—————–

Update, 7/13/10: I just received a notice that Facebook deleted my SCHLONGS4SEALS page because:

You created a Page that has violated our Terms of Use. A Facebook Page is a distinct presence used solely for business or promotional purposes. Among other things, Pages that are hateful, threatening, or obscene are not allowed. We also take down Pages that attack an individual or group, or that are set up by an unauthorized individual. If your Page was removed for any of the above reasons, it will not be reinstated. Continued misuse of Facebook’s features could result in the permanent loss of your account.

So, just to recap: serious requests for women to send in their tit shots “for the animals” = a-okay; satirical requests for men to send in their crotch shots “for the animals” = hateful, threatening and/or obscene. Facebook, I do believe you hate women!

Anyhow, I’m currently weighing my options, which look rather slim at the moment. I could try setting up a similar page, but then I risk having my account disabled – a hassle which just isn’t worth it. Flickr might prove more welcoming to a SCHLONGS4SEALS group – I mean, hey, it’s home to entire groups dedicated to sexually harassing upskirt photos (!) – and indeed, the faux PSAs I created are all safe and sound in their own lil’ Flickr collection. But, you know, different social media sites, yada yada yada. My final and grandest idea is to go Thatchers out and launch an entire SCHLONGS4SEALS spoof website. Which sounds great, but OMG I so do not have the free time!

So, we shall see. In the meantime, if you’re on FB and find this whole affair as despicable as do I, why not hop on over to that *other* page and report it for similarly violating FB’s TOS? Seeing as most of us are either women or have friends who are women, might I suggest choosing “targets me or a friend” from the drop-down menu, as this continued objectification of women most certainly constitutes “an attack on an individual or group.” Please and thank you.

A screenshot, taken on 6/26/10, of the “Support For The Seals!” Facebook page. The image shows a fan photo – which has since been deleted – submitted to the page by Petra Simkova, in which the wearer of a pair of white undies (men’s briefs?) is flashing what JK Rowling would oh-so-demurely call a “rude gesture” at the camera. In other words, what we have here is an exaggerated crotch shot and a middle finger – all in all, an adequate summary of my feelings towards Facebook and Michael McDade (aka SeaL Shepherd).
——————————

—————–

Update, 7/3/10: If you’d like to participate, but don’t have a Facebook account, not to worry! Just send me your package @ easyvegan [at] gmail.com and I’ll upload it as an admin. You can choose to remain anonymous OR be credited (with a link back to your blog or site), whichever you prefer!

—————–

A bottom-less Pamela Anderson strikes a flirty pose as she models PETA’s ‘Save the Seals’ tee. The shirt is all-white save for a black sketch of a fuzzy-wuzzy seal on its front. The ad’s copy reads, “What do I have in common with Barack Obama, Vladmir Putin and the Dalai Lama? We all oppose the massacre of baby seals. It’s time to end Canada’s shameful slaughter.” And, in red and gray text: “Pamela Anderson for PeTA” and “SAVETHESEALS / END CANADA’S SEAL SLAUGHTER.”
——————————

Over the weekend, I was browsing a few friends’ Facebook feeds when I happened upon Support For The Seals!. Purportedly, the page aims to “raise awareness” about seal hunting in Newfoundland – by (wait for it!) encouraging female fans to post photos of their tits:

Boobs for seals…did he just write that? Yes he did. Show your “support” for the seals!

1) Suggest to 100 friends! (link above)

2) More friends = more boobs = more support for the seals!

Much thanks to these brave ladies! Get your mammos!

Now, if I wasn’t already suffering from blog fatigue, I might offer a coherent vegan/feminist critique of this so-called “campaign” (scare quotes because it reads more like a Girls Gone Wild casting/sexploitation call); and, knowing me, this essay would clock in at no less than 2,000 words. Probably it would contain a good deal of salty language, and not a few references to “the kyriarchy” and “intersectionality.”

For example, I might begin my rant with a brief analysis of the “post your bra color for breast cancer” Facebook campaign on which Support For The Seals! is based, arguing that it:

1) trivialized breast cancer by making it all about the boobies (instead of, you know, life or fucking death);

2) excluded some actual breast cancer survivors from participating (i.e., those who have undergone double mastectomies have little need for bras; insensitive much?);

3) played into cultural memes which reduce women to body parts (What, no “boxers or briefs” campaign for testicular cancer? No, that would be silly!); and

4) did little to actually raise awareness of the issues surrounding breast cancer (Dietary and environmental risk factors, anyone? Time to drop the I word, methinks!), thus transforming the well-intentioned but misguided effort into a day of titillation for Facebook’s (heterosexual, sexist) male members.

I might also argue that Support For The Seals! is infinitely worse than the aforementioned breast cancer campaign, as a) it involves actual photos of actual women’s actual breasts, whereas b) the link between the objectified body part and the cause it’s supposed to further is much, much more tenuous (nonexistent, you might say).

I might point out that, practically speaking, this page does little more than provide a bunch of internet pervs with additional wanking material (as if they’ve a need for more, amiright ladies?); certainly, it does nothing to actually “raise awareness” about Canadian seals and the many threats they face, nor does it provide concrete assistance (material support, monetary donations, volunteer pledges, etc.) to those working to end seal hunting.

The first in a series of (faux) VAPETA PSAs I made using Photoshop. A group of four young, skinny, white men (underwear models, presumably) strike a pose wearing nothing but their tighty whities – which are oh-so-tastefully decorated with sketches of cute, fuzzy wuzzy seals. The ad’s copy reads, “FOUR RANDOM DUDES FOR VAPeTA” and “SCHLONGS4 SEALS / END PETA’S MISOGYNY / LIVE VEGAN” in bold red, black and white text.
——————————

I might further note that, nowhere on the page’s long list of “sister” groups can a similar group for males who wish to show their Support For The Seals! be found. Nor are photos of men’s sex organs welcome on Support For The Seals! (Two photos of seemingly male crotches were posted and subsequently deleted between Saturday and Monday, as were comments critical of the page.)

Finally, in order to preempt claims that I’m just humorless prude in need of a good lay, I might also reveal that I myself have participated in a “show us your [insert body part here]” campaign in the past. The ReBellyon was a fan protest of Roadrunner Records’ decision to cut several clips of a bare-bellied Amanda Palmer from her music video for the song “Leeds United,” reportedly saying that the footage was axed because label execs thought the musician looked “too fat” to be showing her midriff in public. (Holy run-on sentence, Catwoman!) In response to RR’s sexism and sizeism, fans and supporters took photos of their own bellies, submitted them to www.therebellyon.com, and mailed them to RR with letters of dissent. At first glance, the ReBellyon might seem similar to Support For The Seals!; however, unlike the latter, the former: a) was a direct, relevant response to a specific issue; b) had a concrete, measurable goal; c) welcomed fans of all sizes, shapes, colors, ages and genders as participants; and d) ultimately demonstrated that beauty is not specific to a certain gonosomal makeup or dress size. Most “show us your…” campaigns fail on all counts; this doesn’t mean that I’m blanket opposed to all such efforts.

But sometimes words only seem to carry you so far; where reasoned argument and impassioned prose fail, a visual demonstration may be in order. Plus, yada yada, blog fatigue.

Instead, I decided to re-imagine Support For The Seals! with men as the objects of (s)exploitation, implored to bare their manly parts “for the animals,” treated as if their penises are the most (only?) worthy of contributions they can make to “the movement.” The way women so often are.

So instead of a lengthy rant (syke!), I bring you SCHLONGS4SEALS, a Facebook page that encourages men to post their “junk shots” in order to “raise awareness” for seals and, um, other stuff. Rather than rehash what I already wrote (and also because I half expect FB to shut it down), here’s an excerpt from the group’s info. (Keep in mind that the phrasing and tone are lifted directly from Support for The Seals!.)

Overview

One year ago, a well-intentioned but self-loathing Facebook user put a group together for breast cancer. “Show your bra for breast cancer support,” she wrote. This movement to foster breast cancer “awareness” did little more than provide a bunch of internet pervs with wanking material. (As if there’s a shortage of objectified female body parts both online and ITRW, amiright ladies?)

Well, this “bras for breast cancer” group highlighted another kind of cancer that’s infecting our culture, my friends. A cancer of the metaphorical kind. It’s called sexism, you see, and it involves the sexualization, dehumanization and objectification of girls and women. This cancer manifests in myriad ways: rape apologism and rape culture; the policing of women’s bodies and conduct; a denial of women’s reproductive rights; and the use of women’s sex(uality) to sell anything and everything under the sun, including social justice movements – to name but a few examples. This cancer has been metastasizing for millennia – since the dawn of the kyriarchy – and has claimed the souls of billions of females the world over.

As a vegan and a feminist, I’m sad to say that many of my animal-hugging brothers (and not a few sisters) have yet to acknowledge the existence and power of the kyriarchy. Worse still, many of them happily act as its foot soldiers, enforcing and reinforcing its oppressive memes: sexism and misogyny (natch), as well as racism, homophobia, transphobia, colonialism, xenophobia, ableism, sizeism, lookism – and even, at times, speciesism. Just this morning, I was browsing my friends’ Facebook feeds when I came across a group called “Support For The Seals!,” which purports to help seals by encouraging women to send in pictures of their “boobies.” Um, say what now?

Rather than rant and bitch and blame the kyriarchy, as I so often do, I decided to create “Schlongs For The Seals!,” as a sort of “sister” page to “Support For The Seals!” By applying the “sex sells” principle to men’s bodies (omg cocks!), I hope to turn campaigns which rely on the objectification of women’s bodies (omg boobies!) on their heads (tee hee, she said “heads”!), thus demonstrating how truly ridiculous these ads really are.

Mission

Men, please show us your “junk shots”! Show your support for the seals (and cows and pigs and cats and rats, etc.) – and your vegan sisters – with some cock cleavage. The more over-the-top, the better! Enhance your pants with some extra padding, turning that size small jock strap into a double-XL.

Ladies, don’t feel left out! Don a pair of men’s undies, stuff ‘em with socks or a Not Dog! or whatnot, and snap away.

No nudity, please; simple tighty whities or boxer briefs will do.

And everyone: please stand against oppression, wherever you find it. Sexism = racism = speciesism. Live vegan, always and in every way.

Of course, this is all rather tongue-in-cheek. Thus far, the only “junk shots” uploaded to the page are fake ones I created using underwear advertisements, television and movie stills, and the like. I also created a few faux PSAs, “sponsored” by the shadow group VAPETA (borrowed from the always-awesome blog Vegans Against PETA), as well as some humorous promotional materials. Fans are welcome to post their own campy crotch shots as well.
 

Image #5 in the SCHLONGS4SEALS series. Starring Gubernator Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan the Barbarian (from the 1982 film of the same name), our VAPETA spokesman appears decked out in a Hyborian Age getup of a leather and fur loincloth, complete with matching head and arm bands. Sword at his side, Conan implores the viewer to “PUNCH CAMELS, NOT SEALS.” A seal pokes her head up from the bottom left-hand side of the screen to snark: “He must be one of those single-issue celebs.”
(The punchline, for puzzled readers: in the movie, a drunken Conan stumbles into a camel, whereupon he punches her in the face for the “infraction.” It’s a semi-famous scene, even spawning its own misogynist slang.)
——————————

While this effort was most definitely inspired by Support For The Seals!, the page is really just a symptom of a larger problem – namely, sexism and misogyny (and every other “ism” under the sun) that permeate the animal advocacy community. (As a ringleader on this front, this would be where PETA indirectly comes into play.) [1] Thus, while “boobies/schlongs for seals” is the primary focus of the page, some of the ancillary materials address related issues (for example, PETA’s willingness to partner with leather-wearing celebrities in protest of fur).

But what about the objectification of men?

A valid concern, and one I anticipated and considered before creating the page. The whole “is turnabout fair play, if used to facilitate an a-ha! moment?” question is one I’ve been mulling over for several years now – ever since I saw this representation of like objectification of male and female superheroes. The debate over whether the comic (and gaming) industry’s trend towards impossibly huge-breasted and scantily-clad heroines is sexist usually devolves into some inanity about the unrealistic musculature of Superman & Co. Attempts to explain, with words, how this objectification – if you can call it that – is not at all comparable usually fall on deaf ears. These three crudely rendered visuals, on the other hand? Priceless. (If I had a whit of artistic ability, I’d “translate” a comic book for every male superhero, I tell you what.)

But do such images necessarily objectify men, thus becoming similarly oppressive in nature? I don’t think so, for three reasons:

1) Context matters. In a vacuum, SCHLONGS4SEALS might appear the male equivalent to Support For the Seals! – i.e., just as objectifying to men as the latter is to women. However, we don’t live in a vacuum; context matters. And the context with which we’re dealing is a sexist and misogynist culture in which women are routinely sexualized, bestialized, objectified and otherwise exploited. While the kyriarchy is not kind to most men, as a whole (and other group memberships being equal) this group fares better than its female counterpart. Certainly, men’s bodies and their disembodied parts – particularly those which are deemed “sexual” [3] – are not routinely used to sell everything from jeans to cars to car insurance to social justice movements (the occasional humorous Diet Coke exception aside). [4]

Given this context, I’d argue that the bar for male objectification is set much, much higher than that for female objectification – because, in mainstream culture, we simply aren’t socialized to view men that way. My one lone Facebook page isn’t going to change this; hell, a million Facebook pages won’t change it. Thus, this inversion of objectification ultimately reads as more ridiculous or humorous than it does objectifying. [5]

The source photo for this sixth image in the VAPETA SCHLONGS4SEALS series is a screenshot of an old Seinfeld episode. In “The Pick” (Season 4, Episode 13), Cosmo Kramer (aka Michael Richards) auditions to become a Calvin Klein underwear model. The still above shows Kramer entering the CK office dressed in nothing but a pair of tighty whities, white athletic socks, and black (leather?) dress shoes. The ad’s copy reads, “MICHAEL RICHARDS FOR VAPeTA” and “SCHLONGS4(WHITECOAT)SEALS / ‘I’ve got a Benetton heart and a fuckin’ David Duke cock.’” in purple and white text. A seal pokes her head from the bottom of the frame, whispering to the audience: “Pssst! I thought John Mayer was the douchenozzle with a ‘white supremacist dick’?” (You know, just in case the joke wasn’t readily apparent.)
——————————

IMHO, this is also the dynamic from which such images draw their power: when women are reduced to tits and ass, we barely notice, as disembodied tits and asses can be found everywhere. Female objectification is just so blasé. But when men are subjected to likewise objectification, the result is…unusual. Absurd. Shocking, even. Viewers take note of the incongruity between the images on the screen and the cultural milieu in which they exist.

And hopefully, when presented with a little social commentary, such images – and the reactions they evoke – will help to illustrate how this objectification, when visited upon female bodies, is equally ridiculous.

2) SCHLONGS4SEALS is deliberately outrageous and over-the-top. Starting with the title (Does there exist a more juvenile slang term for “penis” than “schlong”? I think not!), I tried to make the page as obviously silly as possible. I don’t intend for viewers to take this male objectification literally or seriously, but rather to understand it as a piece of satire (and an educational tool to boot). Hence the cute, fluffy seals peppering the “junk shots,” the liberal use of ridiculous slang, and the faux “offshoot groups” – not to mention, the photos of cartoon characters in their tighty whities, the still of a diapered toddler snagged from the latest Huggies commercial (which I so love for its weirdness and borderline perversity!), and additional stills of “famous” on-screen moments in men’s underwear (most of them played for comedic effect, naturally – and in direct opposition to how such moments unfold when it’s women wearing the lingerie).

3) Though the page’s copy might not stress this point enough, I do not expect (m)any actual men to post photos of their actual crotches (at least, not in their natural states). For starters, I don’t anticipate overwhelming audience participation here – which is why I created a bunch of my own “junk shots.” Granted, a number of these photos are of conventionally attractive underwear models, with a decided emphasis on the crotch region – but as I argue in #1 above, I don’t think that these images are inherently objectifying. (If women only appeared naked and disembodied in underwear ads, I’d be quite the happy camper.) Also noted above, I made sure to include a variety of men, of different shapes and sizes – including the fictional and the animated.

When and if “real” men do submit their own photos, I encourage absurdity. Since conventional Western female beauty standards idealize large (cosmetically enhanced) breasts, I likewise urge anyone who wishes to participate to send in photos of themselves wearing men’s underwear that has been enhanced with, um, “outside” materials – socks, Not Dogs!, vibrators, stuffed animals, whatever. The bigger and campier, the better.

Nor do I limit audience participation to men; women are welcome to send in their own flamboyantly embellished “junk shots” as a sort of feminist “fuck you” to that other page. Probably I’ll also slap on a pair of men’s briefs and photograph my own bad self when I get the chance, too.

Update, 7/5/10: Done and done!
Image: A stuffed gray seal emerges from the fly of my men’s BLAH BLAH BLAH brand boxer briefs.
——————————

If anyone does happen to submit a photo that I find genuinely objectifying, either in intent or practice (Such as, say, an upskirt photo of an unwitting man; but does a male equivalent of the upskirt photo even exist?), I will remove it from the page.

Anyhow, that’s what I was up to last weekend. If you’re intrigued and/or on Facebook, feel free to “like” and share the page (or not), post your own photos and – most importantly – bookmark it for future use. For example, the next time someone responds to your carefully crafted, 2,000 word essay with the oh-so-thoughtful retort, “But PETA [or whomever] objectifies men, too!”
 

In this VAPETA PSA, a (young, white, ripped) naked man (naughty bits discretely covered with a pair of undies) and seal lounge together on the beach. The man – his eyes closed, a faraway look on his face – seems lost in rapturous thought. In sharp contrast, the seal exists in the here and now: flippers clasped to his side, a look of hilarity on his face, the seal appears to be rolling in the sand with laughter. The ad’s copy reads, “SCHLONGS4 SEALS / BEAT OFF, NOT SEALS” and “SOME HORNY GUY FOR VAPeTA.” A thought bubble emanating from the seal’s head reveals his opinion re: this “campaign”: “Oh, PETA. $34 million & this is the best you can do? Fuck me. No, ryl.”
——————————

[1] According to the page’s info, Seal Shepherd is the mastermind behind Support For The Seals! As far as I can tell, SS is not related to PETA, though it/he does base its/his campaign on PETA’s own Save the Seals celebrity tee dealio (and it/he also hawks PETA’s t-shirts accordingly on its FB page). There are some other shenanigans going on with SS – to which I was tipped off after launching the page – but that’s a morass I’ve zero desire to get sucked up into.

Interestingly, Save the Seals is one of handful of celebrity-studded PETA campaigns that is (relatively) gender-neutral and nudity-free (save for Pamela Anderson’s contribution, seen above – and on Support For The Seals!, natch). [2] Thus, Seal Shepherd has managed to take a campaign to which I was somewhat indifferent, and make me loathe it with the heat of a thousand suns. Well done, SS! Thus is the transitive power of PETA’s misogyny – from PETA to SS and back to PETA again.

[2] Though still arguably problematic from a single-issue perspective.

[3] And here it’s worth noting that men possess fewer sexualized body parts than do women; less of men’s real estate is considered eye candy for the female gaze than is women’s for the male gaze.

[4] Should you disagree with me on this most fundamental of points, might I direct you to PETA’s own oeuvre? I don’t mean to pick on them, it’s just…the picking’s easy, you know?

[5] Again considering context, I should also point out that some groups of men (and women) are more readily objectified than others. Men of color, for example, are oftentimes stereotyped as base, animalistic, hyper-sexual beings – predators, even – thus rendering their sexual objectification that much easier. The bar for objectification depends not just on gender, but also race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, gender identity, class and religion (to name but a few), as well as the power differential(s) between all parties involved.
 

Eight of Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary’s sixty-two Signature Billboards, all from the “We Know Our Victims Well” series. Clockwise from the top left:
They long to live as much as we do.
(A single white duck gazes into the camera.)
They long to be loved as much as we do.
(Hen and rooster Libbie and Louie find refuge in one another’s touch.)
They face life together like we do.
(A pair of ducks wander through the snow.)
They love their children as much as we do.
(An adult llama and his child smile together.)
They need their mothers as much as we do.
(A cow nuzzles his mother.)
They protect their children as fiercely as we do.
(A cow and her calf stare defiantly ahead.)
They raise families like we do.
(A duck family – complete with five youngsters – strolls along in harmony.)
They fall in love like we do.
(One cow licks another with obvious affection.)
——————————

A few weeks ago, the always-awesome Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary unveiled a new campaign to aid activists in combating speciesism – and all the oppressions it sanctions – specifically that directed towards “food” animals. With its Signature Billboards, Peaceful Prairie gives faces, individualities, life stories, and emotions to the many animals we call “food” – cows, pigs, chickens, ducks, sheep, lambs, goats and fishes:

They speak for themselves…

We don’t always have the opportunity to raise awareness of the animals’ plight during daily email correspondence but now, with Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary’s latest campaign, we’ve made it easy and effective for anyone to learn how their actions can save the lives of other animals, lives that matter to them as much our lives matter to us.

The graphics – each of which pictures one or more nonhuman animals, as well as a brief but powerful statement about her life experiences, relationships with/to other nonhumans, and/or personhood – are organized around four main themes:

• We Know Our Victims Well;
• 55 Billion Reasons to Live Vegan;
• Humane Farming, An Oxymoron; and
• Subjects of a Life

Designed for use as email signatures, you can also display these graphics on your blog or website, or share them on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

Collectively, the images illustrate what I like to call “the animal experience.” While many people operate under the assumption that humans – and only humans – experience profound emotions such as love, grief, sorrow and joy; that humans – and only humans – are capable of reflecting upon their lives, yearning and striving to be better, and expressing delight at pleasures great and small; and that humans – and only humans – are “people” deserving of life, anyone who has every truly known a nonhuman animal will tell you that this just isn’t so. Animals love, grieve, suffer, play, fear, cry, rebel, defend, fight and make nice, much as humans do. They think. They feel. They live and they die. In every way that matters, nonhuman animals are much more similar to humans than they are different than. Forget “the human experience”; this is the animal experience.

By the by, if you’re looking for a sweet, vegan Mother’s Day gift – or just want to spoil yourself or a friend – check out the upcoming Ninety-Five: Meeting America’s Farmed Animals in Stories and Photographs. Published by No Voice Unheard, the book features some of Peaceful Prairie’s own nonhuman residents (including sanctuary patriarch Justice as the cover model), as well as stories from sanctuary volunteer and heartstring harpist Joanna Lucas. In anticipation of the book’s release, Peaceful Prairie is currently running a special: the first 50 supporters to donate $50 or more will receive a free copy of Ninety-Five.

Perhaps Mom would like to sponsor a sanctuary resident either way?

—————–

See also:

Libby and Louie (a Valentine’s Day Love Story)

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary: Don’t Let Him Kill Me!

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary: Dairy is a Death Sentence

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary: Don’t Kill My Baby!

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary: Milk Comes from a Grieving Mother

On being someones, not somethings.

—————–

Tagged: animals animal rights activism vegan veganism peaceful prairie peaceful prairie sanctuary meat nonhumans animals farmed animals food animals intersections intersectionality personhood life animal emotions animal intelligence animal families mother’s day photo blogging

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

In the comments, Helen points out that all three animals – (pussy)cat, beaver and chicken (errr, rooster; read: cock) are euphemisms for female and male genitalia. I know, so obvious! How on earth did I miss it!? Especially when I caught the significance of the beaver! Clearly, I’ve been off my game lately.

Anyhow, it’s my feeling that these gendered/speciesist slurs actually make the whole ad campaign that much more distasteful. While the targeting of men in addition to women might help to level the playing field, gender-wise (well, as much as it can be in a culture that disproportionately values women’s physical appearance and beauty – however it is defined – as opposed to men), we’re still faced with the exploitation and mockery of three nonhuman animals in order to sell…waxing products. Add to this the fact that the animals were specifically chosen for their correspondence to sexual slang, and…yeah. Ick, all around.

—————

One part “sexy meat,” one part zoo porn, with a little child sexploitation thrown in for good measure, these ads for Queen Bee Waxing are all kinds of creepy, no matter which way you slice ‘em. (Not that I’m suggesting that you should slice them! They’re animals, not deli “meat”!)

Queen Bee Waxing operates a Salon & Spa in Culver City, California. Its services include tanning, mani/pedis, facials, eyelash extensions (!), and all manner of body waxing: full leg, half leg, eyebrows, full arm, half arm, back, chest, underarms, lip, genitals, anus – wherever your body generates unsightly hair, the friendly “waxologists” of QB will be there, ripping it violently from its roots.

One caveat: some forms of waxing will cost you extra if you’re a gross, hairy cave-dude. For reals! (Don’t you just love how they assume that all men are hairier than all women? In point o’ facts, my Italian ass just so happens to grow lusher body hair than my husband’s Irish one.)

To illustrate just how childishly smooth QB can strip your bits, they’ve demonstrated their mad skills on unsuspecting animals! (Not for reals – I’m guessing/hoping that the animals below have suffered these indignities in a digital sense only.)

From top to bottom, we have a cat, a beaver [insert obligatory joke re: women's genitals here] and a chicken. Each of them stand stark naked, seemingly bewildered by their own baldness.

Actually, scratch that; the chicken looks fucking insane with rage. Can you really blame her?

So here we have three nonhuman animals, mocked, objectified and exploited, in order to sell men and women – mainly women – an extravagantly overpriced product that 1) they don’t need and 2) may be harmful to their health.

On point #1: Body hair is natural. We all have it. As babies, we are born with a soft, dewy coat, and as we age, our body hair thickens and darkens. By removing this hair – and in such large quantities – men and women are reverting to a childlike appearance. In particular, adult women are taught that to be bald and hairless is sexy and attractive. (Hello, pornification of children and childhood! Infantalization of grown women, how nice to see you again!)

On men, body hair is mostly regarded as “manly” – unless, of course, one man is “wearing” too much of it (as if it’s an accessory!), in which case it’s “gross,” “primitive,” “Neanderthal.”* In contrast, men with little or no body hair are seen as less masculine; feminized; womanly. And what’s worse than being a woman, hmmm?

Women are allowed less wiggle room in terms of “acceptable” body hair. Women are taught to pluck – nay, shape! – their brows, shave their legs and armpits (and perhaps their arms, too), and “tame” their “bikini lines” – all at an early age. Women with “too much” body hair are mocked; they are “ugly,” “manly,” “unfuckable,” “bestial.” Women with too little body hair – well, a woman can never have “too little” body hair, silly! The more a lady resembles a pre-teen girl, the better!

Speaking of pre-teen girls, while researching this piece, I unintentionally stumbled upon a morsel of information that I wish to Cheesus I could purge from my brain. To wit (and don’t say I didn’t warn you!):

Young children also get waxing treatment with children as young as eight receiving wax treatments such as eyebrows, legs and genital waxing. Such genital waxing on young girls has been called “virgin bikini” waxes, and is aimed at either reducing the girl’s need for pubic hair removal in the future or stopping hair growth permanently with as few as five or six treatments as long as the child has never shaved before. The increase demand for preteen waxing is being met by spas, with some 10,000 spas in offering services only for young girls and early teenagers in the United States of America alone. The International Spa Association has reported that 16% of teens who have had spa treatments have had waxing done. The association has not been able to give figures for younger children because it is illegal to survey them.

While the 10,000 figure seems a bit dubious, the cited resources do check out – see, for example Too young? Preteen girls get leg, bikini waxes at MSNBC and Trend: Pretty babies at Philadelphia Magazine.

I don’t think I need to parse out the high hilarity of the Wiki author’s reasoning,** but I will say that subjecting your minor child – girl or boy – to completely unnecessary and potentially harmful cosmetic procedures is child abuse, full stop. Especially when performed on the genitals! (And yes, I do think male circumcision ought to be outlawed – though I don’t consider it as grave an injustice as female genital mutilation. It’s like comparing apples to pigs, people!)

On point #2: Waxing is potentially dangerous; the more sensitive the area, the greater the danger. I think you know where I’m going with this, yeah?

All Jennifer (not her real name) wanted was a smooth bikini line. But within 24 hours of getting a bikini wax at a reputable New York City salon, an infection crept in. She developed a fever of 102, chills, and pain in her left thigh. “I thought I’d caught a cold,” she says, “but after five days, the pain was worse.”

Her doctor diagnosed her with cellulitis, a potentially life-threatening bacterial infection of the skin and the underlying tissue. Jennifer spent the next 15 days in the hospital hooked up to an IV that pumped her full of antibiotics and heavy-duty painkillers. She also had surgery to drain the infection. “One doctor said I could have lost my leg!” she recalls. “It took me months to recover physically and emotionally from the whole ordeal—a steep price to pay for a little vanity.”

While there are no reliable stats on body wax related complications, Jennifer’s experience wasn’t unique. This past March, the state of New Jersey nearly banned Brazilian bikini waxes after two women landed in the hospital as a result of them (one of the women filed a lawsuit against the state cosmetology board). And in 2007, an Australian woman with type 1 diabetes almost died of a bacterial infection she got after a bare-it-all wax.

What makes them risky? “Pubic hair is there for a reason—to protect the sensitive skin and mucous membranes in the genital region,” explains Linda K. Franks, M. D., an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at the New York University School of Medicine. “Getting a wax literally strips away that layer of protection.”

Waxing can also pull off tiny pieces of the skin’s outermost layer, creating a portal through which bacteria can enter the body. What’s more, the process creates inflammation, which can trap bacteria beneath the skin. All of this sets the stage for skin infections (including staph), folliculitis (infection of the hair follicles), and ingrown hairs.

“Anytime you compromise the integrity of the skin, you’re going to increase your risk of infection,” Franks says. She advises people who have diabetes, chronic kidney or liver disease, skin conditions such as eczema or psoriasis, or weakened immune systems to avoid waxing altogether.

(By the way, I have had folliculitis – not related to waxing – and it is brutal.)

Radical suggestion: Since waxing body hair (pubic hair in particular) is an unnecessary and risky procedure that primarily serves to conform to and reinforce sexist beauty standards*** – and also perpetuates rampant consumerism – why not forgo it altogether? Just sayin’.

And then there was the chicken. As disturbing as I find the first two images, it’s not often one sees a cleanly plucked cat or beaver. These ads are creepy, yes, but almost cartoonishly so. Chickens, on the other hand, are routinely “plucked” clean (read: defeathered) as part of the slaughtering process.

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. [...]

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”.

And, from the Vegetarian Society,

Broiler chickens are slaughtered at just 6-7 weeks of age (a chicken’s natural lifespan is around 7 years). Almost 800 million broiler chickens (784.39 million) were slaughtered in the UK in 2008 (798.52 million in 2007). On reaching the slaughterhouse, broiler chickens are removed from their crates and hung upside down shackled by their feet to a moving line whilst still fully conscious. Their heads and neck are dragged through an electrically charged water bath designed to stun the birds, rendering them unconscious. The moving line then takes the birds to an automatic neck cutter. Birds are then bled before entering a scalding tank to make the plucking easier. Broilers often experience pain and struggle while hung in shackles, and they may suffer during the slaughter process. It is estimated that over 50 million broilers across the European Union may be slaughtered while fully conscious.

Or perhaps our dear QB mascot is a genetically engineered “featherless” chicken, so “designed” to “grow” in hot climates? (By the way, this article? Totally makes me reconsider my earlier – albeit ancillary – praise of Dr. Tatiana.)

In this context the waxed chicken ad is even more tasteless than are the others. “Ick” all around.

—————

* Interestingly, body removal methods are also marketed to both men and women as a means to look less “animal” or “ape” like – as though we aren’t indeed both animals and apes! See, for example, Body Hair Makes You An Ape at Sociological Images.

** The choice is either wax the genitals of a 9-year-old girl between two and six times, or condemn your daughter to a lifetime spent torturing her junk? Talk about a false dilemma! How about not waxing one’s lady bits at all!?

*** Sexist in that they do not apply equally to women and men. Seriously; how many men do you know who are completely hairless? ****

**** Similarly, PETA has employed these stereotypes and differing standards of beauty in its anti-fur campaigns.

On one end of the spectrum, PETA shames women who don’t sufficiently conform to modern norms regarding the grooming of pubic hair. Women with “fur trim” – i.e., unkempt bikini lines – are mocked as “fashion victims,” akin to nonhuman animals who are enslaved, tortured and murdered for their (attractively hairy) skin (!):

The take-home message? Women who don’t look like modern-day porn stars are “a turnoff.” Nice!

In contrast, men are more likely to see their body hair – their natural “fur” – being celebrated (if humorously so):

That said, most of PETA’s models and spokescelebs are either waxed or airbrushed back to infancy – a practice in accordance with modern trends.

—————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare advertisements waxing, beauty feminism feminist animals and women intersections parallel oppressions body hair pubic hair body waxing queen bee waxing pop culture photo blogging peta fur fur trim flickr photos chickens cats beavers bald factory farming slaughter featherless chickens

In case you can’t view the images, here we have a series of three ads, each of which shows a naked, white male being hunted and tormented by a gleeful fox – who is obviously another human, most likely also male, decked out in a fox outfit, all mascot-like.

In the first ad, the human victim appears in the background; he’s sprawled unconscious on the ground, most likely dead, his naughty bits obscured by a strategically placed tree trunk. The fox stands off to the human’s left and in the foreground, legs spread shoulder-width apart, arms raised triumphantly. In his (her?) right hand/paw, the fox holds a gun. Most likely Mr./Ms. Fox went hunting, and “bagged” a human. (It’s worth noting that this slang – “bagged” – can be applied to sexual “conquests” as well bloodsports. Sex and violence, sex and death.) The caption reads, “Fox like this doesn’t exist.” (Fur Free Alliance is an international anti-fur organization; its website, which is in English, is “operated on behalf of the Fur Free Alliance by the Humane Society of the United States.” So while the caption appears to be broken English, I can’t tell whether this is intentional or not.)

The next ad in the series shows the fox, still toting a gun in his right hand, dragging the now-conscious man through the underbrush. Again, the man is stark naked, this time with a pile of leaves (or is that a bush?) covering his groin. With his left hand, the man is trying to grab onto a tree; with his left, he reaches toward the fox, as if imploring him for mercy. “How does it feel?” the caption demands.

In the third and final ad, the fox is chasing his victim around the forest. All we see of the victim is part of his face and naked chest, blurred in close-up. Mouth opened wide, the man is screaming bloody murder. The fox, taunting, stands a few paces back, seemingly laughing at his prey’s terror. “I need his skin for my jacket” – no matter the cost.

If the naked victim in any or all of these ads was female, I’d be quick to point out the obvious sexism: too often in our culture, women are sexualized and objectified, treated as (sexual) parts, rather than the sum thereof. While there’s nothing sexy about violence, torture and death – quite the opposite, in fact – when the victim of said horrors is female, the victim’s sex(uality) and the violence she’s suffering is conflated. More often than not, the victim is impossibly beautiful, scantily clad, provocatively posed. Perhaps she appears to be enjoying the violence inflicted upon her; possibly she is simply detached, empty, vacuous. Absent from her own (hijacked) body. Violence is depicted as sexy, arousing, enjoyable. Or at least to the (presumably heterosexual) male gaze that is taking it in.

In contrast, the male victim here is rather average looking: thin and wiry; neither particularly “attractive” nor “ugly”; not hairy, not bald. Just…average. Though he’s naked, he’s not “sexed up” or objectified. Nothing sexual is implied in any of his poses. (For example, his ass isn’t thrust into the air; he’s not shown crawling on all fours; his face and/or torso always face the camera; there’s no threat of sexual violence, real or implied.) These photos, in short, could not just as easily be at home in the pages of Playgirl magazine – something that cannot be said of so many similar ads featuring naked and victimized female bodies. (So the “reversal of gender roles” I referred to earlier? Not so much, it turns out.)

There’s also a comical, humorous edge to these images that’s hard to describe in words. The fox’s mask/face is laughable eerie – with its empty black eyes and a snout that always seems to be turned up into a smirk, the fox has a maniacal air about him. The human, on the other hand – and whether this is intentional or a result of “bad acting,” I know not – seems to be choking down a laugh himself. The model/victim appears to know that this is a joke. Fur is a (deadly) serious issue, yes; but the scenes presented in these PSAs from Fur Free Alliance are overdone, cheesy, cheeky. The violence is not real, and everyone knows it.

Could such a scenario be staged with a nude woman model? In theory, yes. There’s no reason an average-looking woman couldn’t be substituted in for the man, made to play out the same poses and scenes, etc., etc., etc. But. I think these same ads, with a woman victim, would evoke a much different response in an American (Western?) audience circa 2009. As I noted above, we live in a culture where women are routinely sexualized, objectified, reduced to parts and repackaged for the male gaze. Women who don’t or can’t play along – women of color, older women, women with disabilities, gender nonconformists, lesbian and bisexual women, etc. – are dismissed as ugly, bitchy, unlovable, untouchable, unrapeable. Because men are not subject to these abuses (though the kyriarchy most certainly harms men, too, just in different ways), the ad plays out as intended with a male victim.* Alter the victim’s sex, though, and the ad’s dynamic will inevitably change as well; we’re just too thoroughly conditioned to view women as sex objects, ready for public consumption (whatever form that may take).

Why else do you think my mind instinctively categorized the victim as a “she” – before my eyes could even register and recognize what they were seeing?

* Nor do I think one could easily swap a white human for a person of color. Again, this would change the ad’s vibe – if not intentions – in a number of ways.

—————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare intersections intersectionality parallel oppressions animals and women fur fur free violence fox Fur Free Alliance hsus hunting sex sexuality men masculinity nudity naked activism bucking the trend ad advertisement psa flickr photos revenge speciesism gender women

Well, then:

Anti-Abortion Protesters Crash Vigil For Slain Doctor

About 10 members of the Westboro Baptist Church bearing signs with messages like “Baby killer in hell” were an unwelcome presence at a vigil for murdered abortion doctor George Tiller.

————–

Oh, no, no, no. Just, no:

WICHITA – A national animal rights group plans to erect billboards in Wichita urging people on both sides of the abortion debate to go vegetarian.

One version of the billboard says, “Pro-Life? Go Vegetarian.” The other says, “Pro-Choice? Choose Vegetarian.” Both feature a photo of three baby chicks.

Lindsay Rajt, campaign manager for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said the billboards were prompted by the recent shooting death of abortion doctor George Tiller, who was killed Sunday at his church.

“The discussion of the value of life is front and center right now in the public conversation,” Rajt said today.

“We think we would be irresponsible if we don’t talk about how we’re all guilty of extreme cruelty to animals every time we sit down to a meal that includes meat.” [...]

Rajt said the timing or content of the Wichita billboards may be controversial.

But, “If our billboards leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth, we just think they might give a thought to what animals feel when they go to the slaughterhouse,” she said.

“We want to remind people that no matter where they come down on the abortion issue, each and every one of us can spare a life every time we sit down to eat.”

Frankly, the actual content of the proposed billboards is rather inoffensive – and downright blasé when compared to 75% of PETA’s other ads. In fact, I think the “pro-life” version is rather cute – and, on a subtle level, calls so-called “pro-lifers” out on their hypocrisy and ethical inconsistencies. The pro-choice one, meh, not so much; it just strikes me as a forced corollary to the “pro-life” billboard. A reach, albeit a harmless one.

But the timing – the timing is beyond crass and tactless. Fuck that shit, it’s downright amoral.

Listen. Anyone who’s been reading this blog for more than a week knows that I view the exploitation of non-human and human animals as equally important – and intertwined in numerous ways, to boot. This isn’t about me elevating the rights of humans above those of non-human animals, as PETA snarkily suggests; this is me expecting those in the animal rights advocacy community, PETA included, to act with a modicum of compassion. Dr. Tiller’s murder – and women’s reproductive rights in general – has little to do, at least on its face, with animal rights. And the link between the domination of women, animals and nature? This really isn’t the time to make it – and even if it were, I wouldn’t trust PETA to build the case. Not with its record thus far on issues involving marginalized groups of humans.

Nor is this even what PETA’s attempting to do with the pro-life/-choice billboards. It’s a sound bite, a publicity stunt, nothing more – and in discussions deserving of nuance, sound bites only hurt and confuse.

When one further stops to consider that our government has branded animal rights “terrorists” The #1 Domestic Threat – while Dr. Tiller’s murderer is being described as anything but – PETA’s actions seem doubly irresponsible. In their utter insensitivity and rush to capitalize on this tragedy, they align us with the fringe “pro-lifers,” the other domestic terrorists, who’ll use any means to achieve their goal, no matter who they harm in the process. There’s all kinds of marginalization going on here, and as always, PETA just piles on.

I, for one, want no part of it. Dr. Tiller’s murder hit me like kick in the gut – an expected kick, which probably makes it far, far worse – and I’ve been mourning him ever since. Not just Dr. Tiller, either, but the many women who, in need of abortions in the later terms of their pregnancies, may find themselves unable to locate a doctor willing to perform the procedure, and suffer or possibly die because of it. Dr. Tiller was only one of a handful – perhaps just three (three!) – of doctors willing to perform abortions in the third trimester, even when the life or health of the mother is at risk. What do we tell those women now? (I doubt “go veg” is much of an answer, *snort*) We may never know how many women Scott Roeder killed on Sunday.

I also mourn for women everywhere – women who are told that their lives, their well-being, is less important than that of a clump of cells or deformed fetus. I’m sick of being a second-class citizen, a sperm receptacle, a walking womb. I’m every bit as human as my husband – and yet, I somehow have less right to health care than he, all by virtue of my lady parts.

I’m also scared – scared of the many “pro-lifers” whose real agenda extends well beyond that of restricting or banning abortion, to nullifying the Constitutional concept of “right to privacy,” banning birth control, and pushing women back into the Dark Ages, barefoot, pregnant, uneducated and completely subordinate to God and her Husband. That thought terrifies me. Christ on a stick, I don’t even believe in a god!

But PETA doesn’t see any of this. No. They don’t see a senseless tragedy, born of misogyny, sperm worship and Christian nationalism. They look at Dr. Tiller’s murder and see an opportunity – one they’ve gotta cash in on, asap, and vocally, too.

I see the animal rights advocacy community’s equivalent of Fred Phelps. I see a fucking disgrace.

(h/t, Feministe; by the by, I’m working on a much longer piece about terrorism and the animal rights and anti-abortion movements, in which I’ll explain some of the above concepts in greater detail. In the meantime, I recommend Cristina Page’s How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex for more on the so-called “pro-life” movement.)

[Edited to reflect PETA's tenuous grasp of "animal rights."]

————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare dr. tiller george tiller women feminism misogyny abortion reproductive rights terrorism peta people for the ethical treatment of animals health clinic pro-life pro-choice wichita kansas fred phelps fuck peta

Also new from Mercy for Animals is this awesome PSA, “I Am Mercy for Animals.” In addition to the diversity of voices – men and women, adults and children, people of color and the melanin-deprived, professionals and “freaks,” vegetarians and vegans – I quite like how MFA stresses our interconnectedness, our strength in both numbers and multiformity.

The video hits upon so many points, from the individuality of the animals we exploit, to our similarities to and connections with the least fortunate among us, to the role the animal rights movement plays in the larger push for social justice and human rights.

For those who can’t view the video (which may be a few of you today, as You Tube seems to be acting up at the moment), MFA helpfully provides a transcript on its website, which I’ve copied below. I’ve underlined some of my favorite passages for emphasis. (Okay, so about half the transcript is underlined. Like I said, powerful video.)

Thoughts?

I BELIEVE

All animals deserve protection from needless cruelty and suffering
All animals should have the freedom to walk, run, swim, and play
Even though the arc of history is long, it bends towards justice
No one is free when others are oppressed
We can do better
Our society should protect the weakest and most vulnerable
Might doesn’t make right
It’s our moral obligation to prevent cruelty
Farm animals deserve the same consideration as our dogs and cats
Eating meat supports needless violence
If animals could talk, they would thank a vegetarian
It’s wrong to cram animals into cages for their entire lives
There is no such thing as “humane” slaughter
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals
No animal should suffer or die for my breakfast, lunch, or dinner
If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian
We have the power to choose kindness over cruelty
When it comes to suffering, animals are our equals
Our food choices have the power to change the world for the better
They value their lives and freedom like we value ours
Animal rights is a social justice issue
Because it’s up to us

I WOULDN’T

Want to spend my life crammed in a cage
Eat my friends
Eat my dog
Steal a child away from his mother, like they do to dairy cows and their babies
Castrate piglets without painkillers
Sear off a birds beak to save a little cash
Lock a pig in a stall so small that she couldn’t turn around for nearly her entire life
I wouldn’t pay someone to do all these things on my behalf, not in good conscience

Therefore

I WILL

Speak out against oppression, even if my voice shakes while I do it
Lend a helping hand
Be the change I want to see in the world
Hand out a leaflet
Inspire others
Speak the truth, from a place of respect and integrity
Be forward-thinking
Never give up
Treat others the way I want to be treated
Make food choices that will respect animals, the earth, and my health
Live in line with my values, even when I’m hungry

TOGETHER, WE ARE

Changing the world
Exposing animal exploitation
Preventing needless suffering
Giving a voice to the voiceless
Saving lives
Building a kinder tomorrow for all beings

TOGETHER WE ARE
MERCY FOR ANIMALS

———————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare mfa mercy for animals i am mercy for animals video video blogging you tube psa marketing intersections parallel oppressions social justice human rights diversity vegan veganism vegetarian vegetarianism

How does YOUR baby say:

“Don’t Let Him Kill Me!”?

Should any baby have to?
 
 
Don’t Let Him Kill Me! (back)

Every year, millions of newborns are killed for their mothers’ milk

All babies born to females used for milk production are torn from their mothers shortly after birth. They are barely days old, umbilical chords still attached, coats still slick from the birth fluids, legs wobbly, eyes unfocused. They are defenseless. They are frightened. They cry pitifully.

They all beg for their mothers in language that requires no translation.
They beg for the life-sustaining warmth of their mothers’ presence, the heartbeat that promised life and protection long before they were born, the comfort of their mothers’ scent and voice, the nourishing milk that is their birthright.

Chained in dark, coffin-sized veal crates, they search feverishly for anybody to bond with, anything to nurse on. Their curious minds cling to any stray object that may break the endless monotony they are forced to endure, any opportunity to learn and expand. Their developing bodies desperately need movement, sunshine, play, nourishment, nurture.

Calves destined for veal are fed a nutrient deficient, anemia inducing diet and are denied any opportunity to move in order to make their muscles weak and pale enough to be sold as “white veal”. In their critical need for iron, they lick the rusty nails that stick out of the cage walls.

At 4 months old, having never been allowed to move or even turn around in their lives, they are too weak to walk on their own. Men drag them out of their cages by their legs, tails, or ears, shove them into trucks, push them down chutes and prod them onto the killing floor. Still desperate to nurse, many calves try to suckle the fingers of their killers.

Dairy is a Death Sentence

All dairy production, including Organic, is predicated on ripping apart mother and child. Dairy consumers perpetuate this practice with their purchases.

You can stop it
GoVeganNow.com

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary
A Safe Haven For Rescued Farmed Animals
www.peacefulprairie.org
 
 
———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare peaceful prairie peaceful prairie sanctuary pps outreach vegan veganism vegan outreach flier pamphlet poster factory farming factory farm farmed animal veal milk eggs meat intersections animals and women speciesism sexism misogyny parallel oppressions mother baby cow pig chicken parents child children family exploitation flickr photos

 
 
Dairy is a Death Sentence

Every year, millions of newborns are killed for their mothers’ milk

All babies born to females used for milk production are torn from their mothers shortly after birth. They are barely days old, umbilical chord still attached, coat still slick from the birth fluids, legs wobbly, eyes unfocused. They are defenseless. They are frightened. They cry pitifully for their mothers.

They all beg for their mothers in language that requires no translation. They live their entire short lives as orphans, their only experience of mother love, one of yearning for it, their only experience of emotional connection, one of absence. Soon, the memory of the mother’s face, her voice, her scent will fade, but the painful, irrepressible longing for her warmth will still be there. At four months old, the “veal” calves are corralled into trucks and hauled to slaughter. As they are dragged onto the killing floor, they are still looking for their mothers, still desperately needing her nurturing presence, especially at that dark time when they are frightened and needing protection more than ever in the midst of the terrible sights, and sounds, and scents of death all around them, and, in their despair, in their want for a shred of consolation and protection, most try to suckle the fingers of their killers.

All dairy production, including Organic, is predicated on ripping apart mother and child. Dairy consumers perpetuate this cruel practice with their purchases.

You can stop it!
GoVeganNow.com
Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary.org
 
 
———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare peaceful prairie peaceful prairie sanctuary pps outreach vegan veganism vegan outreach flier pamphlet poster factory farming factory farm farmed animal veal milk eggs meat intersections animals and women speciesism sexism misogyny parallel oppressions mother baby cow pig chicken parents child children family exploitation flickr photos

How do YOU say

“Don’t kill my baby!”?

Should any mother have to?
 
 
Please Don’t Kill My Baby (back)

Every Year, 9 Million Mothers Are Forced to Endure The Worst Loss

All females used for milk are torn from their babies shortly after birth.
Some try to fight off the attackers, some try to shield their babies with their own bodies, some chase frantically after the transport, some cry pitifully, some withrdaw in silent despair. Some go trustingly with their keepers only to return to an empty stall.

They all beg for their babies in language that requires no translation:
They bellow, they cry, they moan. Many continue to call for days and nights on end. Some stop eating and drinking. They search feverishly. Many refuse to give up and will return to the empty spot again and again. Some withdraw in silent grief. They all remember to their last breath the face, the scent, the voice, the gait of every baby they carried for nine months, soundered to, birthed with difficulty, bathed, loved, and never got to know, nurture, protect, and watch live.

After repeated cycles of forced impregnations, painful births, relentless milkings, and crushing bereavements, their spirit gives, their bodies wither, their milk dries up. At the age when, in nature, a female cow would barely enter adulthood, the life of a dairy cow is over. When her milk “production” declines, she and her other “spent” herd mates are trucked off to slaughter. Some are pregnant. All are still lactating. As they are shoved towards death, they drip milk onto the killing floor.

Milk comes from a grieving mother.

All Dairy operations, including Organic, exist solely by doing to millions of defenseless females the worst thing anyone can do to a mother. Dairy consumers support this practice with their purchases.

You can stop it.
GoVeganNow.com

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary
A Safe Haven For Rescued Farmed Animals
www.peacefulprairie.org
 
 
———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare peaceful prairie peaceful prairie sanctuary pps outreach vegan veganism vegan outreach flier pamphlet poster factory farming factory farm farmed animal veal milk eggs meat intersections animals and women speciesism sexism misogyny parallel oppressions mother baby cow pig chicken parents child children family exploitation flickr photos