Women, Cows, Speed Bags, and Steaks: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others
Published July 13, 2009 @ 08:16AM PT
The Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence wants you to know that "it's not acceptable to treat a woman like [a piece of meat]."
Look! They've even devised an ad campaign to spread the word!
The ad depicts a large chunk of "meat" - a cow (or pig?) thigh, suspended in the air, hanging upside-down by a hook thrust violently through the limb. The "meat" slab is dressed in a mini-skirt and halter top in order to denote its female gender.
What possible issue could I, a vegan feminist, take with this message?
While I agree wholeheartedly that woman are not "pieces of meat," neither are non-human animals. Put another way, if non-human animals are "pieces of meat," then so are we. We're all made of the same basic organic matter: we're all a mess of blood, muscles, fat, organs, water, oxygen and carbon. We're all potential "meat" to someone else. The only real difference between "us" and "them" is that we posses human DNA.
In explicitly condemning violence against women (wherein violence is equated with treating women "like meat") but remaining silent on the suffering of non-human animals who are regarded as (and ultimately processed into) "meat," RICADV implicitly condones violence against non-human animals. According to the RICADV, women are not pieces of "meat" - but non-human animals are.
By omitting non-human animals from the discussion, RICADV renders them invisible; their suffering matters only inasmuch as it can be appropriated to illustrate the suffering of another marginalized group (in this case, women). Vegan feminist Carol Adams (she of The Sexual Politics of Meat and The Pornography of Meat fame) calls this the "absent referent." Simply put, the absent referent is a point of reference (in this case, non-human animals) which is referred to but ultimately remains absent from the discussion, whether as an active participant or a subject of concern.
Adams explains,
The "absent referent" is that which separates the meat eater from the animal and the animal from the end product. The function of the absent referent is to keep our "meat" separated from any idea that she or he was once an animal, to keep something from being seen as having been someone.
The cow (pig?) depicted above is only shown as a dead and dismembered corpse; though he once was alive, had a family and friends, experienced subjective thoughts and emotions, etc., RICADV doesn't care about all that. Animals are "meat" and women are not - as though a drumstick simply sprouts out of the ground that way, already dead, bled, dismembered and skinned, akin to a cantaloupe or tomato.
Also problematic is RICADV's casual appropriation - "the borrowing, or theft, of an element of cultural expression of one group by another." In this case, one group's collective suffering ("food" animals) is being appropriated in order to bring attention to the suffering of another group (battered women). In theory, I'm okay with drawing parallels between various forms of suffering and oppression, as long as it's done in an informed and sensitive manner. But.
While humans are quick to appropriate the suffering of non-human animals - e.g., "They herded us like cattle," "We were treated like animals," "He beat me like a dog" - it's not exactly a two-way street. Animal advocates who attempt to compare the oppression of non-human animals to that of marginalized groups of humans are frequently eviscerated by members and allies of the referent (human) group. Sometimes, "we" (by which I mean the individual or organization in question) deserve it: PETA, for example, isn't exactly known for its tact, depth of analysis or nuance (or its cultural diversity), so when their spokespeople compare the Holocaust or American slavery to animal exploitation, the attempt frequently comes off as self-serving and callous. (Much like the RICADV ad above.)
That said, there are valid comparisons to be made. As I've written previously, the state (or kyriarchy, if you prefer) has a vested interest in controlling the reproductive systems of females, human and non. Yet mainstream feminists commonly scoff at vegan feminists who make a connection between speciesism and misogyny - all while approvingly quoting the work of Carol Adams whenever women are depicted as "meat." (Feministing, I'm looking at you!)
Interestingly, there's a second ad in this series. This one I actually like, as the RICADV manages to draw attention to violence against women - without doing so on the backs of another oppressed group.
Punching bags, unlike non-human animals, are objects; they aren't sentient. So go ahead and hit, kick, punch and beat them to your heart's content. Just leave the women and animals alone.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Butchers Are Hot. Blood Is Sexy. Killing Is Hip. This Is Not Progress.
-
Religious Discrimination and the Killing of Egypt's Pigs (Part 2)
-
Farm Animals, on the Plate and in the Lab, and Human Hypocrisy
Comments (12)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
A heathen vegan feminist living in rural Missouri with her husband and six furkids (five dogs and a cat), Kelly's interests include animal and human rights, pop culture, language, and the intersecting nature of oppressions. She loves good vegan eats and blaming the patriarchy; you can watch her do both (sometimes simultaneously!) at easyVegan.info.
Wonderful post! Thanks for exposing me to terms I didn't know.
Posted by Tracy Habenicht on 07/13/2009 @ 08:41AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Kelly, you're amazing, as always.
Posted by Jen Ruff on 07/13/2009 @ 08:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
great post. Thanks for the new word- "Kyriarchy".
Posted by Michael A. Weber on 07/13/2009 @ 08:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks, all :)
@ Michael: Kyriarchy, definitely one of my new favorite words!
Posted by Kelly Garbato on 07/13/2009 @ 05:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"While I agree wholeheartedly that woman are not "pieces of meat," neither are non-human animals."
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Posted by Elaine Vigneault on 07/13/2009 @ 09:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Yet mainstream feminists commonly scoff at vegan feminists who make a connection between speciesism and misogyny"
YES! This always surprises me. If you're going to be feminist, shouldn't you refrain from consuming the byproducts of other females' suffering?
Thank you.
Posted by Lisa Smolen on 07/14/2009 @ 06:53AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I thought my feminist days were over (decades ago)... Then I became an animal rights advocate --- and all the issues came back like it was yesterday. Thanks for refreshing my memory... yet again. :)
Posted by Bea Elliott on 07/14/2009 @ 08:41AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yeah, we're all, literally, pieces of meat...
I would like to note that in "Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men" by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., Martin S. Fiebert, Ph.D., and Erin Pizzey, they state:
- Presently 25%-30% of all intimate violence is exclusively female on male.
- "Primary aggressor" laws usually result in arrest of the male and ignore research showing 50% of domestic assaults are mutual combat.
- Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men).
There are dozens more stats on the Men's Right article in wikipedia, all citing the related sources. In the United States and many other developed countries in the world, women (in general) are not solely innocent victims of domestic violence.
The VAWA has a lot of gender bias language (it's gender bias by it's nature) and adverts like the ones you cited above lobby support without addressing both sides of the issue. Domestic violence is equally wrong, no matter what gender is guilty of it...
Posted by I C on 07/14/2009 @ 09:15AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I really don't want to get into an argument about domestic violence here - after all, this is an animal rights blog; change.org already has a separate women's rights blog; and the anti-dv ad was included only as a jumping off point for an AR discussion - so instead I'll just direct everyone to the relevant FAQ on the Finally, a Feminism 101 blog: http://bit.ly/6WAV8
I don't condone physical violence of any type (unless, of course, it's in self-defense or a matter of survival), but to pretend that men and women are equally victimized by their partners is absurd.
Posted by Kelly Garbato on 07/14/2009 @ 03:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Okay, somebody had to say it. Kelly, I love this post and agree with everything you wrote. I'd just like to point out one thing. Many moons ago I used to train for the martial arts. I had both a punching bag and a speed bag and they both were made of leather. You wrote, "Punching bags, unlike non-human animals, are objects; they aren't sentient," but my punching bags were sentient at one time. Just goes to show you how pervasive animal parts are in so many of our products today.
Posted by Daniel Wilson on 07/15/2009 @ 07:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Wow, I didn't even think of that! (*smacking head*) Thanks for the observation, Daniel!
Posted by Kelly Garbato on 07/15/2009 @ 09:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is a well-written article. The invisibility of nonhuman animals here actually represents an approval of violence against them. Even before I even thought of respecting nonhumans by not eating them, I disapproved of the anger expressed by feminists and LGBTQ activists against a highly inappropriate ad by the student Grilling Society ("Grills Gone Wild: Grade A, Size D") when they would turn around and hold a Drag Ball with drag performers "performing" imaginary oral sex on audience members and photos of naked male bodies on the walls. I couldn't be in the room without people trying to sexualize me through dance. And they, of course, complained that the Grilling Society was treating women "like a piece of meat."
Daniel, that punching bag could very well be made of leather. I just realized the other night that my jacket, which I have had since long before going vegan, was made of "Genuine Leather," and it's black like that!
Posted by Luella - on 07/21/2009 @ 03:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.