato
Kearney, MO

As you can see, there’s some light editing going on, some of which is rather puzzling (e.g., making a complete sentence incomplete). I’m including both versions not because I so enjoy the sound of my own fingers typing, but rather to give y’all an idea of the points I wanted to convey (the original letter), as well as the exact points to which Hartnett is responding (the edited letter). Naturally, distilling this post into 250 words or less was a bit of a challenge, but I think I pulled it off. (The great thing about having one’s own blog? You get to set the word limits. Muahahaha!)

The quintessential “hag”: the evil witch-queen from Disney’s Snow White. The witch is short, stocky, and haggard; she is plagued by what – for a cartoon character – is an excess of wrinkles; she has a long, crooked nose, topped off with a grape-size mole; her eyes are surrounded by deep, dark bags; her fingernails are overly long and (presumably) yellow; her teeth are crooked and twisted; and she has gray – if not pallidly yellow – hair. She is the embodiment of ugly – and, by association, evil. (2) Eva Longoria, Mary Kate and Ashley Ollsen, Kate Moss – none of these “fur hag” celebrities physically resemble a “hag” in the least.
——————————

Now on to Hartnett’s response. Please go read her post in full, as I’ll only quote the relevant sections below.

I’m a vegan feminist too, but I disagree.

Sure, there are a few fur-loving Kanye Wests and Johnny Weirs out there, but the fur industry is mainly fueled by women. According to the Fur Information Council of America, the sales of fur to men accounts for five percent of total fur sales. If women are buying 95 percent of fur, then it is a gendered issue.

This particular paragraph, I think, cuts to the core of our disagreement. I never said (or even implied) that fur consumption is not gendered. Fur – especially items made primarily of fur, such as stoles and coats – is much more popular and socially acceptable among women than men. (Indeed, remember when David Puddy donned a “womanly” fur coat on Seinfeld, thus making himself a “man furred” object of ridicule?) Fur is considered a fashionable sign of wealth when worn by women, whereas men who wear “flamboyant” fur pieces risk either calling their sexuality into question (hello, homophobia!) or are associated with certain unsavory characters, e.g., “pimps” (a stereotype that’s both racist and classist in nature; and, to the extent that “pimps” are romanticized, misogynist as well).

Given the above, I think it’s both valid and worthwhile to examine the gendered nature of fur – as well as other animal exploitation items of vanity, such as silk, feathered hats and cosmetics tested on animals, for starters – with a critical eye. More so than men (although the gap is slowly narrowing), women’s self-worth rests in their physical appearance – in their perceived beauty, or lack thereof. Girls are socialized from an early age to believe that there’s no higher compliment than to be called “beautiful.” Advertisers chip away at our self-esteem, only to sell us expensive products that are harmful to our bodies and the environment: “anti-aging” wrinkle cream, Botox, fad diets, “breast augmentation” surgery – labia jobs, even. To this end, women consume fashion and beauty items, including fur and cosmetics tested on animals, in disproportionate numbers.

Rather than feed into this cycle by further disparaging women with misogynist insults – by mocking women for being “old,” “fat,” “ugly,” “unfuckable” (or – dog forbid – too fuckable, i.e., a “slut”), etc., etc., etc., why not break it by actively challenging these “isms”?

Yes, fur is most certainly a gendered issue; however, this gender disparity does not grant animal advocates license to use gendered slurs against those who wear fur. Insult the fur wearer’s character and morals – not her sex, age, physical appearance, or other irrelevant, largely genetic personal attributes.

I mean, really. Who cares if Anna Wintour is “ugly” or Donatella Versace, “fat”? (And I’m not saying they are, one way or the other.) The face and body type a person’s born with say nothing of her inner character. Being “ugly” on the outside does not make one ugly on the inside.

PETA’s “Worst Dressed” campaign always attacks fur-wearing women, and men rarely make the list. In 2001, PETA told Sharon Stone: “Put your fur coat away. We saw enough of that tired old beaver in Basic Instinct.” Ouch. PETA has also attacked Star Jones’ weight, called Kate Moss a “supertramp,” and Eva Longoria a “streetwalker.”

More than anything else, this section of Hartnett’s reply boggles the mind. Defending one sexist slur by pointing to PETA’s use of several more? How does that work, exactly?

Referring to Sharon Stone’s “tired old beaver”?: Sexist and ageist.

Along with similar terms such as “pussy,” “cunt,” “tail,” “piece of [ass],” “snatch,” “beef sleeve,” “bearded clam,” “camel [toe],” “fish [taco],” and the like, “beaver” is one of many slang terms – often used in a pejorative or objectifying manner – for women’s genitalia. A number of these terms involve nonhuman animals – many of them either edible (fish, clams, deer, assorted pieces of “meat”) or domesticated/tame-able (cats) – thus linking the oppression of women with that of nonhuman animals. (3)

As if signaling Sharon Stone’s vag out for ridicule isn’t bad enough, PETA further denigrates Stone – and her sex organs – as “tired” and “old.” In addition to the ageist implications that old(er) people are “less than,” this insult adds another layer of misogyny to that already unpeeled. Stone isn’t just old and tired; her “beaver” is old and tired, too. Get it?! Old women are ugly and unfuckable! What man would want to poke a wrinkly, well-worn, loose cunt like Stone’s, anyway? Yuck!

As with “ugly” “old” fur “hags,” the age and tightness of Stone’s vag has nothing to do with her decision to wear fur.

Attacking Star Jones’ weight?: Primarily sizeist, but also sexist, classist and racist. (It’s all connected, yo!)

PETA’s billboard, reworked by moi. It reads: “Save the ‘Whales’: Boycott PETA!” The “fat” lady – i.e., the “whale” – appears as a loud and proud VEGAN. Now there’s a billboard I’d happily fund.
——————————

This is an area which received a great deal of coverage over the summer, when PETA put up, took down, and not-really-apologized for that odious “Save the Whales” billboard. I never did get around to writing about it, so instead I’ll direct you to this massive link roundup I compiled of vegan-feminist responses.

The bottom line, for the umpteenth time, is that a person’s body size is not relevant to the discussion. Some underweight people are cruel, mink-wearing, puppy-kicking, baby-juicing fuckers, while some overweight people are the kindest, most compassionate and giving vegans you could ever hope to meet. And vice versa. What’s weight got to do with it? Nothing. To suggest otherwise is to encourage prejudice and stereotyping based on a person’s body size (i.e., sizeism).

How is weight (and thus weight-based discrimination) tied to gender, class and race, you ask?

Gender: What constitutes an acceptable weight varies based on the subject’s sex. Women are allowed less leeway when it comes to weight and body size (and physical appearance overall); whereas a man might be able to “get away” with carrying around an extra 20 pounds, this same amount of weight on a female frame (even one similarly sized) is more likely to be met by ridicule. See, for example, the flap over American Idol Jordin Sparks.

Class and race (and geography, too): While partially genetic/biological, one’s weight is also influenced by environmental factors, such as diet, exercise and lifestyle. While it’s easy for middle-class, suburban white folks such as myself to assume that everyone has several well-stocked grocery stores nearby, not to mention safe neighborhoods in which to play and, if so desired, extra funds with which to purchase gym equipment or a gym membership, these are privileges – privileges closely tied to one’s race, class and geographic location. Impoverished people, people of color, and those living in inner-cities don’t have the same access to healthy/fresh/organic/unprocessed/plant-based foods as do (possibly) you or (definitely) I. Ditto: preventative and emergency health care, knowledge about nutrition, and areas in which to exercise without risking one’s own personal safety.

As I argued on Stephanie’s “Save the Whales” post, rather than shaming overweight people into losing weight, PETA would be better served by increasing access to healthy, plant-based foods, not to mention joining the fight against poverty and working to make schools and neighborhoods safe for children and adults alike.

But I digress.

Race (and ethnicity): In addition to the above, race (and ethnicity) is tied to weight in another way as well: namely, what constitutes a healthy and/or attractive weight (and the two are not mutually exclusive in popular imagination and discourse, though they should be) varies between cultures and across time periods. PETA’s definition of “fat” may not jibe with Star Jones’ – nor may its perception of “fat” as a negative. By pushing Western beauty standards as the ideal, PETA (et al.) is engaging in colonialism.

By the by, the page to which Hartnett links only mentions Jones in passing – and only in relation to Lara Flynn Boyle, one of 2004′s “Worst Dressed” celebs. Because it offers an interesting case study in the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” Catch-22 that is femininity, let’s discuss, shall we?

7. Lara Flynn Boyle – Unlike the entire forest of foxes it takes to cover up previous worst-dressed winner Star Jones, it likely takes just a fox-and-a-half to cover this incredible shrinking actor, so PETA ranks her last for having caused the fewest animals to be drowned and strangled for her coats.

Whereas PETA deems Star Jones “too fat,” Lara Flynn Boyle is “too thin.” Now, I’m not saying that Flynn Boyle isn’t extremely thin – so much so that rumors abound about a possible eating disorder. But this is a classic example of how women can never win; Jones loses because she doesn’t adequately conform to Western beauty standards governing how a woman should look, i.e., thinner than is healthy – while Flynn Boyle also loses because she conforms to these standards a little too closely.

I’d argue that it’s much the same with other areas of fashion and beauty (including the aforementioned fur and cosmetics): women are taught to pay close attention to their physical appearance – but pay too much attention and you’re a superficial, vain little powderpuff. (Wherein just how much is “enough” is forever fluctuating and subject to interpretation.) Funny, that.

Calling Kate Moss a “supertramp”?: Sexist, anti-sex, anti-sex worker, and/or classist.

This is Supertramp; Kate Moss, not so much. (For those who can’t view the image – it’s a group shot of Supertramp, the rock band of the late ’70s/early ’80s. LOL my wordplay funtime!)
——————————

So much to deconstruct.

As related to this discussion, a tramp is:

a sexually promiscuous woman

Kate Moss has a lot of sex! She enjoys fucking! Let’s bury the slut up to her neck and stone her to death, shall we?

But seriously. Again, why should the amount of sex a woman engages in – or the vigor with which she does so – be introduced into a discussion about the ethics of wearing fur? Rhetorical question; as with gender, weight, physical attractiveness, etc., it shouldn’t. It’s irrelevant. And for an organization that’s quick to call feminists (including vegan feminists) who oppose its nude campaigns “anti-sex” “prudes,” this sentiment is…awfully sex-negative, no? Sex is a normal, healthy part of life; why all the hate for women who have and enjoy it?

And, um, hello gender disparity! Riddle me this: how many men does a woman have to sleep with before she’s “trampy”? How many women does a man have to sleep with before he’s a “tramp”?

Or, to further muddy the waters: how many women does a woman have to sleep with before she’s “trampy”? How many men does a man have to sleep with before he’s a “tramp”?

Yeah.

But this definition is only partial; the entire entry reads:

a sexually promiscuous woman; prostitute.

As with PETA’s nude ads, “good” (vegan) feminists can and do disagree whether sex work – including but not limited to prostitution – is necessarily misogynist, or can ever be empowering/liberating/feminist/insert your super-awesome adjective here. But there’s a world of difference between being anti-sex work and anti-sex worker. Calling a woman a “prostitute” as a means of (slut-)shaming her is decidedly anti-sex worker. Not cool.

Women enter prostitution for a whole host of reasons. Some see it as a valid and favorable career choice; they enjoy having sex in exchange for money. (One might argue that this sums up the institution of marriage in a nutshell.) Again, why should a woman’s enjoyment of sex count against her? (4) In addition to personal preferences, some women enter the sex industry because they have no other options or marketable skills; as education is tied to privilege (race, class, etc.) anti-sex worker bias is, in a way, racist and classist. Still others become involved in prostitution because of past sexual abuse and/or current drug use. Ableist much? Via human trafficking, some girls and women (and boys and men) are literally “sex slaves” – victims of repeated sexual and physical violence. I hardly think they deserve to bear the brunt of PETA’s ire; do you? (If so, there’s a term for that: victim-blaming.) Finally, sex workers are predominantly women; in fact, you could argue that sex work is one culmination – a logical conclusion – of the social roles that woman are socialized into. Madonna, meet whore. Fittingly, anti-sex worker rhetoric and sentiment is usually aimed at women; it’s sexist. (Wheh!)

But wait! There’s still one more “ist” definition to dismantle!

a person who travels on foot from place to place, esp. a vagabond living on occasional jobs or gifts of money or food.

In other words, a homeless person – a “bum.” As with sex workers, there are many reasons a person may find herself homeless: choice, yes, but also unemployment (due not just to personal irresponsibility, but a faltering economy, so crippled by the actions of a privileged few; most of them white, most of them men – a majority of whom were rewarded, rather than punished, for their immoral-if-not-outright-criminal acts), mental illness (I will see your schizophrenia and raise you PTSD triggered by war time combat!), and drug use/addiction. As with sex workers, none of these conditions make a person deserving of our ridicule.

Calling Eva Longoria a “streetwalker”?: Sexist, anti-sex, and anti-sex worker. See: Kate Moss.

The letter in VegNews suggested animal advocates switch to insults like “jerk,” “loser,” and “asshat.” The trouble is, those words don’t pack much of a punch.

Okay, let’s not be disingenuous here. Seeing as I was penning a letter to a rather PG, family-friendly magazine – and seeing further that I wanted VegNews to actually publish my commentary – I couldn’t exactly let loose with the obscenities. In addition to jerk, loser, and asshat, we have: asshole, wankstain, shitface, fuckwad, dick nose, douchenozzle (5)…shall I go on?

Nor need one stick with standards. Create your own unique combinations! Make up your own silly nonsense words and imbue them with meaning! Learn the curse words of fictional languages! Transform the names of detestable items and people into insults!

Some of the shiniest slang comes from the world of science fiction. (Shiny! Get it!?) Frak off. Gorram. Nugget. And that’s not even counting Klingon!

Bernie Madoff appears on the cover of New York magazine, Photoshopped to resemble The Joker. The headline trumpets: “Bernie Madoff, Monster.” Indeed.
——————————

Likewise, Dan Savage singlehandedly transformed “Santorum” – as in Rick Santorum, the former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania – into a noun signifying “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex,” in honor of the politician’s homophobic comments. Why not treat men like Donald Tyson, Kenneth Lay, Bernie Madoff, Frank Perdue, John Ensign, Joseph Ratzinger, et al. with the same degree of respect? At the very least, these men deserve to have their names used as insults; sex workers and homeless people, not so much.

Dog gave you a brain; use it. You’re only limited by your own imagination (and, hopefully, your anti-oppressive ethics). “Queer,” “fatty” and “slut” – this is the stuff of schoolyard bullies. Lazy. Unimaginative. Easy. You’re better than this…aren’t you?

After all this, if you still find that oppressive insults such as “fur hag” and “streetwalker” “pack [more] of a punch” than, say, “Santorum” or “hymen hugger,” (6) perhaps you ought to stop and ask yourself why? Why is being a woman – or being “fat,” or “ugly,” or gay, etc. – the meanest, most vicious thing you can call someone? What does this say about our society, and how it values those who are “other”? Is this really a value system you want to perpetuate?

Additionally, the effectiveness of a given strategy says nothing of its moral righteousness. One of the most powerful words in the American English lexicon is one so abhorrent and taboo that I can’t even bring myself to type it in this here space (particularly as someone lacking in melanin). So, Annie: If you really, seriously want to insult a fur-wearer – and if degree of offense is positively correlated with one’s license to offend – then I expect to see the n-word grace the pages of Animals with increasing frequency.

No? I didn’t think so. (And thank dog for small favors.)

I’m less comfortable with using gendered insults when talking about eating animals, as opposed to wearing them. The popular vegan diet book, Skinny Bitch, has also taken a lot of flak for the book’s misogynist language (Including over at the Sustainable Food blog). And earlier today was the first I’ve heard of John Joseph’s book Meat Is For Pussies.

Well, at least I don’t have to explain why pushing thinness as an ideal and tossing around slang for women’s sexual organs in an insulting manner is misogynist. Phew!

Or…do I? Really, one shouldn’t be “comfortable with using gendered insults” at all. Again, pointing out the ways in which animal exploitation conform to gender roles and gendered stereotypes is perfectly acceptable, if not a welcome change of pace for the animal advocacy movement. But this is far, far removed from insulting women merely for being women, which is exactly what gendered slurs do. Meat or fur, it matters not: sexism is sexism, ageism is ageism, lookism is lookism – and none have a place in the animal advocacy movement.

So what do you think? Are animal advocates too vicious towards women? Or is it okay to get catty for the sake of animals?

“Catty,” really? Sigh.

@ Annie Hartnett: Consider this your feminist intervention. finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com – For the love of dog. Go there, please. Lurk, listen, learn. And try your best to ignore the speciesism – at least until you’ve mastered the feminism and can craft a coherent, anti-oppressive retort to the otherwise badass bitches over there.

Catra, She-Ra’s would-be nemesis and my imaginary girlfriend.
Kelly ♥’s Catra, furever.
——————————

Me-ow.

—————-

(1) How many “gender + fur” posts must a girl bank before she’s crowned the Official “Fur Hag” Hag ™? Because that would be, like, totally awesome. WANT!

(2) Personally, I much prefer Neil Gaiman’s retelling of the Snow White tale, in which Snow White’s stepmother is not wicked, but innocent and compassionate; so much so that she cannot bring herself to slay her young stepdaughter after the King’s death, a folly which eventually costs the Queen her throne. (Spoiler: All is stolen by a vampiric Snow White and her necrophiliac Prince Charming!) Seriously, read it: the story appears in John Joseph Adams’ vampire anthology, By Blood We Live. Best part of the book.

(3) Yes, the English language is replete with slang terms for men’s genitalia as well (e.g., “cock”); but these do not come close to rivaling female-specific terms in number, nor are they as consistently employed in a negative manner (e.g., when a man is called a “dick” or “cock,” it’s usually with an undercurrent of respect – he may be a jerk, but he’s a jerk who knows how to get what he wants).

(4) Also: nice to see you again, Catch-22! If women are not eager enough to have sex – or do not express adequate pleasure in bed – they are “cold” and “frigid.” If they are too willing to have sex – or express too much pleasure in bed – they are “tramps,” “sluts,” “whores,” etc. What constitutes “enough” and “too much” sexual activity and pleasure, and how do these norms differ according to the subject’s gender and sexual orientation?

(5) “Douchebag” and variants thereof are arguably not misogynist. Ditto: “bitch” and “cunt” (and “hag” in #1 above) when used by women in a positive, complimentary manner.

(6) See!? I thought of this one just now, all by my lonesome! A great slur for a virginity-worshiping misogynist, I tell you what!

—————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare peta rory freedman skinny bitch vegnews fur fur hag hag language sexism sexist feminist feminism misogyny race racism racist intersections intersectionality animals and women parallel oppressions class classism homophobia sex worker anti-sex transphobia transphobic slut shaming fat shaming flickr photos slang gender stereotypes gendered stereotypes gendered slurs ethnicity beauty kate moss sharon stone eva longoria ollsen twins ableism sizeism disability homelessness food diet privilege lol kaylee kyriarchy change.org kaylee my furkids

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

Carnism 101

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Call to Action

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

Carnism: A Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Footnotes

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

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

Videos (!)

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

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

The so-called “trash”? Chicken feet:

China is threatening to cut off imports of American chicken, but poultry experts have at least one reason to suspect it may be an empty threat: Many Chinese consumers would miss the scrumptious chicken feet they get from this country.

“We have these jumbo, juicy paws the Chinese really love,” said Paul W. Aho, a poultry economist and consultant, “so I don’t think they are going to cut us off.”

Chicken exports were thrust to the forefront of American-Chinese trade tensions on Sunday when China took steps to retaliate for President Obama’s decision to levy tariffs on Chinese tires. The Chinese announced that they were considering import taxes on automotive products and chicken meat, a development that some trade experts feared could escalate.

I’m pretty sure the ten billion chickens slaughtered annually view their feet as anything but “trash.”

Wordplay FAIL.

———————

* CNN doesn’t post transcripts of Morning Express with Robin Meade, so unfortunately I can’t offer context for Westhoven’s comments as I’d hope to – but the quote is verbatim.

———————

Photo via Flickr user KitLKat:

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare chickens chicken feet china america cnn hln jennifer westhoven msm mainstream media language speciesism morning express robin meade flickr photo

It’s not very high-tech, but here’s a photo I took of the commercial’s fish graphics:

So what’s wrong with this picture?

Well, there’s no such thing as “generic” fish. In fact, to refer to a group of sentient individuals (spanning one or more species) as “generic” is the ultimate in speciesist doublespeak.

Admittedly, I’m no expert on “fishing” or “seafood”; I’ve never been “fishing,” and was never an enthusiastic consumer of “seafood,” even in my omni days. Thinking at first that “generic fish” might be an industry or “fishing” term, I hit the Google. A search for the term “generic fish” didn’t turn up any such slang, just websites promoting “generic” fish clip art or selling “generic” fish oil capsules. Wiki wasn’t much help, either; most of the hits for “generic fish” are in the context of “this is the generic term for x species of fish.” As far as I can tell, KSHB pulled the term out of its keister.

(Granted, I could certainly be mistaken, in which case I welcome a correction! I’m not sure widespread use of the term would make it any less problematic, however.)

No doubt, what KSHB actually meant was “less expensive fish(es),” or “more common fish species,” etc. As in, the customer is paying for an expensive, “exotic” species of fish and receiving a cheap substitute, thus being cheated out of their hard-earned money. (Nevermind the many fishes who were cheated out of their very lives.)

Interestingly, the news reports on KSHB’s website do not refer to “generic” fish, though they do contain equally speciesist terms (for example, referring to the “cheaper” fishes as “counterfeit” foodstuffs).

Also note how I refer to fishes plural, rather than fish singular. The latter, more common usage implies that fish(es) are a single, indistinguishable lump of food, an inseparable mass of stuff – kind of like wine or crushed tomatoes.

Of this human tendency to reduce individual non-human animals to a collection of edible flesh, Joan Dunayer writes,

Fishers share hunters’ penchant for regarding nonhuman beings as insentient things. [...]

As in hunting, the victims are “specimens” with no individual identities. One fisher attributes unique “personality” to each fish species, not each individual fish. Instead of catching individuals, fishers hook, boat, hold and photograph “species” and “strains.” Captured fishes blur into the “string” or “catch.” Fishers catch “little or nothing” instead of few or none. They release “a portion of their catch” instead of some fishes among those caught. Avoiding noticeably plural references to basses, trouts, and other fishes, they kill “bass,” “trout,” and other “fish,” even multiple “marlin” and “shark.” Such language conveys the same speciesist message: Individual fishes don’t matter; they either exist for human pleasure and use or have no right to exist at all.

Elsewhere in Animal Equality, she notes how obviously prejudiced this wordplay is when applied to marginalized groups of human animals:

Just as racists have spoken of blacks as “the Negro” and Jews as “the Jew,” people speak of all members of a nonhuman group as if they were a single animal, implying that they’re all the same: they refer to cheetahs as “the cheetah” and bees as “the bee.” Popular usage merges nonhuman individuals into a single substance.

In similar ways, language enforces and reinforces “isms,” whether directed at human or non-human animals. All the more reason for each of us to take a closer look at our vocabularies and banish discriminatory terms and phrases from our lips.

Words matter.

———————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare msm mainstream media news fish fishes kansas missouri kansas city kcmo kcks NBC Action News nbc joan dunayer animal equality language speciesism racism words matter flickr photos

I find it interesting that Stewart and Woodruff open the discussion with a clip of Earth 2100 that invokes the anecdote of the frog submerged in a pot of boiling water: namely, if you put a frog in a pot of water that’s already boiling, she’ll jump right out, having sensed the heat and danger. But if you place her in a pot of cold or lukewarm water and gradually raise the temperature, she’s none the wiser, and will remain in the deathtrap until she becomes frog soup. In this metaphor, humans are the frogs, and the pot is earth.

Which is all fine and good, except according to Snopes, this is a folk tale:

Like a fable, the “boiled frog” anecdote serves its purpose whether or not it’s based upon something that is literally true. But it is literally true? Not according to Dr. Victor Hutchison, a Research Professor Emeritus from the University of Oklahoma’s Department of Zoology, whose research interests include “the physiological ecology of thermal relations of amphibians and reptiles to include determinations of the factors which influence lethal temperatures, critical thermal maxima and minima, thermal selection, and thermoregulatory behavior”:

“The legend is entirely incorrect! The ‘critical thermal maxima’ of many species of frogs have been determined by several investigators. In this procedure, the water in which a frog is submerged is heated gradually at about 2 degrees Fahrenheit per minute. As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. If the container size and opening allow the frog to jump out, it will do so.”

The “boiled frog” legend is a ubiquitous one – one that, given its falsehood, is both speciesist and completely inappropriate for what I assume is supposed to be a scientific documentary. The latter point is a given, but allow me to explain the former: central to the anecdote’s premise is the idea that a frog is so utterly stupid that, given subtle but entirely discernible cues, “it” would remain oblivious to the increasing danger and allow “itself” to be boiled alive. “Let’s not be like those lesser animals!” the tale cautions. Except. In denying climate change and poo-pooing slight increases in average global temperatures as “insignificant,” the human species is actually exhibiting less sense than Dog gave a frog. The frog isn’t earth’s complacent village idiot – we are.

Also of note: Jon alludes to the presumed vivisection which led to the “discovery” that frogs might allow themselves to be boiled alive, given the right circumstances. Both Stewart and Woodruff appear to think that such gruesome experiments probably took place years ago, in the distant past. Except.

“The legend is entirely incorrect! The ‘critical thermal maxima’ of many species of frogs have been determined by several investigators. In this procedure, the water in which a frog is submerged is heated gradually at about 2 degrees Fahrenheit per minute. As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. If the container size and opening allow the frog to jump out, it will do so.”

While I can’t locate citations for these experiments, Wiki suggests that they’re more recent debunkings of “research” performed in the late 1800s (“research” on which the legend is apparently based).

So, yeah, we boil frogs alive – or attempt to, anyway. And that’s not even the worst of it.

Anyhow, back to Earth 2100.

The show strikes me as a prequel to Life After People – which I blogged about last week – albeit with a contingency plan. Of course, all the lifelines in the world won’t help unless we’re willing to avail ourselves of them.

From ‘Earth 2100′: the Final Century of Civilization?:

It’s an idea that most of us would rather not face — that within the next century, life as we know it could come to an end. Our civilization could crumble, leaving only traces of modern human existence behind.

To change the future, first you have to imagine it.

It seems outlandish, extreme — even impossible. But according to cutting edge scientific research, it is a very real possibility. And unless we make drastic changes now, it could very well happen. [...]

In the history of Earth, there have been five mass extinctions in which at least half the species on the planet disappeared. Scientists believe the extinctions were brought on by natural disasters — massive volcanic eruptions, rapid climate changes and meteors hitting Earth.

Today, scientists say we are in the middle of a “sixth extinction” — and for the first time, it’s being caused by one species — us. It seems inconceivable that we could do so much damage to our planet that we actually cause society as we know it to collapse. But historical precedent shows that it is, in fact, a very real possibility.

“Every society that collapsed thought it couldn’t happen to them,” says Joseph Tainter, an expert in anthropology and societal collapse. “The Roman Empire thought it couldn’t happen. The Maya civilization thought it couldn’t happen. Everyone thought it couldn’t happen to them. But it did.”

These populations grew too much and exhausted their resources — and their climate suddenly changed. People were forced to fight each other for what little was left or face starvation. Entire societies broke down.

“Civilizations in the past have lost the fight,” says climatologist Heidi Cullen. “They have collapsed as a result of the inability to deal with several different events going on at once. I think the takeaway is that honestly, we are not that special.”

Earth 2100 covers the obvious suspect (climate change) as well as water scarcity, oil and fuel depletion, national security, migration patterns, drought, flooding, mass (non-human) animal (species) extinctions, and other global crises. If you’re as cynical as I, probably you’ll read this as Exhibit #23,386,982 in favor of VHEMT.

Anyhow, if this all sounds interesting, Earth 2100 airs tonight on ABC at 9 PM ET – so set those timers!

There are also a number of clips available on the show’s website, so check it out.

In an entirely unrelated matter, I’m supremely disappointed that The Daily Show didn’t so much as mention the murder of Dr. Tiller on Monday’s episode. Granted, I didn’t expect them to devote a segment to it – nor would such a segment have been appropriate, unless conducted with righteous anger and a complete absence of humor, which Jon rarely deals in – but I had hoped for a mention of the crime, or at least an “in memoriam” graphic to close the show. But nada on what amounts to an atrocity committed against women everywhere. Fauxgressive much?

————–

Videos in this post:

The Daily Show – June 1, 2009 – Bob Woodruff
Bob Woodruff lays out the worst-case scenario for the future of our civilization in “Earth 2100.”

————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare environment environmental environmentalism environmentalist bob woodruff the daily show jon stewart earth 2100 climate change documentary video video blogging urban legend speciesism

Prologue
Sound of a Battery Hen
 

 
You can tell me: if you come by the
North door, I am in the twelfth cage
On the left-hand side of the third row
From the floor; and in that cage
I am usually the middle one of eight or six or three.
But even without directions, you’d
Discover me. We have the same pale
Comb, clipped yellow beak and white or auburn
Feathers, but as the door opens and you
Hear above the electric fan a kind of
One-word wail, I am the one
Who sounds loudest in my head.

While Masson also explores the exploitation of sheep, goats, ducks and chickens in The Pig Who Sang to the Moon, the mother-child bond between a mother hen and her chicks receives the most attention of these remaining groups – so I’ll conclude my discussion with a look at “egg production.”

Photo via Jeanette’s Ozpix

In previous posts, I noted how female non-human animals (like their human counterparts) are especially vulnerable to exploitation because of their reproductive systems. Their ability to give birth – oftentimes referred to as a “miracle” in humans – makes them particularly valuable as the producers of future “commodities.” Their value, unfortunately, does not lead to preferential treatment from their captors. Instead, they suffer especially brutal and prolonged abuse.

As such, females become machines, assembly lines, destined to produce milk, eggs, flesh – and a replacement generation of baby-, milk- and/or egg- machines:

By the mere fact of their sex, sows, hens, ewes, does, nannies, cows and heifers – not to mention mares, bitches, jennies, jills, etc. – are ripe for especially brutal and prolonged exploitation. Oftentimes, this involves a constant cycle of pregnancy, birth, nursing and baby-napping, culminating with the female’s own death when she’s no longer able to breed or “produce” to her “owner’s” satisfaction.

Certainly, we recognize that the theft of a mother’s child is an atrocity when the victims are human mothers and children. At the same time, we argue that non-human animals deserve no rights because they are mere brutes, “lesser” beings, ruled by instinct and instinct alone. Yet, what is the drive to reproduce and parent if not an evolutionary instinct? And if we follow the popular line of reasoning – i.e., animals are creatures of instinct – does it not stand to reason that the maternal instinct is especially powerful in non-human animals?

Many – if not most – non-veg*ns find it difficult to relate to non-human animals, who (supposedly) are so different from us. At a fundamental level, our differing modes of communication make cross-species communication more difficult, particularly when one species (that would be us) has little interest in communication (and mutual understanding and respect) to begin with. Even so, many humans live with “pets,” the majority being dogs and cats; and, as we’ve come to recognize certain expressions and non-verbal cues in these mammals, such empathy can be extended to other, similar species – such as cows and pigs.

Photo via Woodstock FAS

Birds, though, are another animal (pun intended) altogether. The anatomy of a bird – small, “beady” eyes, a rigid beak where an expressive mouth might otherwise be, two legs coupled with a pair of wings rather than four limbs – renders their non-verbal language incomprehensible to us. Many of the common cues, such as emotions expressed via the mouth, lips and/or snout, are absent – and most humans haven’t the knowledge (or desire) to properly “read” birds on their terms. As alienated as humans are from other animals and the natural world, this alienation only grows with species differences, whether real or perceived. (Consequently, many people don’t even think to attribute basic sentience, including the capacity to experience fear and pain, to fishes, what with their very un-human-like appearances.)

Perhaps this is the reason (or one of many) why birds – chickens, especially – are the most abused and exploited group of animals on the planet. The United States “produces” and consumes ten billion chickens (and half a billion turkeys) every year. Along with rodents and cold-blooded animals, these 10.5 billion sentient creatures are not even afforded the most basic protections under the Animal Welfare Act (which is a scam anyhow, but stay with me here); put another way, these animals do not even qualify as “animals” under federal legislation.

Because we see them as “alien” beings, so unlike us, birds suffer greatly at the hands of humans. “Different,” however, does not mean “less than”; and, should one bother to take a closer look, one would find that birds are sentient beings who experience many of the same emotions as humans, dogs, cats, cows and pigs. For example, while the mechanics of birth in the chicken world may differ from that in humans, the evolutionary and psychological aspects aren’t completely foreign. When it comes to family ties and the mother-child bond, chickens are surprisingly….human. Or rather, “animal,” as humans certainly don’t have a monopoly on parenting, friendship and love.

Photo via Bobcatnorth

In a previous post on cows, I noted how mothers carry their young for nine months before giving birth; pigs, too, carry and birth their young, as do most mammals. In contrast, birds – hens included – lay and incubate eggs; if the eggs are fertile, chicks will emerge under optimal conditions:

When a hen is used to coming to his “call” the rooster may mount the hen and proceed with the fertilization.

Under natural conditions most birds lay only until a clutch is complete, and they will then incubate all the eggs. Many domestic hens will also do this – and are then said to go broody. The broody hen will stop laying and instead will focus on the incubation of the eggs (a full clutch is usually about 12 eggs). She will sit or set fast on the nest, protesting or pecking in defense if disturbed or removed, and she will rarely leave the nest to eat, drink, or dust-bathe. While brooding, the hen maintains the nest at a constant temperature and humidity, as well as turning the eggs regularly during the first part of the incubation. To stimulate broodiness, an owner may place many artificial eggs in the nest, or to stop it they may place the hen in an elevated cage with an open wire floor.

At the end of the incubation period (about 21 days), the eggs, if fertile, will hatch. Development of the egg starts only when incubation begins, so they all hatch within a day or two of each other, despite perhaps being laid over a period of two weeks or so. Before hatching the hen can hear the chicks peeping inside the eggs, and will gently cluck to stimulate them to break out of their shells. The chick begins by pipping – pecking a breathing hole with its egg tooth towards the blunt end of the egg, usually on the upper side. It will then rest for some hours, absorbing the remaining egg-yolk and withdrawing the blood supply from the membrane beneath the shell (used earlier for breathing through the shell). It then enlarges the hole, gradually turning round as it goes, and eventually severing the blunt end of the shell completely to make a lid. It crawls out of the remaining shell and its wet down dries out in the warmth of the nest.

The hen will usually stay on the nest for about two days after the first egg hatches, and during this time the newly-hatched chicks live off the egg yolk they absorb just before hatching. Any eggs not fertilized by a rooster will not hatch, and the hen eventually loses interest in these and leaves the nest.

One might assume that this physical/bodily separation between a mother hen and her chicks results in a weaker mother-child bond – prior to hatching, at least – than exists between a mother pig and her piglets, or a mother cow and her calves. One might also be mistaken.

Photo via WasabiNoise

Says Masson:

In the last few years we have learned that there may be more communication between the human fetus and the mother than was previously thought possible. We know that the fetus hears sounds in the womb; similarly, information is communicated by the embryos inside the egg to the incubating hen. Even before birth the chick is capable of making sounds both of distress and of pleasure, to which the mother hen reacts. A day or so before hatching, the chick often utters distress peeps. The mother hen then moves her body on the eggs or makes a reassuring call to the embryo, which is followed by a pleasure call on the part of the chick. In other words, the bond between the chicks and the mother hen starts before birth. This makes sense, for it allows us to understand why a chick responds immediately after the birth only to the calls of his mother. (page 65)

As with humans, pigs, cows – most animals, really – in chickens, the mother-child bond begins well before the chick emerges from his egg. Prior to hatching, mother and child are communicating with one another through eggshells – conveying fear, distress, contentment; offering reassurances; caring for one another; bonding and forming attachments.

A mother hen cares deeply for her chicks, Masson explains, and the maternal instinct manifests itself in similar ways across animal species:

Deeply embedded in the chicken brain is the instinct to construct a nest to protect her young. This is really not all that different from the human parent’s “instinct” to paint and furnish a room in anticipation of a new baby. [...]

The British philosopher Stephen Clark has pointed out that scientists rarely place quotation marks around words like “see” when used about animals, but are quick to declare words like “love” out of bounds. The complexity of the bond between a mother animal and her young is especially difficult for humans to study with objectivity because, in my opinion, it is startlingly clear that human mothers and animal mothers have so much in common. In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin quotes the philosopher of science, William Whewell, asking “Who that reads the touching instances of maternal affection, related so often about the women of all nations, and of the females of all animals, can doubt that the principle of action is the same in the two cases?” Darwin’s great friend George John Romanes wrote that “It must be admitted, from what we know of hens, that the maternal feelings may be so strong as to lead to a readiness to incur danger rather than that the brood should do so.” (pages 65-66)

And:

The mother hen – a phrase that has come to signify good mothering in humans – may appear to be doing nothing but feeding herself, at least to the naive observer. To the person trained to see what is truly going on, she is in fact imparting essential knowledge to her chicks. Christine Nicol and Stuart Pope from the Department of Farm Animal Science at the University of Bristol demonstrated this conclusively in 1996 when they gave hens unpalatable food, colored blue, which the hens learned to avoid. What would happen when their chicks were brought in and were also given this unpalatable food, but were too young to know? Would their mothers intervene? [...] It turned out that the mother hens did respond and attempt to get their chicks to avoid the bad food and eat the good food by nudging them away from the bad food. They knew that what the chicks were eating was not good for them and were teaching them what to eat. The scientists involved said they were “sensitive to perceived chick error.”

However, any such purposeful communication has been rendered irrelevant by Western factory farming mechanisms, which bring the chick its food by conveyor belt. Today, chickens are one of the fastest growing creatures on earth, genetically altered to grow twice as fast as normal – fast food on legs, bred to be fried and eaten within seven weeks of emerging from the egg. Others are permitted to grow into egg-laying machines, caged by the thousands in mighty sheds without a glimpse of the sun-dappled light of their natural habitat. Many people now go through life without seeing a hen in any other form than a corpse. (page 67)

Masson observes in passing that the English language implicitly recognizes the superior maternal skills of hens, as evidenced by the term “mother hen.”

Photo via mswebersd

In a later passage, he expands upon this thought:

Implanted in our language is the knowledge that hens, when permitted to sit upon their fertile eggs until they hatch, are devoted mothers: “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings.” (Matthew 23:37) (page 68)

No greater authority than the Bible has waxed poetic about the hen’s maternal gifts! (Okay, as an atheist, I’m saying thing with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek. But. For those who do subscribe to Christianity, this notion is worth a second look.)

For a change of pace, even the rooster gets his due:

Less well known, and not yet fully explored, is evidence of the altruism of the rooster. In his History of Animals, Aristotle drew the attention of ancient Greeks to a paternal quality in the rooster that, to this day, is controversial: “Some of the males have been seen before now, after the death of the female, busying themselves about the chicks, leading them around and rearing them, with the result that they neither crow any more nor attempt to tread.” (page 68)

As is almost always the case, “standard farming practices” do not honor parental, familial or social connections between hens, roosters and chicks. Factory farms reduce chickens to one of two types: “broiler” chickens, who are bred and birthed only to become “meat,” and “laying” or “battery” hens, who are kept captive so that we may steal their eggs (most infertile, some containing would-be baby chicks).

While our primary focus is “laying hens” – as these are the females whose reproductive systems suffer from sex-specific exploitation – let’s first look briefly at “broiler” chickens:

With a growing number of consumers switching from red meat to poultry, the chicken and turkey industries are booming. In addition to selling a growing quantity of poultry meat to consumers in the U.S., poultry companies are also benefiting from expanding markets around the world.

Record numbers of chickens and turkeys are being raised and killed for meat in the U.S. every year. Nearly ten billion chickens, and half a billion turkeys, are being hatched in the U.S. every year. These birds are typically crowded by the thousand into huge factory- like warehouses where they can barely move. Chickens are given less than half a square foot of space per bird while turkeys are each given less than three square feet. Both chickens and turkeys have the end of their beaks cut off, and turkeys also have their toes clipped. All of these mutilations are performed without anaesthesia, and they are done in order to reduce injuries which result when stressed birds are driven to fighting.

Today’s meat chickens have been genetically altered to grow twice as fast, and twice as large as their ancestors. Pushed beyond their biological limits, hundreds of millions of chickens die every year before reaching slaughter weight at 6 weeks of age. An industry journal explains “broilers [chickens] now grow so rapidly that the heart and lungs are not developed well enough to support the remainder of the body, resulting in congestive heart failure and tremendous death losses.” Modern meat type chickens also experience crippling leg disorders, as their legs are not capable of supporting their abnormally heavy bodies. Confined in unhealthy factory farms, the birds also succumb to heat prostration, infectious disease, and cancer.

Chickens and turkeys are taken to the slaughterhouse in crates stacked on the back of trucks. The birds are either pulled from the crates, or the crates are lifted off the truck, often with a crane or forklift, and then the birds are dumped onto a conveyor belt. As the birds are unloaded, some fall onto the ground instead of landing on the assemblyline conveyor belt. Slaughterhouse workers intent upon ‘processing’ thousands of birds every hour, don’t have the time nor the inclination to pick up individuals who fall through the cracks. Sometimes the birds die after being crushed by machinery or vehicles operating near the unloading area, while in other cases, they may die of starvation or exposure after days without receiving their basic needs.

Once inside the slaughterhouse, fully conscious birds are hung by their feet from metal shackles on a moving rail. The first station on most poultry slaughterhouse assembly lines is the stunning tank, where the birds’ heads are submerged in an electrified bath of water. Although poultry is specifically excluded from the Humane Slaughter Act which requires stunning, the practice is common because it immobilizes the birds and expedites assembly line killing.

Stunning procedures are not monitored, and they are often inadequate. Poultry slaughterhouses commonly set the electrical current lower than what is required to render the birds unconscious because of concerns that too much electricity would damage the carcass and diminish its value. The result is that birds are immobilized but are still capable of feeling pain, or they emerge from the stunning tank still conscious.

After passing through the stunning tank, the birds’ throats are slashed, usually by a mechanical blade, and blood begins rushing out of their bodies. Inevitably, the blade misses some birds who then proceed to the next station on the assembly line, the scalding tank. Here they are submerged in boiling hot water. Birds missed by the killing blade are boiled alive. This occurs so commonly, affecting millions of birds every year, that the industry has a term for these birds. They are called “redskins.”

Males and females alike may be enslaved and murdered for their meat. To factory farmers who produce eggs, however, only the females are of value:

Approximately 300 million egg laying hens in the U.S. are confined in battery cages — small wire cages stacked in tiers and lined up in rows in huge warehouses. The USDA recommends giving each hen four inches of ‘feeder space’, which means the agency would advise packing 4 hens in a cage just 16 inches wide. The birds cannot stretch their wings or legs, and they cannot fulfill normal behavioral patterns or social needs. Constantly rubbing against the wire cages, they suffer from severe feather loss, and their bodies are covered with bruises and abrasions.

Practically all laying hens have part of their beaks cut off in order to reduce injuries resulting from excessive pecking, an aberrant behavior which occurs when the confined hens are bored and frustrated. Debeaking is a painful procedure which involves cutting through bone, cartilage, and soft tissue. Poultry researcher, Dr. Ian Duncan notes, “there is now good morphological, neurophysiological, and behavioral evidence that beak trimming leads to both acute and chronic pain.”

Sickness and disease are inherent problems in factory farms where birds are forced to live in filth and extreme confinement. In an attempt to minimize costs, and maximize profit, even the sickest of hens are denied veterinary care. Hens are left to die a slow, and often agonizingly painful, death from sickness and injury. An undercover investigation done by Mercy For Animals uncovered birds suffering from raging eye and sinus infections, mechanical feather damage, pasturela, paralysis, vitamin deficiency, enlarged vents, wing hemetones, and blindness.

Laying more than 250 eggs per year each, laying hens’ bodies are severely taxed. They suffer from “fatty liver syndrome” when their liver cells, which work overtime to produce the fat and protein for egg yolks, accumulate extra fat. They also suffer from what the industry calls ‘cage layer fatigue’, and many die of egg bound when their bodies are too weak to pass another egg.

Osteoporosis is another common ailment afflicting egg laying hens as the birds to lose more calcium to form egg shells than they can assimilate from their diets. One industry journal (Feedstuffs) explains, “…the laying hen at peak eggshell cannot absorb enough calcium from her diet…”. While another (Lancaster Farming) states, “… a hen will use a quantity of calcium for yearly egg production that is greater than her entire skeleton by 30-fold or more”. Inadequate calcium contributes to broken bones, paralysis, and death.

After one year in egg production, the birds, are classified as ‘spent hens’, and sent off to slaughter. They usually end up in soups, pot pies, or similar low grade chicken meat products where their bodies can be shredded to hide the bruises from consumers. The hens’ brittle, calcium-depleted bones often shatter during handling and/or at the slaughterhouse.

With a growing supply of broiler chickens keeping slaughterhouses busy, egg producers have had to find new ways to dispose of spent hens. One entrepreneur has developed the Jet-Pro system to turn spent hens into animal feed. It is described in Feedstuffs, “Company trucks would enter layer operations, pick up the birds, and grind them up, on site, in a portable grinder… it (the ground up hens) would go to Jet-Pro’s new extruder-texturizer, the ‘Pellet Pro’”.

In some cases, especially if the cost of replacement hens is high, the hens may be force molted. This process involves starving the hens for up to 18 days, keeping them in the dark, and denying them water to shock their bodies into another egg laying cycle. The birds may lose more than 25% of their body weight during the molt, and it is common for between 5% and 10% to die.

For every egg laying hen confined in a battery cage, there is a male chick who was killed at the hatchery. Because egg laying chicken breeds have been selected exclusively for maximum egg production, they don’t grow fast enough or large enough to be raised profitably for meat. Therefore, male chicks of egg laying breeds are of no economic value. They are literally discarded on the day they hatch – usually by the least expensive and most convenient means available. They may be thrown in trash cans where they are suffocated or crushed under the weight of others.

A common method used to dispose of unwanted male chicks is grinding them up alive. This method can result in unspeakable horrors as a research scientist described, “Even after twenty seconds, there were only partly damaged animals with whole skulls”. In other words, fully conscious chicks were partially ground up. Eyewitness accounts at commercial hatcheries indicate similar horrors with chicks being slowly dismembered on augers carrying them towards a trash bin or manure spreader.

Hens are held captive, tortured with physical and psychological deprivation and abuse, forced to lay more eggs than their bodies were meant to – and, at the end of the day, they are never allowed the chance to incubate these eggs, to nurture the lives inside, experience their babies’ development and birth, and to raise these children in the wild, as nature and evolution intended. Once laid, a hen’s eggs are ferried away – usually automatically, via a slots and piping built into her cage-prison – never to be seen again. Her body depleted, she’s slaughtered for cheap “meat” after a year, without ever experiencing the joy of her children. This despite all those eggs (so many eggs!) she produced, with great cost to herself.

In “A cow is so much like a woman,” I mused,

Non-human animals, some of whom may be unable to make sense of their suffering (clearly, this varies widely from species to species), may actually have a greater capacity for suffering than humans. When the source of this suffering is the rupture and violation of deep, evolutionary instincts – such as the drive to reproduce and parent – the pain, panic and terror may be impossible for us to comprehend.

What must it feel like to expel egg after egg from one’s body – perhaps expecting to spend the next three weeks perched upon these eggs, protecting them from harm, perhaps feeling driven to do so – only to never see or touch these eggs, let alone the chicks that should be inside them?

What must it feel like to have this theft – not just of an egg, but of one’s children, family, social ties and life purpose – take place on a factory farm, in the context of ongoing torture? How much more egregious is this abuse when it’s suffered in a cage so tiny that you cannot stretch your wings, a cage stacked alongside and on top of thousands of identical cages, in a massive, windowless barn, housing hens who suffer the same fate as you?

What must the pain, panic and terror feel like?

I don’t think any of us can begin to comprehend a hen’s suffering -

but, if any human can come close, it’s Karen Davis, founder of United Poultry Concerns. If you’re still with me after this lengthy post, please take a moment to go read The Life of One Battery Hen, which appeared as a chapter in her 2005 book The Holocaust & the Henmaid’s Tale: A Case for Comparing Atrocities. It’s from this essay that I excerpted the “prologue” at the beginning of this piece.

I cried the first time I read it, and a dozen reads later, the tears still flow.

Photo via Igualdad Animal

Humans and chickens, women and hens, Handmaids and battery hens…no, we’re not so different, after all.

——————–

See also:

Horizontal Women

Horizontal Women, Redux

“A cow is so much like a woman”

“Useless Eaters”

Book Review: The Pig Who Sang to the Moon by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson (2003)

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare ethology animal behavior farmed animals factory farming livestock meat intersections parallel oppressions animals and women maternal instinct mother-child bond mother child speciesism sexism flickr photos the pig who sang to the moon Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson chicken rooster hen chick eggs poultry karen davis united poultry concerns handmaid margaret atwood exploitation awa animal welfare act