Women and the Animal Rights Movement 9780813550817

Citation preview

Women and the Animal Rights Movement

VVVVVVVVVV

Women and the Animal Rights Movement

EMILY GAARDER

VVVVVVVVVV

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY, AND LONDON

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Gaarder, Emily, 1972– Women and the animal rights movement / Emily Gaarder. p.

cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–8135–4967–5 (hbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–8135–4968–2 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Animal rights movement. 2. Animal rights activists. 3. Women political activists. 4. Women—Political activity.

I. Title.

HV4708.G33 2011 179'.3082—dc22 2010028686 A British Cataloging-in-Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. Copyright © 2011 by Emily Gaarder All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher. Please contact Rutgers University Press, 100 Joyce Kilmer Avenue, Piscataway, NJ 08854–8099. The only exception to this prohibition is “fair use” as defined by U.S. copyright law. Visit our Web site: http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu Manufactured in the United States of America Typesetting: Jack Donner, BookType LLC

To my parents, who gave me the freedom to be

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

ix

1

Connecting Inequalities

2

The Road to Animal Activism

19

3

Where the Boys Aren’t: The Predominance

41

1

of Women in Animal Rights Activism 4

Risk and Reward: The Impact of Activism

61

on Women’s Lives 5

Gender Divisions in Labor, Leadership,

87

and Legitimacy 6

“The Animals Come First”: Using Sex(ism)

117

to Sell Animal Rights 7

Connections, Contexts, and Conclusions

148

Sketch of the Women Activists Interviewed

157

Notes

161

Bibliography

167

Index

177

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I could not have completed this book without the tremendous support and collective wisdom of family, friends, and mentors. My parents, Ron and Joan Gaarder, hardly ever expressed astonishment or even worry about the unlikely turns I’ve taken in life. My sister Erica and great aunt Jean have likewise been unfailingly generous and encouraging. I feel truly lucky to have found such an amazing family of friends as well. Lo Presser, my “available at all hours” bedrock, served as both editor and empathetic listener with her characteristic kindness and skill. Luis Fernandez kicked my butt to get it done, plain and simple. To Michael Coyle, my island buddy, for knowing that rest rejuvenates work. I thank Courtney Sears for telling me to read Carol Adams, Karla Cohen for inspiring integrity in social activism, and Randall Amster, who supported this work from its earliest stages. Thanks to the many wonderful friends with whom I’ve shared lively conversation, good food, camping trips, and quiet meditation. All this has contributed to my thinking on this project, and to my well-being. My excellent helpers along this path include Laurie Back, Lisa Dembouski, Sara Duke, Mitra Emad, Katya Gordon, Denise Hesselton, Jennifer Jones, Sandi Lindgren, Annie Mason, Matt Mason, Tristram McPherson, Tenby Owens, Laura Stolle Schmidt, Mare Schumacher, Anne Seiler, Amy Shuster, and Lora Wedge. I am very grateful to all the women activists who shared their stories with me. I am humbled by your commitment and courage. I extend fond appreciation to Marjorie Zatz, both mentor and friend, for offering just the right combination of guidance and autonomy. Likewise, Madeleine Adelman, Randel Hanson, the late Eugenia DeLamotte, and Leslie Mitchner, my editor at Rutgers University Press, gave me astute and honest guidance on this project. Thanks to Bobbe Needham for her ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

x

careful editing of the manuscript. Carol Adams, Marti Kheel, Leslie Irvine, and Greta Gaard encouraged my work and paved the way for it. A singlesemester leave from the University of Minnesota–Duluth helped bring this project to completion, and I thank my colleagues in the Departments of Sociology/Anthropology and Women’s Studies for their supportive interest in my work. My deepest thanks and love to Michael Creger, for being steady through it all. You read every single word and, in doing so, helped me transform academic-speak into something people might actually want to read. You lighten up our home, and my life, in countless ways. Finally, special appreciation to my animal companions, past and present. I know it didn’t make much sense when I removed you from my lap, keyboard, or workspace, all the while claiming it was “for your benefit.” Thanks for always reminding me of what this work is for.

THE FOLLOWING

kindly granted me permission to reprint: AV Magazine,

a publication of the American Anti-Vivisection Society, for material from Winter 2005, Vol. 113, number 1. A version of chapter 3 first appeared in Feminist Formations 23, issue 2 (2011), copyright © 2011 The John Hopkins University Press. A version of chapter 4 first appeared in Society and Animals 16, number 1 (2008), on behalf of the Animals and Society Institute, copyright © 2008 Brill. Special thanks to J. E. Gözen for allowing me to use her photograph on the cover.

Women and the Animal Rights Movement

1 VVVVVVVVVV Connecting Inequalities People pay less attention and respect to animals, children, women, and people of color, et cetera, and I see it all as part of the struggle. —Zoey

A line of protestors formed on a sidewalk along the road. The signs they held were simple and straightforward: “Stop Animal Abuse: Boycott the Circus,” and “Cruelty Is Not Entertainment.” A smiling woman offered leaflets to motorists stopped at the red light. It’s not everyone’s idea of a good way to spend a Saturday morning. But for this activist, it was a meaningful day’s work. “If I can persuade just one person not to buy a ticket, or even to start thinking about the issue, it’s totally worth it,” she told me. It was a scene typical of social protest across the nation, with one difference common to those advocating on behalf of animals: the protestors were mostly women. Known for passionate protests and sometimes-controversial tactics, one of the most striking characteristics of the animal rights movement is that women make up the majority of its ranks.1 Women have been at the forefront of animal advocacy since the late nineteenth century. So positioned, they have marked the movement with a particular sense of ethics, empathy, and action. This book is about the lives and work of women who are animal rights activists. Often viewed as radicals, troublemakers, or overly sentimental, these women hold beliefs outside the confines of mainstream society and undertake personal and political action on behalf of animals. This book focuses on two dimensions of women and animal rights. The first is a biographical snapshot of women involved in animal advocacy. It charts their histories, influences, and pathways to animal rights activism. Drawing from these narratives, I analyze how women activists talk about gender to make sense of their majority status in the movement. 1

2

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

I also describe the risks and rewards women have experienced from their commitment to activism, especially the emotional intensity of the work and how their value systems have influenced relationships, career, and self-identity. The second dimension, and the second part of this book, concerns the politics of gender in the animal rights movement, examining the ways in which gender shapes the image, tactics, and goals of individual activists and the animal rights movement as a whole. I consider how the emotion associated with animal rights work influences how activists are viewed, and the ways they respond to this gendered characterization. I discuss the gendered divisions of labor and leadership within the movement, and the controversial tactics that women activists grapple with, including advertising campaigns that rely on gendered sexual imagery to sell animal rights. Last, I explore whether and how animal rights activists are linked to other social justice struggles and movements, such as those for racial and gender equality.

The Starting Point: Feminism and Animal Liberation The idea for this book originated from my own journey as a social activist. My activism began with feminism, as early as high school. I later became active in the antiwar movement, restorative justice, the global justice movement, and environmentalism. My participation in other social movements has always been informed by my feminist roots. This guiding perspective led me to work with young female lawbreakers in a variety of settings, including juvenile detention, residential treatment, and wilderness programs. When I returned to school for graduate studies, I began to research the pathways to crime for young women, many of whom are poor, racial/ethnic minorities, and victims of extensive abuse. This research included multiple visits to a women’s prison, where I observed the daily lives of prisoners and the impact of incarceration on their lives. I became immersed in issues of power, voice, imprisonment, and freedom. Yet when a friend and colleague in women’s studies recommended I read Carol Adams’s book The Sexual Politics of Meat, I resisted greatly. Sure, I liked animals, and I lived with a cat companion whom I adored. But while I conceptually understood the links between the oppression of women and the oppression of animals, I was not ready (or willing) to make a personal

CONNECTING INEQUALITIES

3

commitment to vegetarianism or other changes in my life regarding the instrumental use of animals. I glanced through the book, put it down, and went on with life as usual. Years later, as I was trying to decide what topic to pursue in my graduate work, four events occurred simultaneously. In no particular order that I can recall: (1) I visited a local zoo with my young nephew and observed a variety of caged animals; (2) I reread the interviews I had conducted of incarcerated girls; (3) I sat down to finally read The Sexual Politics of Meat; and (4) I stood at my kitchen sink as I washed the supper dishes and decided to stop eating animals. None of these events was dramatic. It seemed more as if my ideas and actions were coming together in a way that felt exciting and yet oddly familiar—like coming home to the accumulation of my life experiences and values. After years of living in a socially active community surrounded by friendly, “no pressure” vegetarians, I felt relaxed enough to push beyond my comfort zone. I was already a committed activist for alternatives to incarceration and a moratorium on prisons. Were the cages that confined humans and animals really so different? I was ready to confront those intersections. Given my own initial resistance but eventual transition to ecofeminism and animal liberation, I remained curious as to why so many scholars and activists still viewed human and animal liberation as separate matters. Examples of inclusive dialogue and joint activity exist, but these linkages remained few and far between. I envisioned a project that would bridge feminism and animal rights. One starting point seemed obvious enough—exploring the lives of women animal activists. I wanted to gain a sense of their paths to activism, give voice to their beliefs about animals, and learn about their vision for a better world. Along the way, I have tried to tackle some of the tensions and controversies that exist between feminism and the animal rights movement, as well as the connections (and disconnections) between animal rights and other movements for social change.

Feminism’s Response to Animal Advocacy Ethical concerns regarding animals have elicited a number of responses from feminists, ranging from deep engagement by ecofeminists to indifference or resistance by others. Although most activists in the animal advocacy

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

4

movement are women, women’s concern for animals has not been of much interest to feminist researchers. In 1991, Deborah Slicer noted that “a good bit of feminist theory is either insensitive to environmental and animal rights issues or downright hostile toward them” (35). Even ecofeminism has not always accorded animals a central place in its theorizing, but more recent edited collections and anthologies have turned this corner (see Adams and Donovan 1995; Donovan and Adams 1996; Gaard 1993). While ecofeminism has put animal issues on the map of feminist concerns, they remain a marginal topic within feminism as a whole. Some feminists are resistant to the types of changes suggested by an animal liberation perspective; they may also disagree with certain goals of the animal rights agenda. Kathryn Paxton George (2000) critiques ethical vegetarianism by arguing that any moral absolutist position that it is wrong to eat meat is elitist and ethnocentric. Various debates regarding feminist ethics, speciesism, vegetarianism, and related topics took place on the pages of Signs, a premier feminist academic journal, throughout the 1990s.2 Other feminists believe it important to resist any comparisons between women and animals, given that women’s alleged inferiority to men has been historically justified by comparing women to a lesser class of beings. Liberal feminists dating back to Mary Wollenstonecraft and Simone de Beauvoir argued for women’s equality by stressing the idea that “women are intellects and have rational minds—like men and unlike animals” (Adams and Donovan 1995, 2). A crucial element of much feminism has been to deride any attempts to connect women or their bodies with nature, because women’s biology has been viewed as the source of gender inequality. Linda Birke suggests that feminists are generally uncomfortable discussing animal issues at all, “for it has too often been the case that those people lacking power have been derogated by likening them to ‘animals.’ To be likened to ‘an animal’ in our culture is to be diminished, or to be mindlessly out of control, and who wants to be like that?” (1994, 10). Rejecting the woman-nature-animals connection may have been a necessary phase in the early transformation of attitudes toward women, particularly with regard to intellect and rationality. But the persistence of this opposition and the failure of many feminists to acknowledge or include

CONNECTING INEQUALITIES

5

other species in their discussions of intersectionality, oppression, and the quest for liberation asserts (whether through silence or outright rejection) that feminism should concern itself only with human liberation. Greta Gaard (1998) and Carol Adams and Josephine Donovan (1995) note that some feminists worry that attention to animal causes will divert women’s attention from more important or urgent human concerns such as violence against women, poverty, and racism. Ecofeminism argues that feminism must engage with the ethics of animals’ status and treatment, because all oppressions are interconnected. Gaard argues for the importance of revealing “the interconnections among numerous forms of oppression in order to expose the structure and functioning of hierarchy itself” (1998, 51). As articulated by Carol Adams, this stance asserts that “a progressive, antiracist defense of animals locates itself at the point of intersection of race, class, sex, and species.” Furthermore, feminist defenses of animals “refuse complicity with body-denying policies and actions” and “honor connections” (Adams 1994, 83, 13). While there is no unified body of work or perspective that could be called ecofeminism, ecofeminists generally believe there are important connections between the oppression of women and that of nonhuman life forms, such as animals and the environment. Ecofeminist thought outlines the conceptual links in patriarchal thought that identify women as closer to nature and men as closer to culture. Societies that see nature as inferior to culture (most Western societies) devalue and oppress persons and groups identified with nature. These dualisms serve to justify the domination of women, animals, and the earth (see Merchant 1989). For instance, Adams’s pioneering work on women and animals compares the cultural representations of women’s bodies with those of animals (1990). Meat eating flourishes within a belief system that reduces animals and women to objects to be consumed. The distribution and supply of meat is just one example of what Adams calls the “sexual politics of meat.” Sexism and racism are embedded in animal comparisons and imagery. Men of color and women of all races are compared to animals and meat, more generally in common jokes and language, and specifically in pornographic materials (Adams 2003b). As Liz Grauerholz notes: “Cultural representations of animals bear close resemblance to those of

6

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

other oppressed groups in society, especially women and girls, who are also offered up for symbolic consumption in media” (2007, 349).3 These examples illustrate a major ecofeminist contention: the conceptual connections among women, nature, and animals affect the material living conditions of women. Part of the ecofeminist project is to document the effects of environmental degradation on the lives of women, people of color, the poor, and animals (Gaard 1993). One branch of ecofeminism, which Gaard terms “vegetarian ecofeminism,” emphasizes the consideration of animals as an integral component of ecofeminist analysis, developing “critiques and activist strategies for responding to various situations involving the linked oppression of women, people of color, and nonhuman animals” (2002, 135). Feminist animal rights theory has emerged as one of the most frequently talked about and cutting-edge topics of current philosophical and environmental work (Seager 2003), but scholarship on contemporary women’s animal rights activism is scarce. As ecofeminism continues to develop as a body of thought, it is important to chart its existence and progression in the field of activism. Some works examine ecofeminist philosophies in action (Agarwal 1992; Sturgeon 1997), but they focus primarily on environmental struggles. One exception is Gaard’s (1998) book on ecofeminist politics within the U.S. Green Party, which includes the ideas and experiences of animal liberation feminists. We know little about whether rank-and-file animal activists see gender oppression as related to animal oppression, or whether they articulate philosophies that resonate with the theoretical ideas we call ecofeminism. How do women animal activists imagine a better world? Do they consider their work to be a single-issue campaign (animals), or part of a larger social vision that encompasses gender, racial, and economic equality? Have their experiences as women awakened their sensitivity to the plight of animals, as Donovan suggests? I address these questions in the pages that follow. This book responds to the call for more gendered analyses of social protest movements (Einwohner, Hollander, and Olson 2000) by exploring the motivations and experiences of women animal rights activists, how they understand and negotiate gender issues in the movement, and whether they believe feminist politics should intersect with animal causes.

CONNECTING INEQUALITIES

7

Historical perspectives on women’s standing in the animal rights movement provide a useful frame for understanding the movement today.

Historical Roots of Women’s Animal Activism The contemporary movement for animals has deep roots in early humane groups and antivivisection organizations, whose members were largely women.4 The first organized movement for animal advocacy originated in England in 1824, with the formation of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (McCrea 1910). In 1840, Queen Victoria became its patron and gave permission to attach the prefix “royal” to its title; the organization was known thereafter as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). Women soon constituted a majority of RSPCA members, growing from 50 percent in 1850 to 69 percent in 1900 (Elston 1987). Most of those who joined antivivisection societies were also women. Victorian women were drawn to the early antivivisection movement for two major reasons. The first was a sense of moral duty, saturated in ideology about women’s natural tendency to nurture and care for the disenfranchised. Mary Ann Elston (1987) points to the role of urbanization and industrialization in heightening women’s participation in animal advocacy. As middle- and upper-class society became polarized into public and private spheres, women became the moral guardians of the home and the charitable reformers of the less fortunate. The second reason for women’s early involvement in antivivisection stems from a more radical perspective. Feminists such as Francis Power Cobbe organized other like-minded women in the fight against vivisection by linking women’s oppression to animals’ oppression. Cobbe was a powerful leader who convincingly connected vivisection to the institutionalized abuse of women. In condemning “wife torture,” inequity in voting rights, and vivisection, she “explicitly connected the diverse abuses that she sought to abolish” (Ferguson 1998, 129). Much of her case also focused on the medical profession, which largely excluded women from its ranks. It was a popular target, because as Moira Ferguson points out: “Many women hated male medical examinations, comparing standard invasive

8

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

procedures to a form of rape” (111). Medical research on animals was likened to the experimental procedures performed on women and the poor in charity hospitals, and the antivivisection movement became increasingly associated with radical politics and the interests of women and the working class.5 This association provoked backlash, given the widespread resentment against women who questioned men of science. Animal supporters become stereotyped as “hysterical” women prone to “irrational” ideas. Cobbe cautioned women supporters against displaying excessive emotion to avoid such stigma (Elston 1987). The U.S. antivivisection and humane movements drew inspiration from the English example, including leaders like Cobbe. As secretary of the U.S. Consulate in St. Petersburg, the American Henry Bergh was shocked by daily observances of cruelty to animals. On his way home to New York, he visited London and studied the work of the RSPCA, determined to establish its U.S. counterpart (Coleman 1924). In 1866, Bergh founded the first U.S. society for animal protection, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). Caroline E. White, another pioneering figure in U.S. animal protection, was similarly inspired by the RSPCA. Upon learning of Bergh’s activities, she met with him in New York, and (along with her husband, Richard White) subsequently began circulating petitions and securing signatures toward the formation of such a society in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) was instituted in 1868. While the original board of managers included Richard White, neither Caroline White (nor any other woman) held an elective position, “for at that time women were not commonly accorded such distinction” (Coleman 1924, 146). Two years later, Caroline White and Mary F. Lovell helped organize the Women’s Branch of the PSPCA. White served as president, a position she held until her death at age eighty-three. Under her leadership, the Women’s Branch initiated a variety of activities on behalf of animals. They took over management of the city pound, obtaining the right to collect stray and homeless animals from the streets. Theirs effectively emerged as the nation’s first animal shelter, serving as a model for municipal animal control during the formative years of animal protection. The society

CONNECTING INEQUALITIES

9

promoted humane education in the schools, introducing humane essay contests among children.6 They were among the first of the anticruelty societies to create and maintain watering stations for workhorses on city streets; they also managed a “rest farm” for old and tired horses (Coleman 1924; McCrea 1910). The antivivisection movement in which White played a definitive role began in the 1860s, as leaders of humane movements in both Britain and the United States responded to the appearance of the first animal experimentation laboratories (Buettinger 1997). White traveled to Britain and met Frances Cobbe, who stressed the importance of creating a separate organization to address vivisection. The Women’s Branch of the PSPCA founded the American Antivivisection Society (AAVS) in 1883, and they actively sought the participation of men, especially clergymen and physicians, to gain prominence and legitimacy. Accordingly, men held the offices of president, vice president, and treasurer, while women served as secretaries. After the first year, fewer men showed up to the meetings, and the AAVS converted into a women’s movement. The AAVS eventually split over ideological and gender lines within its own ranks. The gender balance of the organization was cemented when Caroline White proposed that AAVS commit itself to the abolition of animal experiments, not just their regulation. With mainly women present to vote, the society as a whole concurred. As a result, physicians left the society in large numbers, and the AAVS appointed women to fill the vacancies (Buettinger 1997). Caroline White and Mary Lovell played central roles in the AAVS, testifying before the state legislature, debating vivisection supporters in the Philadelphia press, and editing the society’s Journal of Zoophily. They were assisted by a large network of Philadelphia women, and women in other states began establishing their own women’s branches of local SPCA chapters, as well as organizations affiliated with the AAVS (Buettinger 1997). In his book on U.S. humane society leaders, Sydney Coleman asserted that women had come to occupy “a seat of equal power in anticruelty work,” and “in many places she has taken entire control. Without her devoted and self-sacrificing labor the humane cause could never have advanced so far or so rapidly.” The humane movement was accepted as appropriate to

10

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

female skills, and Coleman reflected the sentiment of the time: “The heart of American womanhood has always been sympathetic for the lot of the unfortunate” (1924, 178, 177). Although women progressed to prominent positions with the antivivisection and humane movements, England’s gendered debate over “sentiment versus science” had a U.S. parallel; both delegitimized the animal cause by targeting its women leaders and membership. The ideological sources for the U.S. antivivisection movement were less grounded in feminist reasoning, but its activists still critiqued the scientific model and the medical profession.7 They questioned whether physician training based on vivisection (training that weaned them of mercy and compassion) could produce doctors able to appropriately attend to women patients (Buettinger 1997). Scientists fought antivivisection groups by defending vivisection’s contributions to disease prevention, but their rhetoric often attacked the irrationality of women. A Harvard physiologist invoked this popular defense in the following statement: “These well-intentioned women are so short-sighted in cases, or so discriminating in their pity in other cases (they extend it to lower animals but refuse it to man), or so hysterical in maudlin sentimentality (Mrs. Ward) in still other cases, that they refuse to listen to the facts” (quoted in Buettinger 1997, 867). The literature on U.S. women and animal advocacy focuses primarily on two periods: the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the contemporary animal rights movement that emerged in the 1970s. In one of the few efforts to address the gap between these time periods, Lynda Birke’s work traces the activist efforts of Alice Morgan Wright (1881–1975) and Edith Goode (1882–1975), two U.S. feminist animal advocates. Wright and Goode were suffragists who worked to further the cause of women’s rights, animal rights, peace, and environmentalism. They argued a connection between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans, and are notable in their attempt to bring animal causes to the attention of the United Nations in 1945. Birke names them “precursors” of the ecofeminist generation that later emerged, “a bridge between the animal rights/feminist connections of the late nineteenth century and the recent resurgence of animal advocacy” (2000, 707). Diane Beers’s history of the U.S. animal rights movement includes a discussion of women’s role in animal advocacy in the post–World War II

CONNECTING INEQUALITIES

11

years, noting that women fronted the majority of new animal advocacy organizations. Women activists still tended to cast their animal advocacy in terms of accepted gender domains (an ethic of care for both humans and animals). In her 1962 book Silent Spring, the now-celebrated environmentalist and animal advocate Rachel Carson connected the lethal use of chemicals to visions of a society where nature, animals, and children alike would suffer the consequences. By connecting their activism to the well-being of society and families, “Carson and her peers negotiated that fine line between the expectations that relegated women to the home and those that justified public activism” (Beers 2006, 158). The careful crafting of her political message did not prevent Carson from being attacked with sexist derision by opponents, including the usual charges of hysteria. While attitudes about women’s place in society have progressed, contemporary women animal activists face some of the same challenges as their historical counterparts. A movement dominated by women struggles for legitimacy. The image of animal rights still suffers from stereotypical portrayals of overly emotional and irrational activists. Internally, struggles over gendered divisions of labor and leadership in the movement persist.

Women and the Contemporary Movement for Animal Rights It is clear that from the animal rights movement’s early formation, women have comprised the majority of its activists. Regardless of age, political views, and educational level, women are more likely than men to be animal advocates (Kruse 1999). Studies of the movement consistently report that women outnumber men among rank-and-file activists, constituting from 68 to 80 percent of members (Galvin and Herzog 1998; Jamison and Lunch 1992; Jasper and Poulsen 1995; Plous 1991, 1998; Richards and Krannich 1991). In general, women are more likely than men to express concern about the treatment of animals (Driscoll 1992; Gallup and Beckstead 1988; Herzog, Betchart, and Pittman 1991), and to oppose the use of animals in research (Peek, Bell, and Dunham 1996; Pifer 1996; Pifer, Shimizu, and Pifer 1994).8 Sociobiologists explain women’s greater participation in animal rights as biologically driven (see Burghardt and Herzog 1989), and cultural/spiritual feminists have argued that essential connections embedded in women’s bodies create a special relationship to the natural world and animals (see

12

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Diamond and Orenstein 1990; Plant 1989). Yet the narratives of women activists in chapters 2 and 3 challenge any simplistic view of women’s motivations, ethical choices, and political actions. Women in the animal rights movement alternatively use, reject, and reformulate cultural ideas about sex and gender to explain both their own pull toward activism and the prevalence of women in the movement. Their personal narratives and larger theoretical explanations are intricate accounts of the biological, the social, and the power of empathetic action rising from common experiences of oppression. What are the common pathways to animal rights activism? James Jasper and Jane Poulsen (1995) have argued that “moral shocks” such as animal rights literature or imagery are more important to animal activist recruitment than are social networks or previous social activism. However, the pathways of women in this book suggest something beyond moral shock theory. While many of the activists had witnessed animal suffering or been startled by written materials or images on animal abuse, this experience did not automatically transfer into political action. They generally undertook a serious study into animal issues before becoming full-fledged activists. For these women, the commitment to learn was followed by a commitment to act. They made enormous personal and overtly political choices as they began to do work on behalf of animals. I explore these choices, and their consequences, in chapter 4. Despite the history of women’s involvement and the large number of women involved in animal rights, there is concern that the voices of men in the movement continue to occupy center stage. In a historical pattern that persists to the present, as James Jasper and Dorothy Nelkin observe, women are “overrepresented among rank-and-file members, yet underrepresented in leadership positions.” The gendered division of labor in some organizations takes the form of men taking leadership or high publicity positions and women filling up the lower ranks, providing large amounts of direct care to animals and keeping the day-to-day operations of a group functioning. Jasper and Nelkin note: “Privately, women active in animal rights often trade complaints of patronizing, condescending attitudes on the part of some of their male collaborators” (1992, 59, 47). Lyle Munroe draws the opposite conclusion about women’s position in movements for animals, claiming that “from the nineteenth century

CONNECTING INEQUALITIES

13

on, women historically have enjoyed a high standing as protectors of nonhuman animals.” While acknowledging that women were once seen as a liability to the movement, he proclaims that the stereotypical images of women activists as “dotty” cat lovers, “sob sisters,” or “crazed spinsters” no longer hold the power they once did. Munroe suggests that women’s “long-standing commitment to animals and deep involvement in animal issues” proves that women are seen as an asset to the movement, and furthermore, that this value is “increasingly reflected in leadership positions and decision making” (2001, 44, 58). Chapter 5 focuses on the debate over women’s standing in the movement, based on the experiences of the women activists I interviewed. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been the target of much gendered controversy in the animal rights movement. PETA’s media campaigns often feature sexualized images of women, such as the infamous “I’d Rather Go Naked than Wear Fur” ads. Chapter 6 explores women activists’ views on such tactics. I use the PETA controversy to illustrate the gendered tensions in the movement, as feminist activists challenge the notion of doing whatever works to advance the cause of animal rights. Indeed, the animal rights movement has been accused of being “single-issue” and slow to form coalitions with other progressive social movements (Jasper and Nelkin 1992). This singular focus on animals spills over into the decision-making processes of some animal rights groups. For instance, Jasper and Nelkin’s observation of the animal rights group Trans-Species found that its leaders ignored democratic processes and internal consensus, claiming that the urgency of animal causes trumped any petty human disagreements among members. Within certain segments of the animal rights movement, whatever is deemed to be in the best interests of the animals triumphs over other concerns, including sexism and racism within its membership and campaigns. I examine the nature and implications of this hierarchy of needs in chapter 6 of the book.

The Women Activists in This Study The research in this book is primarily based on in-depth interviews with women animal rights activists, although I also draw from participant observation of the movement itself. I was tripped up by a very basic question

14

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

as I began my search for women to interview. What made one an animal rights activist? Two terms commonly used to describe activism on behalf of animals are “animal rights” and “animal welfare.” The philosophy of animal rights is generally understood as the idea that animals are “subjects of a life” (see Regan 1983) and thus have an intrinsic right to live free from human exploitation. While animal rights supporters hold differing views, the underlying principle is that animals deserve to live according to their own natures; the goal is to eliminate the institutionalized use of animals for human use (for example, for clothing, food, experimentation, and entertainment). Activists within animal welfare tend to work toward the prevention of cruelty and unnecessary suffering for animals. They are heavily associated with humane societies and other groups that focus on companion animals such as dogs and cats. Animal rights activists sometimes differentiate themselves by saying that welfarists work for bigger cages, while they work for empty ones. This was a distinction made by very few women in this study because a good number of them worked on both kinds of issues and within both rights groups and welfare groups. I discovered very early that the women activists I encountered defied any simple categorization of their philosophies and tactics. They might participate in protests against rodeos at the same time they were organizing an animal adoption day. Women commonly worked on diverse campaigns ranging from protests of vivisection and factory farms to the promotion of spay/neuter and adoption programs. However, for the purposes of this project, I interviewed only women who self-described as animal rights activists, who held beliefs or participated in organizations and actions consistent with common definitions of animal rights, or both.9 Despite the fact that women comprise the majority of animal activists, little has been written about their lives, beliefs, and experiences in the movement. Yet the movement’s internal identity and public image were embedded with gendered meaning and controversy, including debates about the emotional rap laid on the movement due to its associations with women and purportedly feminine causes such as concern for the vulnerable. With this in mind, I decided to trace the specific path of women’s involvement in animal activism rather than a more generalized study of the movement as a whole. A comparative study of activist experiences would be a useful

CONNECTING INEQUALITIES

15

and important project for the future, but the starting point of this work is women activists and the politics of gender in the animal rights movement. I conducted twenty-seven in-depth interviews with women animal activists over a period of two years (July 2002—July 2004). I used purposive and snowball sampling to locate potential interviewees. Some of my initial contacts were women I had met in animal activist groups. In turn, they gave me names and contact information for other women activists they knew or worked with. I obtained contact information for one participant by checking a prisoners’ list posted on an animal rights Web site; there was only one woman listed, and I wrote her a letter in jail to ask if she would participate in an interview through postal mail. I conducted fourteen (just over half) of the interviews while attending the 2003 Animal Rights National Conference in Los Angeles, California. I approached women randomly at the conference and conducted interviews in the hotel lobby, in conference rooms, and over meals.10 I also interviewed three well-known leaders in the animal rights movement at the 2003 Animal Rights National Conference—Carol Adams, Karen Davis, and Marti Kheel. With their permission, I identify them by their real first names throughout the work, because some of their stories and ideas could be readily identified by their written work or presentations. I assigned pseudonyms to the rest of the women I interviewed. Although a few offered to let me use their real names, I kept the remaining twenty-four women anonymous to better protect those who did request confidentiality. Like the majority of animal rights activists (see Jamison 1998), most of the women I interviewed were white. Of the twenty-two white women, three also identified as Jewish. The five women of color were Asian, African American, Mexican American, and multiracial (one was East Indian and white, and the other was white and Native American). I interviewed activists from seventeen to ninety years of age: one teenager, eight in their twenties, six in their thirties, four in their forties, six in their fifties, one in her sixties, and one in her nineties. Nine of the activists were married or with a long-term partner; the remaining eighteen women were single (one was widowed, and two were divorced). Three of the activists had children. Most of the women (nearly 82 percent) lived with at least one animal in their household.

16

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

They held a range of occupations, including teacher, writer, office worker, lawyer, and restaurant worker. Four were college students and one was in veterinary school. Many worked within animal organizations. The majority had at least some college, and six had postgraduate degrees. This is consistent with other studies of animal activists, which find that comparatively speaking, animal rights activists tend to have much higher levels of education than the population as a whole (Jamison 1998; Jasper and Nelkin 1992; Jasper and Poulsen 1995; Lowe and Ginsberg 2002). Some were comfortably middle class, some were lower middle class, and a few struggled to get by. Survey data on this question report that the majority of animal rights participants are middle class (Jamison 1998; Lowe and Ginsberg 2002). In fact, Jasper (1997) has characterized the animal rights movement as a “post-citizenship movement” because it is largely composed of people who are well integrated into the economic and educational structures of society. The predominantly white and middle-class makeup of the movement suggests that its participants have the time, money, and political security to devote their emotional and material resources to animal rights. Yet the high rate of female membership within the animal rights movement defies any simple characterization of the integration of its activists into the political structure of society. As many of the women activists themselves noted, gender deeply affects the distribution of economic, cultural, and political power. In addition to the interviews, I conducted approximately one hundred hours of participant observation. My experiences at the 2003 Animal Rights National Conference included five days of keynote addresses, panel discussions, films, and social gatherings. I also participated in various meetings, protests, and direct care (volunteer work at shelters) with animal rights and animal welfare groups. In my selections, I attempted to mirror the general makeup of animal organizations in the United States, which include animal rescue organizations, antivivisection groups, vegetarian/ vegan action networks, zoo and circus protests, and antifur campaigns, for example. I took field notes after each event or meeting I attended, noting the issues discussed and interactions among activists. I used participant observation mainly to get well acquainted with the animal rights movement. I was also able to flag issues to ask about later in the individual interviews. I sometimes used my field notes to prompt

CONNECTING INEQUALITIES

17

specific discussion about movement issues or specific controversial incidents. For instance, I attended a panel discussion on the subject of diversifying the movement at the 2003 Animal Rights Conference. In this session, the presenters (one white woman and two men of color) discussed the importance of reaching out to women and communities of color, and appropriate and respectful ways of accomplishing this. One member of the audience sparked a lively debate by arguing that these were “human” concerns and detracted attention from the “real” issue of animal rights. Two days later, I approached an African American woman at the conference for an interview. I had noted her presence at the panel discussion, although she had not spoken on the issue. In our interview, I was able to elicit her reaction to this discussion based on my observation and field notes of the remarks made. I also conducted a limited document analysis to gain information on how PETA used women or gendered images in their outreach work and campaigns. This involved an examination of PETA’s Web sites, television ads, billboards, leaflets, press releases, and other campaign strategies. I followed debates about this imagery within the movement, for example, in the writings of academics and in movement literature (magazines, newsletters, and listserves) and at animal rights conferences.11 I examined tape-recorded lectures and discussions that focused on gender from the Animal Rights Conference (years 2000–2003) in order to better understand the positions that activists were debating. I felt some unease when exploring the internal debates of the animal rights movement, as I am well aware that social science research can sometimes undermine the causes, organizations, or movements we support and love (Reinharz 1992). While I identify with the animal rights movement, I also identify as a feminist and an activist in other social causes. I often felt pulled by competing loyalties, similar to some of the activists in this study. At times I found it painful to discuss inconsistencies and problems within the animal rights movement, partly due to anxiety about revealing too much to opponents or exposing problems that might turn people off to animal rights (especially feminists and other social justice activists), and concern that I would be vilified by others in the movement for doing so. Yet hiding conflicts or controversy within a movement for the sake of unity is surely a fatal move, and one that I could not bring myself to

18

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

make. It is my belief that such issues must be addressed (within both the movement and society in general) before a fully actualized vision of human and animal liberation can be realized. Furthermore, as Michelle Fine and colleagues (2000, 126) remind us, “to obscure the bad news is to fool no one.” Thus, I asked the women very direct questions about a number of controversial issues, including the PETA campaigns, work division among male and female activists, leadership roles, and the lack of racial diversity in the movement. Despite my fear of revealing inconsistencies or putting a spotlight on controversies that could turn people off to animal rights, I chose to explore these issues and what women activists had to say about them. I trust that highlighting such issues will provoke needed discussion around problems that I view as debilitating to the success of the animal rights movement. In the end, I put my faith in the reader—faith that the internal and external politics that shape the image, tactics, and goals of the animal rights movement do not become a justification for rejecting the cause itself. Simply put, the animals are not the movement. Our decision to fight for their liberation surely cannot be tied to our approval or disapproval of human campaigns initiated on their behalf. I offer a more open and honest portrayal of women and animal rights in this spirit. I hope that animal advocates, feminists, and those new to the subject matter will all find something interesting and of value within these pages.

2

VVVVVVVVVV The Road to Animal Activism I always loved animals, but I didn’t expect to have this happen to me. —Joanne

Abby, a twenty-year-old college student, had wanted to work with animals ever since she could remember. She attended an elementary school where learning how to ride horses was as important as reading and writing. “I guess growing up that way just instilled it in me, being very connected to the land and to the earth.” Abby discovered very early that “the world didn’t see things the same way I was raised to see it. I came from a place where people would shoot deer and hang them in their front yard, which was kind of hard for me to take. I just used to get really angry about it as a kid.” She found the world of animal activism as a teenager and began going to any protest she could find. Each of the women in this book took a unique path to animal activism, but I heard one phrase repeated time and again: “I’ve always loved animals.” Animal activists’ early fondness for animals is found in other studies (Groves 1995; Shapiro 1994). Kenneth Shapiro defines this caring attitude toward nonhuman animals as follows: “More than just curiosity or interest, it is a positive inclining or leaning toward them, a sympathy for them and their needs. A caring attitude is one of continuous sensitivity and responsiveness, not a transitory awareness or a momentary concern” (1994, 149). The women I interviewed reported this early attitude of caring or love toward animals almost without exception. While some acted on this attitude in their early years, others reported a more conscious understanding much later in life of what it meant to love animals and act on their behalf. For some it was a gradual process of discovering animal issues and organizations; for others it was a specific and sometimes startling experience that 19

20

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

kindled their passion for animals. These startling experiences included witnessing the abuse of animals, or being exposed to what Jasper and Poulsen (1995) term “moral shocks”—reading material or visual images distributed by animal rights proponents that depicted animal suffering. Whichever the case, most of the activists embarked on a process of selfeducation regarding animal issues at some point in their lives. The significance of changing one’s diet from meat eating to vegetarian or vegan was also an important element in the process of becoming an animal activist.1 Some women saw their change in diet as the first step they took toward becoming an activist, noting that being vegetarian or vegan “opened them up” to other animal issues. Others were already activists when they made the decision to give up animal foods. These women viewed it as embracing animal rights more holistically—it was part of their political but also deeply personal transformation. I compared the elements of how and why these women became animal activists to Barbara McDonald’s (2000) study of the process of becoming vegan—a practice that is intimately tied to animal rights activism. Although McDonald’s sample did not specifically identify as animal activists (only as vegan), she did select her twelve interviewees from their participation in the March for Animals that takes place annually in Washington, D.C. McDonald developed a psychological model of the process through which participants learned about veganism, and the steps they went through in adopting a vegan lifestyle. Most claimed to have been “animal people” all their lives but had extended their care and concern only to cats, dogs, and other pets. Many described a “catalytic” event—an experience that introduced him or her to some aspect of animal cruelty. A few repressed the knowledge for the time being (but acted on it later), while others immediately embarked upon a study to learn more. The final step was the decision to become vegetarian or vegan, and the adoption of a new worldview and ethic to guide their new lifestyle. My interviews with women activists echo many of the elements of McDonald’s model, including childhood influences, the gradual or sudden awakening to animal issues, the importance of reading and learning, and of course, the significance of shifting to vegetarianism or veganism. Yet I heard other elements in the women’s stories that were essential to understanding their path to animal activism. These include their family’s treatment of

THE ROAD TO ANIMAL ACTIVISM

21

animals (whether positive or negative), their empathetic connections to animals based on their own experiences of abuse or lower social status as women, and their involvement in other activist causes. I begin with the women’s reflections on their childhood experiences and family life.

Childhood and Family Influences Ten of the twenty-seven women mentioned the positive influence of parents and other family members who valued, respected, and cared for animals. A common theme among these women was a family member who cared for stray animals. Ricki’s father rescued cats and dogs, and Amie’s mother volunteered at a no-kill animal shelter. Diane’s mother was heavily involved in volunteer work with a humane society, and eventually the mother-daughter team created their own nonprofit organization to raise money for animal causes. Ruby, a thirty-year-old animal rights activist, grew up in a home where animals were highly regarded by both parents. Her mother and father loved animals and encouraged their daughter to explore nature and learn about animals. Much of her childhood was spent “out in my backyard picking up bugs and creatures. I brought wayward dogs and cats home all the time.” Lola, an activist in her fifties, grew up surrounded by relatives who demonstrated love and respect for animals. Her father did not believe dissection should be used as an educational tool in high schools. Lola’s great aunt wouldn’t use mousetraps, and she had a grandmother who fed the stray cats in her neighborhood. She also had a Sunday school teacher who talked to Lola’s class about why branding cattle was wrong. While some women grew up in family environments that modeled care and respect for animals, other women witnessed the neglect or abuse of animals within their family or communities. These experiences helped fuel an early resistance to the mistreatment of animals. When asked how she first became involved with animal issues, twenty-one-year-old Marie spoke of her family’s neglect of dogs in her childhood: “When I was like ten or something, my brother and father had these dogs. They lived in a little pen in the backyard, which was always overgrown with weeds, and they had this really grungy water pool. There was this little dog, Scruffy, who was sort of my favorite. She had long hair, so she always had burrs. They

22

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

would get into her skin and all that. I was always asking, ‘Why are you guys letting this happen?’ My dad was like, ‘I don’t like dogs.’ So I said, ‘Fine! I’ll take care of the dogs.’ I started brushing them and making sure they had clean water. I guess that was sort of the beginning.” Karen Davis, who runs a nonprofit animal organization called United Poultry Concerns, recalled similar experiences with her father and brothers while growing up. She grew up in a “very male-dominated family. My father was a lawyer and I had three brothers.” Her father was also a hunter who trained his beagle hunting dogs in very punitive ways, an experience that Karen “definitely felt at odds with. I was not comfortable at all with that as a child.” She remembered her father and uncle making a party out of killing bats in their attic with newspapers. They also had “rat-killing parties,” where the men in the family “treated it like it was a lot of fun.” Karen recalled these incidents vividly and remarked that she “could not bear the suffering of animals as a very young child. If there had been an animal rights movement when I was growing up, I would have belonged to it.” One of the defining moments of Abby’s life was attempting to protect a dog from being hit. She saw a man beating a dog and threw herself in front of the dog, nearly being attacked by the man in the process. She was six years old. She also witnessed her father’s mistreatment of their family dog: “My dad, when I was growing up, wasn’t the nicest person. I grew up with a retriever and when my Dad started getting really mean to him, the dog would go over to my great aunt’s house. When my Dad was gone, he’d come back to the house and hang out with me all day long. Then, literally two minutes before my dad would pull into the driveway, he would go back to my great aunt’s. I just remember being little and thinking, I want to do that. I don’t want to stay here. I mean, it wasn’t that much different from how he treated me.” Abby’s parents eventually divorced. She observed that her mother’s relationship with the family dog “forced everything to come to a head.” Her mother loved their dog, and her father’s mistreatment of it was the catalyst for her decision to seek a divorce. After her father left, Abby “immediately rescued a kitten,” and her mother was extremely supportive of Abby’s desire to work with animals. Cassandra’s path to animal activism was part of a larger road to selfdiscovery and healing from sexual and physical abuse by a family member.

THE ROAD TO ANIMAL ACTIVISM

23

Cassandra, fifty-five, was a recovering alcoholic. When she got sober at the age of thirty-seven, she “started to work on why I was an alcoholic in the first place.” Until that point, she had suppressed the memories of her early abuse. Part of the violence in her family involved her pets being tortured and killed. She said: “I realized I had a lot of issues around animals. I also married a person who wanted my cat to live out in the garage.” Cassandra’s husband “didn’t really like cats and I married him anyway.” She berated herself at the time because “I didn’t hold my ground. I was too afraid to take a stand and say, If you love me, you’ll love my cat.” After several years of sneaking her cat into the house when her husband wasn’t home, Cassandra realized that both she and the cat were suffering from the secrecy of it all. When she couldn’t find a home for the cat on her own, she brought her to the local animal shelter: I took her to the local humane society because I just thought it was no life for her. And I didn’t tell my son. I had so much shame around that. . . . I finally found out that she was adopted, and that made me feel better. But at the same time that triggered memories of my grandfather. . . . There were other animals in my past that I had no control over being able to save, but I still felt that I should have been able to do something. I should have been able to keep my abusers from doing what they did. And I realized that learning to be compassionate and help save animals was going to teach me how to be compassionate and help save myself. Because I was very self-destructive; I was very depressed.

Giving away her cat provoked feelings of immense guilt for Cassandra. It reminded her of animals from childhood (those tortured at the hands of her grandfather) that she was unable to save. While Cassandra recognized that as a child, she had no real control over stopping either her own abuse or that of her pets, it left her with a sense of shame that many abuse survivors share. Yet the argument between her and her husband also prompted her to explore animal issues and activism as a mode of empowerment and healing. Cassandra began reading about the conditions at animal shelters and animal laboratories. She also became active in other political issues, such as the antiwar movement. “Along came the Gulf War and I started

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

24

becoming more politically aware, more politically active.” Cassandra eventually left her husband and immediately began taking in animals. She laughed. “It was one of the first things I did. We weren’t separated maybe a week or so before I rescued a kitten.” Both Cassandra and Abby connected their own treatment as children to the mistreatment of animals by family members—recall Abby’s comment regarding her father’s treatment of their dog: “It wasn’t that much different from how he treated me.” They both rescued kittens immediately after being separated from unsupportive family members—for Cassandra, a husband who disliked cats, and for Abby, a father who mistreated the family dog. Other women drew parallels to violence against animals and their own experiences of being raped. When I met Marianna, age twenty-four, at an animal rights conference, I was drawn to her energy. I seemed to find her everywhere—in panel sessions, watching video premieres, and chatting in the halls with other activists. She was clearly making the most of her time at the conference. I spoke with her informally several times before we could fit an interview into her busy schedule. By the time of the interview, she had already rescued a dog from the streets of Los Angeles, the city where the conference was being held. As she drove back to her hotel room one evening, she spotted a dog running loose on the streets and being kicked by a man. She told me that she was scared at the time, but ultimately happy because she was able to find the dog a home with a fellow attendee of the conference:

EG:

I was thinking about what you said last night. You saw a dog that was really vulnerable—being kicked by this guy. And you know that you were vulnerable to this guy as well. And yet you still went through with it. You were still willing to put yourself at risk.

MARIANNA:

You know that vulnerable feeling. I can’t say that anyone has

ever kicked me at a bus stop, but that doesn’t matter. I have been kicked in many ways. It hurts, and you just kind of run away. Just like this dog. You run away and you’re alone and freaked out. I have felt this way, and I have felt this way with men. I have been raped before, and I feel that feeling—you just run away. When these things happen to an animal, that’s the only thing they can do. And they feel alone.

THE ROAD TO ANIMAL ACTIVISM

25

You feel alone and there is nothing you can do, because in this society, that’s just how it is. Marianna felt a connection to the plight of animals at risk. She had been a troubled teenager who struggled throughout adolescence and was eventually expelled from school. She ran away from home and was gone for several years, encountering dangerous situations in which she had little control. She was also a survivor of rape. When Marianna finally returned home, she was able to ground herself with animal work. Yet she still strongly related to both the situation of animals in general (“animals are vulnerable and they’re treated like objects”) and the case of an individual animal, such as the dog she rescued (“he was homeless and alone”).

“Practically Since Birth”: Young Activists Seven of the activists (most under the age of thirty) became involved in animal causes and other forms of social activism at a young age. They were animal activists by the time they reached college, with a few starting even earlier. Katie, age seventeen, was already serving a jail sentence for an act of social protest against animal experimentation. She was exposed to slaughterhouses when she was eight or nine years old: “My family had moved to a suburb that happened to also be home to a huge slaughterhouse. It was very close to our house and we would often pass or drive behind them on the roads—truckloads of animals being transported to their deaths. It would be freezing outside and an open-slotted truck would come by with animals peering out. The second I made eye contact with one of those cows, I felt the fear I knew they must have felt too. I think I was an especially empathetic child. Perhaps my mother overused the phrase: ‘Imagine if that were you!’ ” Ida, twenty-two, was halfway through veterinarian school at the time of our interview. She was a vegetarian “practically since birth” and knew from the time she was four years old that she wanted to be a veterinarian. In college she read Diet for a New America, by John Robbins, and turned vegan. She joined a vegetarian group on campus, eventually becoming its president. Ida organized educational campaigns on veganism and a petition drive to improve vegetarian and vegan options in the cafeteria.

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

26

She also participated in vivisection protests against the animal lab on her campus. Zoey, twenty-three, tried unsuccessfully to go vegetarian in middle school. “I couldn’t really cook and I was just a kid. All I could get at our cafeteria was iceberg lettuce.” Although she stopped being a vegetarian at that point, she still refused to dissect animals in high school. She was also reading zines and going to punk rock shows as a teenager, which exposed her to alternative culture.2 She was a rebellious teenager who struggled with her parents over social issues. At age eighteen, she connected with a local Food not Bombs group, and learned how to cook vegetarian and vegan food.3 She went to El Salvador after high school and became a dedicated activist after seeing “all the problems they had there with sweatshops, . . . people not able to even afford meat and here we are in America eating all this excess meat and drinking all their coffee, which they can’t even afford to drink because they have to ship it all over here.” Zoey found her way to animal activism at the same time her young mind was taking in all kinds of social justice issues. She connected her beliefs about animals to other concerns regarding hunger, poverty, globalization, and the environment. Like Zoey, Kira found an alternative scene as a young teenager. Now twenty-six, she became a vegetarian around age fourteen. She was “a hardcore kid—listening to Earth Crisis and being straight-edge—drug free. I was into that scene.”4 She rebelled against the conservative, Catholic community she grew up in and was the first vegetarian in her high school. She described her high school in these terms: “It was the kind of thing where the first day of hunting season started, and the school would be empty because so many kids would go out and hunt for the day. People would wear their hunting gear and camos to school.” Kira started in college as a human rights activist with Amnesty International, where she ended up performing primarily administrative and computer tasks. She soon met a fellow student who was “more activist-minded” and together they founded an Animal Defense League chapter. Marie, a twenty-one-year-old college student, was going through a process of self-education about animal issues. Many animal activists I spoke with had undertaken a similar evolution. Some animal or issue was brought to their attention, and they began reading books or surfing the

THE ROAD TO ANIMAL ACTIVISM

27

Internet to find out more about it. Marie had been “doing the vegetarian thing for awhile, but somewhat aimlessly,” and specifically came to the conference with her girlfriend so they could learn about becoming “more active” activists. She was in a Campus Progressives group and had participated in environmental clean-up projects and various animal protests, but was looking to “work her way more into the movement.”

“Better Late Than Never”: Midlife Shifts in Thinking While most of the women I interviewed loved animals while growing up, not all became activists at such a young age. Many pointed to specific experiences later in life that shifted their thinking and inspired their activism. Shana, fifty-four, had been taking in animals all her life. She had worked out of her home studio as an artist and writer for twenty-five years before forming her own sanctuary, and it had become easy to have lots of animals around. She humorously described herself as someone whom animals “marked” for an easy meal or a home, saying, “Do you know how there are people, probably like yourself, who are born with an invisible sign over their head that says: ‘Sucker lives here?’ And every cat or dog in the neighborhood who is lost or hungry shows up at your door? Every neighborhood has one. It’s like how I read that in the 1920s, hobos used to mark on the back of people’s houses, like ‘Free meal available here.’ I’m sure that animals have similar markings.” Like many of the women, Shana had been rescuing animals or contributing money to animal causes much of her life, but she was clear about the turning point when she decided to make animals her priority. In her forties, she went through a transition where she began to examine “where you’ve been, what you’ve done, and where you can go from that point.” She suffered the loss of her best friend at that time and was struggling with depression. Her husband urged her to explore the Internet and find a community of like-minded people to communicate with. Shana had a special interest in birds and was writing articles about them in addition to performing wildlife rehabilitation. She followed his suggestion and recalled: “I started to realize I wasn’t the only person in the world taking in way too many animals. I also came to the realization that while there were cat and dog sanctuaries and farm animal sanctuaries, there was nothing

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

28

where unwanted birds could go.” She realized that if she was to continue with her present work (“my career was suffering because I was spending half my day feeding birds”), she would need to give up most of her birds and cut back her volunteer time considerably. So at age forty-five, Shana “just made the decision.” She gave up her career to start her own nonprofit sanctuary. She decided to “take the experiences of my life and try to create a world-class facility that could help set a standard of care for unwanted birds.” Shana’s pathway to activism emphasized the impact of reevaluating her life and priorities. Diane, thirty-three, experienced a similar feeling in her late twenties—that something “was missing in my life.” She had been working for a photographer who specialized in animal portraits. One project was photographing the Pet of the Week for the local humane society, which resulted in a 100 percent adoption rate for that animal. Diane felt a strong pull to devote some time to volunteering: “Every week would go by and I’d think, I’ve got to get to the humane society. I really want to be more involved.” But Diane was working six days a week to support herself. She knew she was ready to try something different: to fulfill her desire to help animals while still bringing home a paycheck. Diane eventually founded a nonprofit business that donates its proceeds to animal causes, a life transition she worked hard to achieve. Ricki, in her late thirties, introduced her story by stating: “Well, I’ve always loved animals, but I never really got involved in animal activism until my thirties. A little late to get started, but better late than never!” Ricki rescued stray animals and occasionally sent donations to animal groups, but she didn’t become involved in the movement until being struck by the story of a celebrity who became an animal activist. She had been a PETA member for a few years but would “just send in my donation and get the magazine and that was about the end of it.” One day she happened to catch Chris deRose, founder of Last Chance for Animals, on the television network Animal Planet. She immediately ordered his book, and “that’s when I really started getting into becoming an activist. Before I really didn’t know how to help the animals, except—I always did rescues, took in strays and things like that. But as far as actual protesting or campaigns, it wasn’t really until I read Chris’s book.” Ricki e-mailed the group, asking what she could do to become involved. She eventually started her own Last Chance

THE ROAD TO ANIMAL ACTIVISM

29

for Animals chapter and ended pound seizure in her city. (Pound seizure is the practice of releasing or selling cats and dogs from municipally funded animal shelters for use in biomedical research or product development and testing.) Ricki laughed in amazement when recalling her path to activism: “See what reading a book will do?” Ricki’s story illustrates the importance of reading and subsequent investigation into animal issues, a phenomenon also noted in Jasper and Poulsen’s (1995) research on animal rights activists. Seventy-two percent of the animal rights activists they surveyed reported reading as a very important factor in their involvement in the cause. The influence of specific events, or of things they had read or watched on television, ranked far above factors such as “friends and family” or “previous activism.” While the women in my sample were also influenced by friends, family, and previous activism, reading and educating themselves about animal issues emerged prominently in their stories as well. Bonnie, forty-eight, was a latecomer to animal activism: “I can’t say that as a child I was always rescuing animals or that I was a vegetarian as a child. . . . The sensitivity was there, but I’m so impressed with the younger people I meet. I’m amazed. I was a little late with all that.” Bonnie’s shift in thinking occurred after her cholesterol level shot up following a hysterectomy. Her doctor suggested that she eliminate a number of foods from her diet, and Bonnie quickly made the connection that most of these foods were animal products. Bonnie “already knew she didn’t feel really good about eating meat,” and then made the health and environmental connections as well. Bonnie led a busy life and held a lucrative job but “felt something else tugging at me.” Too busy to volunteer, she decided to send money to ease her conscience: “So I started writing checks to environmental and animal groups and I thought, Okay, good. That will satisfy that. Well, I was not prepared for what happened after that! I started getting inundated with all this information about stuff I had no friggin’ idea about . . . the extent to which . . . I just became . . . I found myself just like splitting off into two different people. I would be slinging my briefcase through airports and sitting on planes coming back home, reading PETA’s magazine in tears.” Bonnie found her career increasingly unsatisfactory as she began to “connect all the dots—health, environment, animal liberation.” She felt

30

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

compelled to direct her energy into these realms. At the same time, Bonnie “didn’t exactly know where this was going to take me,” and it was a scary, uncertain time for her: “I tried for awhile to see if I could kind of straddle the two worlds. Like, okay, I can do this corporate thing. I did a rally drive to send money to Alaska after the Valdez [oil] spill and managed to volunteer a bit at a wildlife sanctuary. . . . The thing that really put me over the edge was that I went up to the seal watch where you visit the ice floes and harp seal nursery. . . . That transported me. After spending time on the ice with them, my job was as far away as—I realized, I just can’t do this anymore. I can’t do this corporate thing.” The desertion of an established career in favor of animal activism was a theme for several of the women. Before devoting her career to animal advocacy, Sue was an experimental psychologist. As a graduate student, she had performed animal experimentation at a neurological institute and a cancer research center. She had also taught surgical techniques on animals to undergraduate students. Sue said: “I was not an animal rights person, although I’ve always been a very big animal person and I have a master’s degree in animal learning. I think I always understood it on a pretty fundamental level—that animals do in fact have cognition, emotion, memory.” Sue was contemplating law school at the time, interested in pursuing advocacy for children with developmental delays. She was also volunteering with a local attorney, doing legal research on animal issues. Yet what really caught Sue’s attention was a young student activist in a psychology class she taught: “This young guy was one of my very best students, and he was always in the class with an animal rights T-shirt on. I was on my way over to the law library one day, and I saw a bunch of people out in front of the university demonstrating against animal research with a couple of banners. I’ve always worked with kids, with students, and I always really want to know what they have to say. My student was with the group and I went over. They started telling me about the problems they saw, and that they had concerns about what was going on in the university research labs.” The group mentioned a beagle dog project rumored to be particularly horrendous. Sue remembers telling them they “first needed to verify whether this was true. You don’t want to go on a witch hunt here, because you’re going to lose all your credibility.” She found herself drawn into the cause, though not without some initial reservation:

THE ROAD TO ANIMAL ACTIVISM

31

They were trying to get information on it but didn’t really have a clue about how to go about getting it. They had gotten USDA inspection reports, but they couldn’t get any further because they didn’t know what to do next. So I said, Well, I’m kind of in an awkward position here. I’m teaching classes for the university and I’m also technically an adjunct for another university . . . but let me look into it for you and see what I can find out. So I did, and actually that day I went over to the law library and to the NIH [National Institutes of Health] database that lists all of their grants. I found the grant they were talking about. I read the abstract and I thought, Wow, that is a grisly protocol. And I’ve worked at places where I used to drill holes into the heads of pigeons and put electrodes in them. I used to drill holes into the heads of cats and put electrodes in them. But I saw this protocol and thought, I can’t believe what I’m reading here. He [the principal investigator] was trying to create a brain tumor by implanting fetal puppies with brain tumor cells. And then cutting into the brain of the dogs at some point in time. I just thought, This is really grisly.

Sue informed the group of her findings, filed a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, and ended up joining forces with a local member of Congress before the NIH would finally release the materials to her. She turned into a full-fledged animal activist: “It took me hours of work every day just to get all the paperwork on it, delve into it, meet with various people, answer questions for people, do what needed to be done. It literally took me fourteen hours a day of work for two years. I thought about little old Brian, sitting in that class with that shirt on, and here he was, this A student. He was just this wonderful kid and I thought, you know, If I don’t stop this project, I will never be able to face these kids again, because here I am, teaching about ethics in research. And I just need to get this stopped.” Karen chronicled a particular time in her life—getting to know an individual animal—as the turning point that led to a life of activism. She had been attending rodeo and fur protests but became increasingly interested in the plight of farm animals after doing some volunteer work at the Farm Sanctuary. She and her husband later moved to a small house outside Washington, D.C., as she worked to finish her doctoral degree. “It

32

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

was a very urban county, but there was this little place right off the Beltway that we rented, and it turned out that our landlady was raising chickens to maintain her agricultural status.” When Karen discovered the chickens, she soon began visiting the birds almost daily, taking her books outside to study. At the same time she was enjoying her experience, she could not help but notice that some “were growing so huge that they were becoming crippled—some of them died.” Karen was witnessing breeding techniques that cause chickens to grow too large and too quickly for their skeletal system to adequately support their body weight. Several weeks later, she went out to visit the chickens, but they were gone. She later found one “very crippled, dirt-stained hen hobbling all around by herself.” She took the bird home, and she and her husband made a bed in the kitchen: Within a couple of days, she started to peep and become expressive. When I would set her outside, she would go through an enormous effort to walk. . . . She would actually balance herself on her wingtips and move forward that way and then collapse into a heap, exhausted. Eventually she became very affectionate and very talkative. She knew when I was cooking brown rice for her in the evening and she would get all excited and happy. I just came to love her very much and see that there was a complete discrepancy between her personality and the view that society in general seems to have of chickens. So it was certainly getting to know a single bird that opened my eyes. I was a vegetarian before I met her and had done some volunteer work, but having this one bird and seeing her life unfold in the way that it did was pretty determinative as to what I thought I was going to do next.

Karen founded United Poultry Concerns, an organization and sanctuary focusing specifically on poultry. Her relationship with one bird led her to understand that “there are millions just like her going through these horrible systems every single year in this country alone—just as lovable, just as innocent, just as dear. I put it this way—chickens have voices, but they need a Voice, capital V. They’re trying to solicit our attention, and they got mine. I felt absolutely without question that I needed to start an organization that would specifically address their plight.”

THE ROAD TO ANIMAL ACTIVISM

33

Joanne was in her late thirties when she underwent a life-changing experience involving animals. On a vacation-business trip to the Mediterranean, she was shocked by the condition of the domesticated animals there. Joanne’s cat lived a comfortable life in her home, and Joanne had never witnessed the widespread neglect of large populations of animals. She recalled how this trip affected her: “I started out dressed really nice in my heels and dressy clothes. By the end of my two weeks, I was just walking the streets crying, and my clothes were dirty. I’d go out and get food for a meal, but I could only take a few bites before I’d go back to my hotel, because there were a bunch of animals in the back. I saw a lot of injured, skeletal bodies and animals with their eyes poked out. I was feeding them every night. It was like an awakening.” Joanne, now forty-one, reflected on how this experience changed her life. She stopped eating meat, fish, and eggs, and embarked on an investigation into animal issues. Even though her transformation had occurred several years ago, she still expressed surprise, even amazement, that she was now an animal rights activist: “It just gave me a whole new perspective of the world. I owned my own business, and I pretty much lost interest after that. I started doing a lot of research, and getting on the Web took me to all the other issues. I was just thinking about domestic animals, but then, you know, slowly I learned about the factory farming and I’m still learning. I mean, I always loved animals, but I didn’t expect to have this happen to me.”

Eating Differently Women’s stories of transformation often emphasized the importance of “going vegetarian” or “going vegan.” A handful of the women in the study were vegetarians prior to their involvement in the animal rights movement (sometimes for animal reasons, but also for health, environmental, or world hunger reasons), while others changed their diets upon their introduction to animal rights issues. For many, it was a turning point in their belief systems and their lifestyles. This is consistent with Harold Herzog’s study of animal activists (1993), where one of the most pronounced areas of change for activists involved diet. Erin was about sixteen years old when she heard a song on the radio about “the hot vegetarian girl.” Erin didn’t know any other vegetarians, nor

34

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

was she attuned to animal rights. The song caught her attention because she “wanted to be cool” and now associated vegetarianism with it. She turned vegetarian soon after and reported: “Once I had taken the meat out of my diet, I was open to learning about all kinds of animal issues. I started identifying with it.” Removing the “guilt factor” of meat eating opened up space for Erin, now twenty-two, to explore animal rights: “I’m a firm believer that once you’ve taken the meat out of your diet, all of the sudden, you’re really open to the idea of animal rights. But if you have that barrier up, you’re defensive still.” Erin’s transition from vegetarian to vegan came about when her selfdescribed “hypocrisy” was brought to her attention by college classmates. She found herself challenged by debates in her environmental ethics class. “People would say, ‘If you don’t like the way animals are treated, what about your leather shoes?’ So I was like, I’ll just get rid of my leather shoes so that I can win this debate.” She recalled thinking, “Fine, I’ll investigate it. You caught my hypocrisy. So I researched it and I became vegan.” Amie also viewed her early attitude regarding animal issues as hypocritical, for reasons that McDonald (2000) identifies as “compartmentalized compassion.” Amie, twenty-eight, had plenty of exposure to companion animal issues from her mother, who volunteered at a no-kill shelter and spoke out against cruelty to companion animals. She adored animals from an early age but “never really thought about vegetarianism until I went to college.” She joined an animal rights group on campus and started reading leaflets on factory farming. It was then she began to question her lifestyle and diet. “I say that I love animals and I never really thought that here I am eating other animals and isn’t that hypocritical. So I decided to stop eating meat.” Anika, the twenty-nine-year-old director of a nonprofit animal organization, described growing up in a rural area where she had no exposure to animal rights issues. She described her affinity for animals as “intuitive—no one explained it to me.” While Anika displayed an early fondness for animals, her political consciousness about them came later, through the avenue of vegetarianism. Anika recalled the precise moment, at age sixteen, when her worldview concerning animals began to take shape: “I saw a friend feeding her predatory fish smaller fish and I thought, ‘How

THE ROAD TO ANIMAL ACTIVISM

35

do you get to decide which fish will live and die?’ My friend said, ‘Well, you eat hamburgers.’ So I became a vegetarian.” Marianna reminisced: “Ever since I was little, animals were just the center of my life. As a child, I ate meat, but I always loved animals.” Marianna’s father also loved animals, and she remembers “wanting to be a vegetarian” at age thirteen, but not being able to follow through. When she was fourteen, she met a new best friend whose family was vegetarian. Marianna shared a meal at their home and became dedicated to this new diet. “I already had this notion of it, and so when you’re fourteen and your close friend does it, that helps. You could say it was peer influence.” Like Marianna, Zoey had notions of being a vegetarian very young but lacked the knowledge, peers, or family support to stick with the diet. She told a story of attempting to become vegan as a teenager: “I remember going to the co-op and being like, What should I buy? All my friends said vegans ate rice and beans. So I bought about a whole ton of black-eyed peas. It said to soak them, but I didn’t know they got bigger, so I just made this big pot with all this water—in the morning it was overflowing and here were these things I didn’t even recognize! I don’t think I’d ever eaten black-eyed peas. My dad was like, ‘You don’t really know how to cook, do you?’ ” The struggle to maintain a vegan diet was mentioned by several of the women. While some had friends and family who were supportive of their diet, many other women (like Zoey) had stories of family and friends who complained, teased them, or actively tried to sabotage their diet by slipping meat into their food.

Involvement in Other Social Justice Issues When Jacqueline, thirty-nine, entered law school, she began to pursue public interest issues such as women’s rights, civil rights, and the environment. Yet after graduating, she still had no idea there was an animal rights movement. Jacqueline worked with low-income battered women, many of them women of color. As she began to learn about the connection between animal abuse and violence against women, she became motivated to use her legal skills to help animals who were abused.

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

36

Like Jacqueline, some women were already working on social justice issues before they became involved in animal causes. Kira was a human rights activist with Amnesty International. Anika was involved in environmental causes. For some of these women, being part of another activist community (such as feminist, antiwar, or environmental) generated interest in animal causes, especially the connections between social justice issues. Carol Adams, fifty-three, had been organizing around nonviolence (especially violence against women) since the early 1970s. Now a widely published author in the field of feminism and animal advocacy, she explained: “I became a vegetarian in 1974, but I was already a feminist.” While attending graduate school, she began to bring together ideas related to women’s oppression and the oppression of animals. The feminist movement in the Boston community “was very strongly vegetarian—some because they were antiwar activists, some because of Frances Moore Lappé, some because of capitalism, some for women’s health.” Carol’s diverse interests in social justice led her to work against racial discrimination in housing practices and against domestic violence, and to become involved in hunger issues and animal rights. Only 33 percent of the women in my sample were involved in other social causes before turning to animal rights, including the antiwar/peace movement (both Vietnam and the Gulf War), the women’s movement, civil rights/antiracism, environmentalism, and human rights. This contrasts with Susan Sperling’s (1988) account of the animal rights movement, which found that activists had almost always participated in other types of social movements, most notably the antinuclear movement, the women’s movement, and the environmental movement. While this held true for nine of the women in my sample, most were not familiar or active in any social movement before animal rights—although some learned subsequently about other social issues through the cause of animal rights. The discrepancy between Sperling’s study and my own may reflect the geographic locations from which our samples were drawn. Sperling’s sample consisted solely of activists in the San Francisco Bay area, which has a rich history of activism. My sample was drawn more broadly and included women from across the United States.

THE ROAD TO ANIMAL ACTIVISM

37

My findings more closely match Jasper and Poulsen’s (1995) study of animal rights activists. Of the 305 activists they surveyed, only 30 percent said that involvement in other political issues or movements helped involve them in the cause of animal rights. When Jasper and Poulsen compared the recruiting mechanisms of animal rights and antinuclear protestors, they discovered that fewer animal rights activists rated the influence of family, friends, or previous activism in other social movements as reasons for their participation in animal rights. Yet much of the social movement literature suggests the importance of existing social networks through which movement ideas are spread. For instance, having previous contact with someone in the movement or prior activism in other causes can make a person more easily attuned to the ideas and culture of a social movement. The curious lack of social networking as a pathway to animal activism flies in the face of commonly accepted theories of how people are drawn to social movements. The fact that many animal rights activists enter into social protest with a lack of experience or knowledge of other social movements helps explain why the animal rights movement is largely viewed as a “single-issue” social movement. Jasper and Nelkin argue that this has “obstructed efforts to form strategic relationships with other protest movements.” They suggest that the “fundamentalist urges” of animal rights activists, as well as “political naïveté,” make for awkward alliances and even offensive behavior with regard to other social movements (1992, 53). Like Jasper and Nelkin, I detected some single-mindedness through the course of my interviews and participant observations. On the other hand, I also observed that a good number of women animal activists see other social causes such as gender, race, and class as integral to their broader vision of human and animal liberation. Consequently, tensions exist within the animal rights movement over these issues, particularly gender.

Conclusion The paths to animal activism for the women in this study were as varied as the women themselves: while Bonnie was a high-paid corporate executive who experienced a midlife change in consciousness and values, Kira was

38

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

a tattooed, radical activist who had worked on social justice issues since her college days. The stories of how and why they became involved in the animal rights movement offer important insight into the motivations of animal activists. What makes some people animal rights activists, when so many others in society are oblivious, apathetic, or resistant to such notions? Nearly all the women’s narratives included a reference to their early fondness or connection to animals. Some acted on this early in life, while others were latecomers to the movement. Yet we cannot simply assume that people who are fond of animals in childhood automatically become activists, or even proponents of animal rights. Indeed, a sizeable population of the United States probably professes a liking for animals but does not engage in personal or political activities consistent with an animal rights perspective. There was something else happening in the lives of these women—something that heightened their sensitivity to animal suffering or raised their consciousness level in a way that compelled them to act. Many of the women mentioned that their family’s attitude toward animals influenced their views. Ruby’s parents demonstrated care and respect toward animals, encouraging their daughter to do the same; Karen’s father abused his dogs and killed other animals for fun. Ruby and others grew up emulating their parents’ compassionate example, while Karen was not alone in her anger and defiance toward the parental neglect or abuse of animals. Five women revealed their own histories of physical or sexual abuse; these experiences moved them to recognize and resist the abusive treatment of animals.5 Some women discovered animal issues through their involvement in other types of social justice work or, in the case of some younger activists, through alternative music or cultural scenes. Several women pointed to a particular experience, person, or book that opened their eyes to animal suffering. In the case of Shana, it was witnessing animal suffering firsthand. For Karen, it was getting to know an individual animal. Marianna was influenced by a friend, and Ricki was inspired by a famous animal activist and his book. This finding offers some support for Jasper and Poulsen’s (1995) claim that “moral shocks” such as animal rights literature or imagery are more important to animal activist recruitment than social networks or previous

THE ROAD TO ANIMAL ACTIVISM

39

activism in other causes. However, the women’s stories suggest something more complex than the moral shock theory. First, not all the participants in this study reported such epiphanies. Second, the experience of a moral shock did not immediately transform them into activists. As their narratives indicate, most of the women became activists more gradually, usually after they dedicated themselves to a rigorous examination of the issues at hand. This is consistent with Brian Lowe and Caryn Ginsberg’s (2002) survey of animal rights activists, where 58 percent of activists said they were gradually drawn to animal issues over time. The women’s influences ranged far beyond animal rights books or movement literature. Even those women who reported specific and shocking wake-up calls did not necessarily become activists immediately thereafter. While some made changes in their lives right away (the most common being a shift to a vegetarian or vegan diet), this was only the beginning of their path. It generally prompted a dedicated investigation into animal concerns and related issues such as environmentalism. Information on animal cruelty issues is rarely found in mainstream news outlets; the women had to actively seek it out through avenues like the Internet or books. Learning how to be vegetarian or vegan required similar investigations. In other words, “learning about animal abuse and how to live a marginalized lifestyle required a clear commitment to learn” (McDonald 2000, 11). Although nearly all the activists spoke of an early love for animals, most were meat eaters or used animal products in other ways before being turned on to animal rights. Their childhood fondness for animals did not automatically transfer into political action. For these women activists, the commitment to learn was followed by a commitment to act. They made enormous personal and overtly political choices as they began to do work on behalf of animals. Most of these women did not follow a simple or straightforward path to animal activism. Their stories contained a few common threads—most notably, an early love for animals, and later, a rigorous exploration of animal issues through research and reading. It was the combination of a set of events (things they witnessed or experienced) and investigation (deliberately undertaken) that led to a determined choice to become activists. Several themes emerge in their stories, including childhood relationships with animals, family

40

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

influences, witnessing the abuse or suffering of animals, personal experiences of violence, encountering animal rights materials, and involvement with other social justice issues. The motivating forces behind these women’s activism constitute a starting point for one of the most interesting questions about the animal rights movement as a whole: what accounts for the gender disparity among animal activists?

3

VVVVVVVVVV Where the Boys Aren’t The Predominance of Women in Animal Rights Activism

Putting yourself out there as an animal rights activist opens you up to a lot of stereotypes and resistance from society. I think a lot of men are hesitant to get involved because they might be looked at as a bleeding heart, openly emotional, . . . a little bit too sensitive. —Abby

From its early stirring in Victorian England to contemporary times, one of the most striking characteristics of the animal rights movement is that the majority of its activists are women. The Animals’ Agenda report of two 1985 surveys concluded that “at all levels of participation . . . women constitute the single most important driving force behind the animal rights phenomenon” (Greanville and Moss 1985, 10). This legacy begs the question, How do we explain the connection between gender and animal rights participation? This chapter focuses on how women make sense of their majority status in the movement—in other words, how they understand the relationship between gender and participation in animal rights activism. I considered the narratives of the women activists I interviewed—stories of how and why they became involved—but I also asked them to develop accounts of gender and animal rights activism, more specifically, why they believed so many women were drawn to the movement. Marvin B. Scott and Stanford Lyman (1968) developed the concept of accounts; early works in this tradition focused on verbal statements made by people to explain deviant behaviors or problematic occurrences. I follow the path of more recent scholarship, using a broader view of “accountsas-stories to encompass both private and public explanations for a wider 41

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

42

array of social actions” (Orbuch 1997, 474). I also emphasize the process by which individuals create accounts (see Harvey, Orbuch, and Weber 1990), and the importance of cultural discourse in understanding the narratives individuals present (see Rosenwald and Ochberg 1992). Social movement scholars have used accounts as a means of interpreting activists’ motives for joining movements and their justification of tactics or behaviors. Justin Goodman (2007), for example, considers the accounts that radical animal rights activists employ to rationalize militant direct action. Women animal rights activists use, revise, or reject cultural discourses of sex and gender to develop accounts of both their own activism and the predominance of women in the movement. The activists in this study sometimes used popular biological or social discourses concerning sex and gender, such as “women are just naturally nurturing” or “women are taught to care,” to make sense of women’s participation in animal rights activism. Yet they also developed accounts that highlighted gender inequity as a motivating factor; such accounts connected the oppression of animals to the oppression of women. By labeling them “accounts,” I wish to emphasize that women’s explanations don’t establish a tidy truth about why they are activists; they illustrate how women use discourses of sex and gender to make sense of their political agency.

Gender and Participation in Animal Rights While the topic of women and the animal rights movement is largely unexplored terrain, a handful of works posit theories about the relevance of gender to participation in animal rights. My engagement with this literature begins with the theory of gendered economic structures, which proposes that women have more free time to devote to social causes and volunteering. Jasper and Nelkin suggest: “Despite their increasing participation in the workplace, women are still less likely to be employed full time than men, providing women more time for animal activism” (1992, 39). Other scholars propose quite the opposite: women actually enjoy less free time than men, especially as they bear dual burdens as both family providers and caregivers (see Frasier 1994). As increasing numbers of women seek paid employment (with little reduction in housework and

WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T

43

child care), the idea that women have more time for animal rights activism is questionable. For example, only one woman in this study did animal rights work while financially supported by a partner. Furthermore, if time and flexibility explains women’s participation in activism, why don’t they dominate all social movements? The socialization aspects of gendered economic structures are perhaps the more enduring parts of this theory. Women are still more likely to be the primary caretakers of animals within households, which might increase their bond with animals. A similar trend may exist among children, as female children assume more responsibilities for domestic animals than do their male counterparts (Kidd and Kidd 1990). Women are the probable candidates to bring their animals to veterinary clinics, where donation cans or literature about animal welfare groups may be displayed (Kruse 1999). Women also make up a majority of volunteers at animal shelters and rescue groups—all likely places for exposure to animal rights literature or ideas. Thus, women may be the target of animal rights mobilization efforts more than men—a result of what Corwin Kruse calls “greater embeddedness in recruitment networks” (1999, 195). Other social learning explanations suggest that gender-role socialization influences our emotional response. Masculinity is associated with strength and emotional distance, and showing compassion for animals can be viewed as a sign of weakness. Brian Luke argues that men learn how to become men in Western culture by distancing themselves from caring impulses toward animals. The problem is not that men do not or cannot sympathize with animals, Luke writes, “but that the full development and application” of men’s capacity to care is “curbed by the imperatives of male domination.” Men’s compassion for animals “is constrained by the project of constructing a manhood defined in contradistinction to womanhood” (2007, 228). If womanhood equals caring, then manhood must mean something else. Animal exploitation affirms the project of masculinity, while animal advocacy erodes it. It follows that men may be less willing to pursue animal activism for fear of being associated with a movement stereotyped as being overly emotional and comprised of bleeding hearts. Kruse suggests that “men may therefore view activism on behalf of animals as unmasculine and be unwilling to incur the potentially greater social costs of mobilization” (1999, 195).

44

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Women’s level of involvement in animal advocacy issues “reflects the persistence of traditional gender expectations: women are supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of others; and they are asked to be gentle rather than aggressive” (Jasper and Nelkin 1992, 39). The pioneering work of Carol Gilligan (1982) concluded that socialization experiences create distinct ethical frameworks for men and women. While Gilligan stressed early object relations, other scholars consider ongoing socialization within institutions such as the workplace and media (see Kimmel 2008). Girls and women are often taught that emotional expression and nurturing are normal and even desirable feminine traits. Thus, women’s care and concern for those who are victimized and oppressed is more acceptable. Sara Ruddick’s (1989) theory of “maternal thinking” argues that women’s disproportionate role in childrearing makes them more adverse to violence than men, and more active in peace movements. Jasper and Poulsen extend this logic to animal rights due to the symbolic similarities between children and animals. They speculate that women’s likely role as the primary caregiver makes them more amenable to the message of animal rights, “opening them to appeals portraying animals as innocent victims in need of protection” (1995, 506). The theory of maternal thinking has been critiqued for its essentialist assumptions, as it “distorts the meaning of politics and political action largely by reinforcing a onedimensional view of women as creatures of the family” (Dietz 1985, 20). Ecofeminists have proposed that relational thinking (see Gilligan 1982) and experiences of hierarchical domination may cause women to feel more connected than do men to nature and animals (Adams 1996; Donovan 1990, 2006). They may be less likely to see nature or animals as things to be conquered, controlled, or killed. Kruse (1999) found that greater support for animal rights among women was linked to the fact that women were less likely to hold views that emphasize controlling nature. Women’s experiences with structural oppression may make them more inclined than men to support an “egalitarian ideology” that extends moral concern and fairness to animals (Peek, Bell, and Dunham 1996). Some argue that women have a special stake in ending the domination of nonhuman life because of these oppressive connections; for example, Josephine Donovan suggests that “feminists—indeed most women—are acutely aware of what it feels like to have one’s opinion ignored, trivialized,

WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T

45

rendered unimportant. Perhaps this experience has awakened their sensitivity to the fact that other marginalized groups—including animals—have trouble getting their viewpoints heard” (2006, 306). I call this explanation for women’s higher levels of animal advocacy empathy based on shared inequities: the idea that women identify with the oppression of animals based on similar experiences of objectification, subordination, and abuse. Englishwomen in the early antivivisection movement drew similarities between invasive gynecological procedures and research performed on women, and the instruments of torture used on animals in experiments. The feminist Francis Cobbe organized women in the fight against vivisection by linking it to the institutionalized abuse of women (Ferguson 1998). Medical research on animals was likened to experimental procedures performed on women and the poor, and the antivivisection movement became increasingly associated with the interests of women and the working class. Carol Lansbury’s historical look at Great Britain’s early animal advocacy found that middle-class women and the working class made curious allies in the cause of antivivisection, as both groups were routinely subjected to humiliating and dangerous procedures. Lansbury notes: “Every flogged and beaten horse, every dog or cat strapped down for the vivisector’s knife, reminded them of their own condition in society.” Lansbury concludes that women were the most fervent protestors because “the vivisected animal stood for vivisected woman,” and also for the woman “strapped and bound in the pornographic fiction of the period (1985, 82). Some ecofeminists claim that women are naturally more connected to the earth and animals because of their ability to give birth. Two early ecofeminist anthologies, Healing the Wounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism (Plant 1989) and Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism (Diamond and Orenstein 1990), focus on these themes and are widely read and cited works. Some of these cultural/spiritual feminists argue that there are essential connections embedded in women’s bodies that make their relationship to the natural world unique. Ecological feminists such as Chris Cuomo (1998) and Lori Gruen (1993) reject the notion that women have a “special” or “natural” connection to nature or animals, emphasizing that the connections between them are significant only as they reflect patterns of hierarchy and domination.

46

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Other biological accounts stress essential differences between men and women to explain women’s greater consideration for the treatment and status of animals. Sociobiologists argue that the root of this concern can be traced to evolutionary pressures that were different for men and for women, namely, that men may be attracted to hunting because of their need to provide for the family and show masculine prowess, and women may be attached to animals due to maternal instincts (Burghardt and Herzog 1989). Critics say sociobiology (and the related field of evolutionary psychology) promotes gender inequality as inevitable; furthermore, its claims do not hold up under scientific testing (see Fausto-Sterling 1987; Kimmel 2008). My interviews with women activists provide insight into the theories suggested by the existing literature, but I use them to highlight how cultural discourses inform women activists’ explanations of their centrality in the animal rights movement. Importantly, their accounts of gender and animal rights activism often sought to explain the absence of men more than the presence of women. I connect this tendency to a concern voiced by many animal rights activists: a movement made up predominantly of women lacks legitimacy in a society based on male dominance. This belief is lent credence by the gendered nature of resistance to animal rights, namely, the movement’s portrayal as overly emotional and irrational.

Image Problems: Too Many Women, Not Enough Men Animal rights activists are often accused by their opponents of being overly emotional and anti-intellectual. These accusations hold particular meaning with regard to gender. Rachel Einwohner’s study of two animal rights campaigns (anticircus and antihunting) found that gender and class shaped the ways in which people reacted to protest activity, and to the protestors themselves. In both campaigns, the activists were viewed as emotional or sentimental people. In the context of the circus, which is associated with family outings and children, that activists were seen as caring and compassionate did not necessarily diminish the effectiveness of the protest. However, the hunters “drew a distinction between themselves (‘scientific practitioners’)

WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T

47

and their adversaries (‘sentimental fluffheads’) when assessing the activists’ arguments against hunting” (1999, 67). Hunters did not dismiss the protestors and their causes “simply because the activists are non-workingclass women.” Einwohner offers a more complicated analysis of the social dynamic: “Rather, it is the set of meanings that hunters associate with the activists—overly emotional women attempting to voice an opinion on an issue that they do not understand—that delegitimizes the activists’ arguments” (67–68). Studies of the animal rights movement find that activists are well aware of these emotional stereotypes (Herzog 1993; Groves 1995) and take measures to counter them. They often avoid emotional appeals in favor of what they consider to be rationally based arguments (Einwohner 2002).1 Within Julian Groves’s sample of activists, it was widely believed that women (particularly homemakers) were more emotional than men. According to Groves: “Given their concern not to be construed as overly emotional, a few activists recalled being disappointed at finding that the members in their local animal rights chapter were mostly women.” (1995, 454). These activists commonly believe that incorporating more men into their organization could be a strategic device to bring “credibility” to the animal rights movement. It is not surprising to find that the women I interviewed spent a great deal of time explaining men’s low levels of participation in the movement. Many developed accounts to justify men’s absence, well aware that society demanded such an explanation.

Accounts of Sex, Gender, and Activism Upon recognizing the many interpretations of sex and gender used by the activists, I was influenced by Bridget Byrne’s (2003) discussion of how narratives of the self are dependent upon discourses of race, class, and gender. I directly asked women to develop “accounts” of gender and animal rights activism; more specifically, I asked why they believed so many women were drawn to the movement. I also considered the women’s own stories of how and why they became animal rights activists. I draw connections between the women’s life stories and their accounts of women’s participation in animal activism as a whole. Their personal journeys provide insight

48

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

into how they formed their larger accounts regarding gender and animal activism. Thus, I focus on the women’s macrolevel accounts or talk about the relationship between gender and animal activism, as well as on their personal narratives describing their pathways to activism.

Shared Inequities: Comparing the Status of Animals and Women Twelve of the activists believed that women were more likely to identify with the oppressed status of animals because of their own experiences of oppression. These accounts identified links between the status of women and animals in society in the following ways: experiencing physical and sexual violence; lacking a voice or political power; being neglected or ignored; being controlled; and being viewed as objects or property. Four of the women made direct connections between animal abuse and the violence they had experienced in their own lives. Katie was a high school student who painfully related to the violence suffered by animals: “When I see people eating animals or their ‘products,’ sometimes I don’t feel anything but alienated. Other times I want to cry and I get a similar feeling to when I think about when I was raped and assaulted.” In a letter she wrote to me while she was in jail (for an act of civil disobedience against animal experimentation), Katie referred to Mary Pipher’s (1994) book on adolescent girls, Reviving Ophelia, to explain the connection between her personal experience and political awakening. Pipher suggests that one reason why many girls become vegetarian during adolescence is because they recognize the powerlessness of many animals. Katie wrote: “Girls suddenly know what it is like to feel voiceless and helpless—under the thumb of a ruling sex/class/age, and they sympathize with their animal kin. They feel the need to help those who are oppressed. I found that to be true, from my own personal findings and feelings.” Joanne spoke of an experience she believed women shared with animals—their treatment by the medical industry. While not seeking to directly compare animal experiences such as torture or deadly laboratory tests to her own experience, Joanne nevertheless was critical of the treatment she had received from medical doctors. Doctors were more likely to tell women, “It’s all in your head,” and treat them with distain. “I’ve had doctors be really rude to me in general. . . . You’re sitting down, they’re standing up, and they look at you a certain way—like you don’t

WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T

49

know anything.” Joanne’s description of the doctor bore resemblance to the complaints of her nineteenth-century female counterparts in the fight against vivisection. Research finds that women hold more negative views of science than men do (Fox and Firebaugh 1992; Trankina 1993), and many of the women in this study expressed skepticism of the modern model of Western medicine, most obviously on behalf of animals, but also for women. Another recurring theme in women’s descriptions of animals in society, and sometimes their experiences as women, was lack of voice. Diane empathized with animals’ lack of voice and power within human society. It helped her articulate her own struggle to be heard, and she positioned animals as her allies in this fight. She believed that women identified with animals and their plight because both are “secondary” beings in society. Diane offered a personal example as illustration: “How many animals really have a voice? When you get in a group of men, it’s a struggle, you know, to be heard. I only developed my voice less than ten years ago, and that was from extensive therapy and I was involved with a women’s support group. It was really only there that I began to address some of my core issues and one of them is . . . very little self-confidence. What I had to say wasn’t important, that kind of thing. When I go back to my family, who are the outspoken ones? Men, generally. They get heard first.” Zoey also felt unheard and powerless while growing up, especially within her family. She related to animals because “animals are always kind of ignored and people don’t pay much attention to them or really care what they’re thinking and that’s how I felt when I was growing up. My parents didn’t really care much about what I had to say, or at least they didn’t act like they did.” She drew further parallels between the condition of animals and her experiences growing up as a young woman in society: “I don’t think it’s so natural for animals to want to please people as much as they do now, the way they’re bred and the ways they depend on the people who cage them. And that’s what I’m going through now, because I feel like I do that a lot around men sometimes. . . . It’s like I’m not even listening to what I want.” Zoey also discussed the emphasis placed on physical appearance. She noted that people often choose animal companions based on whether they’re “cute and fluffy,” and she compared this to the pressure she felt “to look cute and pretty.” She explained: “There is that parallel between

50

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

animals—you have to look a certain way so that they’ll like you. And act a certain way—animals have to be good. They’re not allowed to bite.” Zoey was able to explore her personal battles with lack of voice and power through her involvement in the animal rights movement. Working on campaigns and reading ecofeminist literature (particularly the works of Carol Adams) deepened her understanding of her own life struggles and the interconnections among types of oppression. Zoey reflected: “In our culture, people pay less attention and respect to animals, children, women, and people of color, et cetera, and I see it all as part of the struggle.” Marianna recognized her gendered and raced struggles with voice and power as parallel to the situation of animals. As a Mexican American woman, she faced multiple struggles with voice—in a dominant white society and within her family. She noted a lack of Latina role models for the animal work she felt called to, and she craved to hear more from people of color in the movement. At the same time, the men in Marianna’s family disregarded her words and opinions, a condition she likened to an animal’s powerlessness: Your word is not honored as legitimate, not like men’s words are. Women are considered little—they’re talked about that way. Their words are sort of considered childish. In my family it’s like that. No matter what I say, my words never will match up to fit a room with all my male relatives. They’ll always make degrading remarks like, “Oh, you’re just crazy—crazy like your grandma.” So what I do is I go into the kitchen with the women and I talk, because that’s where your word actually matters. You’re listened to. Your words mean something. This is in my family, but it’s everywhere too. So these animals—it doesn’t matter what they want, it’s just the same way. I feel that women do recognize that, and that holds true for women in this movement.

Marianna’s words create a compelling account of shared inequities. First, she notes that women’s voices are considered “little” and childlike. The things they have to say are deemed unimportant. When Marianna attempts to join a conversation with her male relatives, she is accused of being “crazy.” The only place where her word “actually matters” is among

WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T

51

those who are similarly devalued—the women in her family. And where do women hold conversation? The domestic realm of the kitchen. She ends her account by comparing women’s situation to that of animals: degraded and disregarded. She surmises that women relate to the oppression of animals. Marianna found comfort and camaraderie among her female relatives, and it was here that she was able to articulate her ideas. Diane had similar experiences among the men in her family and only began to develop her voice within a women’s support group. It is not surprising that so many women in the study considered animals to be part of their support network. Animals were trustworthy companions because they, too, experienced a lack of power and voice in this world.

Gender Socialization: Tough Men and Caring Women Twelve of the twenty-seven women in this study theorized that gender socialization helped explain participation in animal activism. Women who spoke of social learning theories often drew a deliberate distinction between the social and the biological. These accounts involved talk about how girls and women are encouraged to develop emotional capacities—they “learn to care.” Many of the accounts of gender socialization were more about men than women. They often responded to the question of why women were more likely to be animal rights activists by explaining why men were less likely to be involved. Erin related the absence of men to meat eating and masculinity. “I think men suffer a lot more societal pressure to not be vegetarian. There are masculinity issues with being vegetarian. It’s not manly to say, ‘Can I have a veggie burger?’” Erin also framed the idea of controlling one’s food intake as a gendered issue. One reason she believed women comprised more of the animal rights movement was because “it’s okay for us to control our food. . . . It is more socially acceptable for women to say no to food.” Erin explained: “Women aren’t supposed to be eating that much anyway. So your defenses can go down, because it’s socially acceptable to be vegetarian. That defense isn’t down for men, because it’s not okay for them to eat salad.” The extreme pressure put on women to be thin makes it acceptable, even desirable, for them to eliminate animal foods. In contrast, men are pressured to “eat manly”—meaning foods that are associated with being

52

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

strong, substantial, and hearty (Franklin 1999). Carol Adams’s work (1990, 2003b) documents these themes in the media and popular culture. She offers an example in the remark of a food writer for GQ magazine in the mid-1990s concerning the appropriate masculine diet: “Boy food doesn’t grow. It is hunted or killed” (quoted in Adams 2003b, 92). Animal foods are often marketed to men as metaphors of women’s body parts (e.g., “Double D Cup Breast of Turkey” or “Tasty Chicks”). The language and images in popular culture lend support to Erin’s socialization theories regarding gendered food intake. Marianna made it clear that both men and women had nurturing qualities, but that it was more acceptable for women to express them. “I’ve met men who are more emotional and compassionate than I ever could be, but the fact is that in general . . . women are less afraid [to express it].” She concluded: “That’s why women are more in the movement. Any sensitive issues that could provoke serious emotions, that’s just a woman-dominated field in a patriarchal society.” Abby described interactions with men who expressed interest in or believed in animal rights but were hesitant to become involved on a public level. She said that their identity as men might be questioned if they became involved in work that revealed a more “sensitive side.” When Abby participated in protests, she was often accused of being overly sensitive and irrational. She surmised that men would be particularly bothered by such labels.

Biological Influences: Testosterone versus Motherly Instincts Ten women discussed biological explanations for women’s greater involvement in animal rights. One noticeable trait these women shared was their age: most were above the age of thirty. Women under age thirty were more likely to hold sturdy and detailed opinions about sociological explanations and shared inequities. Younger women may have a better chance of cultural exposure to social learning theories about gender versus the “biological destiny” arguments that their older counterparts may have encountered while growing up. I also found that the younger women in the sample were more likely to be involved in a variety of progressive social and activist networks, a circumstance that may also help explain why they were so conversant

WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T

53

with sociological theories of gender and feminist frameworks regarding the intersections of oppression. This finding highlights the way culture helped shape how women used social or biological accounts to explain their activism. The younger women tended to reject biological destiny accounts, probably because they had been exposed to alternative cultural views during their formative years (within family, educational, or activist structures). Some of the younger women had also been radicalized toward a feminist framing of the oppression of animals by their participation in the animal rights movement, where they read books and attended talks given by author/activists such as Carol Adams. Two themes dominated the biological accounts: the presence of testosterone in men, and nurturing instincts in women. Like the accounts of gender socialization, the biological accounts often pointed to the behavior (or biology) of men to answer the question of why more women were involved in the animal rights movement. Frances said: “Women by nature are more sensitive than men are, especially to the suffering of others. They tend to want to nurture and care for those who are defenseless. They don’t have as much testosterone.” Yet Frances also said men’s limited involvement with animal rights came from parents raising boys to be “tough” within her generation (she was sixty-three)—an idea grounded in social learning. Cassandra drew biological distinctions, with women being the more “empathetic” gender, and men as “not natural nurturers.” She hypothesized that when women “see and experience another creature’s suffering,” they “feel driven to act.” She surmised that it was easier for men to “distance themselves from the suffering of other creatures and rationalize why it must be so” because of their hormonal and physical makeup. More specifically, she discussed testosterone and popular accounts of ancient human history: “In our evolution, at one point in time, it was important for one of the genders to go out in the world and face danger. One of those things they faced was wild animals. They had to be able to kill them for your own food survival. . . . We no longer have to do that, but the testosterone level is still there. So we still have guys who have more testosterone than is useful and it interferes with their ability to empathize and it also drives them to do things like hunt and kill. It’s going to have to be reduced. But in the meanwhile, you’re looking at the results of testosterone poisoning.”

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

54

Cassandra delivered her theory with a great deal of humor, but to some extent, she believed that essential differences between men and women help explain why so many women were drawn to animal activism. She attributed her own path to animal activism not to “natural nurturing” but to personal experience—that she had been abused as a child (and had watched animals be abused). It’s not hard to understand why Cassandra believed women might be more naturally drawn to the suffering of animals: that was her experience as an abuse survivor. “I have parts of me that really want to make up to the animal population in general,” she said. Her animal activism came into focus as personal catharsis, but also as a larger political awakening about peace and justice issues. Like many women in this study, Cassandra began reading to educate herself on political issues; her choice to participate in activist causes followed. Cassandra may have been drawn to animal causes initially because of her background, but that she sought information on such issues was also a political choice. When asked why women made up the majority of the movement, Anika immediately replied: “Women are much more compassionate than men in general.” She then stopped herself. “I don’t like to go to that nurturing thing. I hate that I go there right away. I mean, I’m not really that nurturing.” Anika was disappointed by her reliance on a biological stereotype. Other women were more definitive regarding their biological theories of women, men, and animal activism. Like several other women, Ricki saw “testosterone” and genetics as an impediment to men’s compassion for animals. “A lot of men are . . . just genetically programmed to go to war and kill each other and kill animals and pound and stomp and smash. That’s the testosterone thing they’ve got going.” Four other women spoke of a specific sort of biological imperative— “maternal instinct.” Joanne and Yvonne had no children of their own, but they wondered if women were drawn to animal suffering because of motherhood experiences. Yvonne said: “We create life, and I can’t imagine a woman reading about a mother cow having her calf ripped away from her two hours after it’s born and not having some kind of connection with that.” Joanne similarly described a mother cow’s predicament in the factory farming industry: “I saw this picture of a cow hooked up to this machine. I was absolutely horrified. The reality of the way these animals are abused

WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T

55

and how much the information is hidden. I mean, I don’t even have the words for it. I could not believe that this female cow—she has babies like three times and then they take the babies—their babies! They put them in crates by the neck, and I mean my breasts were hurting. My body was hurting. . . . Yeah, as a woman—I made that connection.” Joanne’s horror at the cow’s circumstances was based on her empathetic connection as a woman. She connected the coercive reproductive history of female humans and female animals. She also imagined what it would be like to experience having her own babies taken away from her. Joanne described herself as “very motherly” toward her companion animals: “I have a little cat who I nursed when she was an hour old and I’m so protective of her.” Joanne considered herself the cat’s mother, rescuer, and protector. When she thought about cats being experimented on in laboratories, she immediately thought of her own. It made sense to Joanne that women comprised so much of the movement, “because women feel more from their hearts than from their heads, although that’s definitely not always the case.” Yet Joanne’s compassion went far beyond her own cat. Her relationship to one cat provoked a reaction strong enough to stimulate concern for the widespread abuse of many animals. As Suzanne Michel discovered in her study of wildlife rehabilitators, caring was a political act of resistance: “Rehabilitators act upon their empathy with animals through a politics of care that entails first caring for and then releasing injured animals,” and second, by educating others through environmental outreach programs as a means to spread their “notions of kinship with and their ethic of care for all species” (1998, 176). Similarly, Cuomo and Gruen suggest that “positive, consciously intimate attachments with animals ought to be taken seriously as relationships with radical political implications” (1998, 137). As Joanne described it, her “heart” had a great deal to do with why she was an animal activist. But her caring heart led her to act in ways that were as political as they were personal.

Women as Political Actors Women animal activists took great pride in their ability to make a difference in the lives of animals. They developed greater self-confidence, leadership abilities, and political skills as a result of their involvement

56

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

in the animal rights movement. Their accounts of activism revealed a common thread: a marked change of consciousness about the world and one’s place in it. Younger activists spoke of feeling alienated by mainstream cultural or religious values. The animal rights movement was a place to explore alternative ways of thinking about and being in the world. Marie explained that as a teenager, she began to resist what she called her “extremely conservative Mormon family.” She read Peter Singer and became a vegetarian. She said, “It was sort of a rebellious thing as well. Like, ha ha, fuck Mormonism! And also, I’m a vegetarian, and a lesbian. Fuck you guys! There was a little bit of that in it. Then it became somewhat more cemented when you investigate the ideas behind your rebellious tendencies.” The older activists tended to emphasize the importance of a turning point toward activism in midlife. At age forty-five, Shana gave up a successful career as a writer and artist to start her own nonprofit bird sanctuary. Bonnie deserted an established career to devote herself to animal advocacy. She was “totally entrenched in a corporate, well-paid job” when she started to question the purpose of her life: “I thought, ok, is this what I’m supposed to be doing with my energy for the rest of my life? Making money and doing proposals and traveling everywhere?” Such accounts emphasized a search for something more meaningful in their lives, and the difficulty or risk involved in choosing to become full-time activists. The animal rights movement offered a fulfilling way for women to effect change in the world, both personally and as part of a political community. They had come to see themselves as informed, engaged citizens. When I asked women to describe their pathways to activism, they provided detailed accounts of what influenced their political engagement, or of the moment when they decided to devote themselves to the cause. Although they often referred to personal experiences that influenced them, they emphasized the importance of choosing to become activists. The question, “Why do you think women are the majority of animal activists?” prompted many of the accounts of sex and gender. Although some discussed the relevance of gender in their personal pathway to activism, my direct questions about the relevance of gender to animal advocacy were far more likely to produce such accounts. In this way, I

WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T

57

may have contributed to the cultural discourse on sex and gender that influenced the women activists.

Conclusion This chapter offers insight into the way gender impacts participation in animal rights activism, but more specifically, it exposes the power of cultural discourse in shaping accounts of gender and social activism. The animal rights movement is stereotyped as overly emotional, an evaluation certainly linked to the centrality of women in the movement. Many of the women activists relied on social and biological discourses to explain the lack of men in the movement. Such accounts served to justify men’s absence rather than condemn it. The women suggested that animal activism held greater social risk for men, or that men weren’t biologically predisposed to care about animals. In some ways, their explanations or excuses for men downplayed the powerful and political meaning of their own choice to become animal activists. Women also used social or biological discourses to explain their activism. Their macroaccounts and personal narratives reflect the complex contours of sex and gender for women activists. In social learning accounts, they said that women were more socialized to care about suffering. Animal work is more socially acceptable for women because advocating for the vulnerable is considered emotional work. Yet women activists also made sense of their predominance in the movement with biological accounts, interpreting women’s involvement with animal causes as instinctual and natural. Perhaps some elements of the animal rights movement itself (such as PETA’s shock campaigns, discussed at length in chapter 6) contribute to a rather narrow view of women’s participation in animal rights by relegating women to traditionally feminine roles. These biological accounts certainly reflect widespread beliefs regarding sex and gender held across many cultures—primarily, that biology predetermines a human being’s nature, preferences, and skills. Biological determinism draws on various arguments, from physical or hormonal differences to differing evolutionary pressures. All suggest that sex differences determine certain behaviors and roles in society. For example, the

58

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

fact that some women have the reproductive capacity to become mothers has led to a popular perception that women are natural caretakers of the earth and its creatures. Ten of the activists in this study had assimilated this belief to some extent. I remain curious as to whether these accounts functioned as a buffer against critiques of animal activism. Perhaps relying on biological explanations that preclude choice offers safe ground from which to defend one’s participation in animal activism, especially given that all the women in this study encountered resistance to their beliefs and actions. Yet the resistance that women activists encounter also plays a part in creating a sense of oneself as a political actor, as the women began to view themselves as taking an often unpopular advocacy stance. Other activists suggested that if some women do have an “instinctual” response to animal exploitation or abuse, it may be an empathetic reaction rather than a biological one. This may be true for anyone who has experienced systematic oppression. A person who sees the suffering of animals may recall his or her own experiences of inequality, violence, and oppression, not because caring is a biological calling dependent on hormones but because social inequality can trigger feelings of compassion and understanding among those who share similar experiences. Feelings or motivations of women activists that appear to spring from biological instincts or nurturing natures may actually represent specific life experiences. This account making represents one of the most important ways women activists reformulated cultural discourses on sex and gender. Almost half the women echoed ecofeminism’s claim that women experience empathy toward animals and nature as a result of shared inequities. They identified links to the status of women and animals in society in symbolic ways, but also through personal experiences that they considered similar to those of animals. They engaged in theory making about how experiences of injustice can stimulate empathy and action on behalf of others. These accounts highlighted gender inequity as a motivating factor in women’s animal rights activism. They also functioned as a means of empowerment, as women connected their experiences of oppression to increased political awareness and action—for themselves, and for animals. That women dominate the animal rights movement need not be equated with the idea that women naturally feel a greater affinity or

WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T

59

compassion for animals. This distortion might suggest that women activists are simply following a biological calling, when in fact they make a conscious choice to become political and ethical activists. Biological typecasting has also been used to explain away the political choices of women who resist militarism and war (hooks 1989). Common stereotypes suggest that women naturally oppose war because they are the bearers of children. The biological explanations mentioned earlier make claims that women have a special relationship with nature and animals for similar reasons. However, women “are not inherently more life-affirming or non-violent” (hooks 1989, 94). As bell hooks points out, a significant number of women support the industry and ideology of war. If, compared to men, women are by nature more opposed to violence, war, or the oppression of animals, what is the big deal about women’s activism? After all, this is simply what women are naturally inclined to do. Yet many women are not inclined to do this, and participate in violence against animals through their willingness to purchase and consume the bodies of animals for entertainment, medicine, fashion, or food. I compare arguments about women’s natural inclinations to the activist account of Jacqueline, an African American lawyer who worked with low-income battered women, many of them women of color. Jacqueline remembered when she began to “learn more about what they call the link between animal abuse and violence against humans.” It motivated her to investigate how to use her legal skills on behalf of abused animals: “Then in the process, as I began to get more involved and learn more about animal rights and what actually happens to animals in zoos and circuses and factory farms and all that, I began to say, ok, well, I’m a vegetarian. But what about being vegan? And then what about the clothes I wear? As I learned more, I began to see a lot more ways in which animals were abused and how I actually contribute to it by the choices I make.” Jacqueline’s account reveals the thoughtful personal and political engagement implicit in the choice to become an advocate for animals. To name women’s greater participation in animal rights as biologically driven promotes a simplistic view of women’s thought processes, ethical choices, and political decisions. Such an assumption degrades the power of women’s decisions to advocate for animals. Discussions of animal rights activism that rely on rudimentary notions of sex or gender to explain

60

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

women’s high participation rates miss the complexity involved in women’s personal and political choices. Such an analysis constructs an incomplete and essentialist notion of so-called female experience. Women in the animal rights movement alternatively use, reject, and reformulate cultural ideas about sex and gender to explain both their own pull toward activism and the prevalence of women in the movement. Their personal narratives and larger theoretical explanations were intricate accounts of the biological, the social, and the power of empathetic action arising from common experiences of oppression. Some adopted normative cultural narratives about sex and gender to answer my query about the predominance of women in the movement, but most were inclined to see themselves as political actors within the context of their individual pathway to activism. In this way, their accounts of activism transcended the cultural limitations of my research structure. When women make the choice to become animal rights activists, they should be considered, in the words of bell hooks, “political thinkers making political choices” (1989, 95). Only within this framework can we begin to understand the social and political relevancy of women’s narratives of activism, and the majority status they hold in the movement for animal rights. Such a framework might also inspire women activists to reimagine the significance of their extraordinary political choices.

4

VVVVVVVVVV Risk and Reward The Impact of Activism on Women’s Lives

There are definitely times when I feel very alone, depressed, frustrated, and just sick of everything. —Ida

Ida was fully immersed in two life roles: animal rights activist and veterinary student. On the surface, the two roles appear compatible, even complementary. In Ida’s experience, they were sometimes contradictory and often a challenge. She had agonized over the interview for vet school, afraid they would ask her ethical questions relating to animal rights. Fortunately, she didn’t have to deal with any “touchy” subjects in that area (“because it’s against my religion to lie and I feel strongly about telling the truth”), and she was accepted into school on her first try. Ida considered herself lucky, “because they do discriminate against animal rights sympathizers. There’s no doubt about that.” She told me of her difficulties with the administration and her fellow students: I got into vet school the summer after I had attended the animal rights conference in D.C. I was really pumped up. I was passionate about being an activist, and I plastered my locker outside the vet school classroom with all these different stickers—Go Vegan; Love Animals, Don’t Eat Them; Abuse an Animal, Go to Jail. Six weeks into the quarter, I got called into the dean’s office because apparently some of my classmates had come and complained that they were offended by them. This was the beginning of a long series of struggles that I had to endure, and still do endure as a vet student. . . . I tend to be really outspoken—always raising my hand and 61

62

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

saying things, sometimes to my classmates’ dismay. But I speak my mind and that’s the way it is.

While Ida was adamant about speaking her mind, she sometimes suffered the consequences of doing so. “Personally, it’s very oppressive to be in an environment where I can’t be who I am,” she said. Since entering vet school, Ida had found it necessary to make compromises in order to cope socially and emotionally: “Before I got into vet school, I wore vegan T-shirts almost all of the time and everywhere I went. I was ready to whip out a ‘Why Vegan?’ pamphlet at a moment’s notice and tell them why going vegan was great for their health, good for the animals, and great for the planet. But all that has changed since entering vet school. . . . I guess I’ve had to make some compromises in some ways just to survive and get by.” Animal rights work impacts the lives of activists in a multitude of ways that are both frustrating and rewarding. I begin this chapter with a look at the personal changes and emotional energy required for animal activism. I discuss how the women’s beliefs and commitment to animals affected their relationships with friends, colleagues, family members, and intimate partners. Activists explained how their changing value systems influenced their personal relationships, as well as career changes and choices. The chapter concludes with the benefits that animal rights activism brought to the women’s lives. These include a heightened awareness of political issues, greater confidence, and the joy of living a “more meaningful life.”

Personal Changes: Living “Cruelty Free” While some observations of the animal rights movement (Galvin and Herzog 1992; Plous 1991) have noted inconsistencies between the professed beliefs and actual behaviors of activists (such as wearing fur or eating meat), other studies have documented their moral consistency. Both Jasper and Nelkin’s (1992) and Sperling’s (1988) accounts of the movement suggest that many activists work hard to live in accordance with their animal rights beliefs. For instance, they tend to be vegetarian or vegan, eschew leather and fur, and purchase only cosmetics and household products that are “cruelty free” (not tested on animals). They often utilize alternative medicine in protest of pharmaceutical products tested on animals. As

RISK AND REWARD

63

Herzog concludes, animal rights activism usually entails major changes in lifestyle. His interviews with activists discovered that almost all “strove to achieve consistency between their ideals and actions” (1993, 103). The majority of women whom I interviewed undertook serious lifestyle changes in line with their animal rights philosophy. One of the most prominent changes occurred in their diets. Of the twenty-seven women in this study, twenty were vegan and five identified as vegetarian. Only two described themselves as meat eaters, and one of these women indicated that she was reevaluating her diet. Some found that changing their diet was fairly simple after they “got the hang of things.” Adopting vegan or vegetarian diets involved intense efforts and challenges for others. Zoey lived on very little income and had accepted free nonvegan food at times. Diane had struggled to maintain a vegetarian diet in the past. Her health suffered from “mismanaging the vegetarian diet and not paying attention.” While Amie found being vegetarian “pretty easy,” she remarked: “I think it is hard to be vegan. If I just lived in my apartment and never went out, it’s very easy. It’s harder to be in society.” For instance, “you go to a restaurant and you don’t know if there is butter on the noodles or egg, and you try asking and they don’t know.” Amie gave another example—going to a friend’s barbeque on the Fourth of July. Her friends “bought veggie burgers just for me, but then they’re not vegan.” One woman pointed out the lack of vegan or vegetarian options in elder communities—hospitals and nursing and retirement homes, for instance. At ninety years of age, Irene was concerned that she and other older vegans/vegetarians would have no access to such foods in care facilities or programs like Meals on Wheels. She commented: “When I was in the hospital, I couldn’t get a vegetarian meal. Finally they came with a baked potato. I couldn’t even get a veggie burger. I have a right to practice vegetarianism. It’s not hurting anyone, and I shouldn’t be denied that.” She hoped that people who worked on vegan outreach would consider targeting people in all stages of life. Other considerations included whether subsistence hunting was an ethical exception, or whether eating animal products was acceptable if the animals led a healthy and happy life. Erin said that she was not against hunting if it was done in a certain way. She had an uncle who

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

64

occasionally hunted “so as to not participate in factory farming.” Although Erin remarked, “I could never do that,” she felt that “we have to have some understanding that not everybody is able to be vegan so easily.” Erin outlined her belief in “contextual vegetarianism and veganism” this way: “There are certain contexts where it’s appropriate and in others it’s not. There are certain people who live in an environment where you can’t grow plants. My standard for what a context is to be vegan is that if you live in an industrialized country and you have access to veggie burgers, you probably shouldn’t eat meat. But you have to have some leniency; . . . in certain cultures, it may be more appropriate.” Erin did not believe there was necessarily “only one moral way” to eat. When evaluating the morality of diet choices, she emphasized the importance of context, both environmentally and culturally. She, along with several other women in the study, mentioned the need for sensitivity when evaluating a culture other than their own. This awareness matches the call by some ecofeminists for a “cross-cultural feminist ethics” when discussing the use of animals by native cultures, for instance (see Gaard 2001). Shana ate the eggs from chickens who lived on her property and drank milk from her neighbor’s goat. She was firmly against all factory farming and ate no meat, but she did not disagree with other people eating animals who were at the end of their natural lives, because she saw this as “part of the flow of life on earth.” Similarly, Abby (while a vegan herself) made exceptions for indigenous cultures that demonstrated respect and spiritual connections to the animals they ate. She expressed skepticism over “freerange” meat, however: “I think it’s kind of just a marketing thing to say that they’re free range. I haven’t really heard of many farms that are really free range.”1 Activists debated privately and publicly over how far to go in eliminating animal products from their lives, a process that activists in other studies have struggled with as well (see Herzog 1993; Sperling 1988). Yvonne immediately threw out or gave away all the animal products in her house, including food, toiletries, leather coats, and luggage. Marie wondered if her new transition to veganism meant that she should use up the current animal products she owned, but not purchase any new ones: “So then I was like, wait, do I just throw out all the stuff I already have? Because

RISK AND REWARD

65

the animals have already been killed.” Zoey pointed out that some of the synthetic products used in place of leather were not biodegradable and bad for the environment. Using the skin of animals who had reached the end of their lives by natural means, she suggested, was a possible exception to the standard of using no animal products whatsoever. Health care was a complex negotiation for the activists. Twelve of the women mentioned using naturopathic or homeopathic doctors and remedies to prevent and heal illnesses. Some were stricter than others in this regard. Although Irene was ninety years old and experienced the aches and pains of old age, she refused to use “vivisection medicine,” relying on “herbs and nothing else.” Sue took a more pragmatic view of the matter. Although she didn’t visit medical doctors often, her view was that “if you don’t take the medication and you’re not around to fight the battle, than everybody loses. So you need to take of yourself so that you can be there tomorrow to fight the battle.” Katie had a chronic medical condition that caused her to occasionally visit the hospital and take pain medication. She was conflicted over her use of conventional medical treatment but noted: “Like my friend once said, it’s not about keeping yourself pure, it’s about . . . practicing respect for all life. If you must take a painkiller . . . it’s not the end of the world. I agree with her, but still feel bad when I have to.” Household items seemed to present fewer challenges for the activists, due to the amount of information on cruelty-free companies and products, as well as the multitude of cosmetic, hygiene, and cleaning alternatives available on the market. Some observers of animal activists have labeled veganism as rigid self-denial codified by strict guidelines and rules. Wesely Jamison, Caspar Wenk, and James Parker’s view of animal rights as “functional religion” characterizes activists’ lifestyle choices as deriving from “conversion” experiences, normative creeds, and well-defined “codes of behavior.” They describe veganism as “an elaborate superstructure” that borders on asceticism (2000, 317). Based on the interviews I conducted, I find such characterizations somewhat exaggerated and lacking an important context voiced by the women in this study. Several women accepted situations where consuming or using animal products seemed appropriate. While veganism presented challenges, activists did not generally view it as requiring self-denial. They

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

66

more likely saw veganism as a rejection of mindless consumer culture and a positive expression of healthy living and respect for all life. Several of the women viewed the moral dilemmas presented by an animal rights ideology as stimulating to their mind and spirit. While the struggle for moral consistency could be frustrating or guilt provoking, women also gained pleasure from educating themselves on issues, investigating alternatives, and opening their minds to new possibilities.

Coping Strategies For the women activists I interviewed, working on animal rights issues involved complex emotional negotiations and provoked intense reactions from those outside the movement. These activists invested a great deal of time and energy in animal causes. They participated in a wide variety of activities, from protests to publicity drives to the direct care of abused or abandoned animals. When they spent time on other kinds of activities, they sometimes felt guilty that they weren’t working on animal issues. This theme is not unique to animal rights, as evidenced by studies of other social movements. For instance, feminist activists report emotional exhaustion and guilt as they negotiate a feminist identity and politic in the mainstream world (see Hercus 1999). An exploration into the lives of peace activists found that emotional exhaustion sometimes led to a depressive state that Richard Kendrick described as “running out of gas” (1991, 106). The activists in this study frequently described their work as highly emotional and exhausting. Arlie Hochschild’s groundbreaking book on emotional work highlights the costs and benefits of managing emotion in private life and work, particularly for women. Just as respondents in her study spoke of “trying not to feel depressed, of checking their anger, of letting themselves feel sad” (1983, 13), these activists spoke of managing their feelings in order to avoid burnout and maintain a healthy personal life. When asked how her life had changed since she became involved in animal activism, Ricki answered: “A lot more headaches, and a lot more frustrations in my day.” As she explained: “Vivisection is not a fun issue. You have to get down to the horrible situation of suffering animals. I can no longer sit in front of my TV, stare at the news and say, ‘Oh, that’s nice.

RISK AND REWARD

67

They’re doing so much for human health.’ Because I know it’s a lie. I went out and educated myself.” Yvonne maintained: “You have to be ever vigilant all the time. You have to stick with it. It’s never-ending.” Converting individuals to vegetarianism or veganism was a positive step, but most of the women acknowledged they would not see an end to factory farming in their lifetime. Shana echoed this thought, contending that “the hardest part of this job is understanding how it’s unending. As many animals as you help, there are going to be those that you can’t help.” Shana was haunted by the thought of the multitude of animals in precarious and potentially abusive situations. As she put it, her emotional energy was often captured by “the unknown, not what’s given.” Diane also spent time worrying about the endless work to be done. She acknowledged “feeling down” when pondering certain animal problems where “you start to think I’m not even making a dent.” For instance, “let’s say we have a great week and we do eight quality adoptions. I think, This is exciting. But then I realize that all it takes is one litter and there you are. There’s eight kittens that are probably not going to get spayed and neutered, and it’s just endless.” The feeling of “no matter what I do, it’s never enough” was common among the activists, no matter what issues they focused on. They invested a great deal of emotional energy into learning about, and then responding to, animal injustices. The women sometimes felt drained by the magnitude of work yet to be done, a phenomenon also documented in Groves’s (1997) account of animal rights activists. Groves observed that taking part in animal rights campaigns or activities helped activists overcome their feelings of guilt, shame, and despair, but it also exacerbated those emotions because of the overwhelming sense that there was so much to do. Along these same lines, Shapiro identifies animal rights activists as “caring sleuths” who dedicate themselves to seek and expose animal suffering. “Moreover,” he found, “sleuth work is insidious, for it is difficult to stop seeking. What begins as a certain sensibility to suffering crystallizes into an avocation—volunteering at the local shelter—then becomes a vocation and, finally, turns into a way of life. Without intending it, the animal rights activist finds that she is increasingly and, eventually, perpetually on call” (1994, 158).

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

68

Once animal rights activists learn about the multiple (and seemingly endless) examples of animal suffering, it is hard to tune out or turn off. Whether at the grocery store, the shopping mall, the office barbeque, or their doctor or pharmacy, the women I interviewed saw the mark of animal abuse everywhere. Subsequently, some activists talked about occasionally “turning off” their sleuthing receptors to recharge their energies. In an effort to balance her life, Diane established an emotional threshold to block out the constant array of animal issues. Her threshold included “shutting down sometimes to recharge” because “I can’t listen to all of it. I have to still live in this world.” Diane filtered out information and acted on those issues where she felt she could make a real difference or make a change in her own life: “It can seem like everything you do is wrong or has a consequence. The best I can do is think globally, act locally. I don’t want to get so overwhelmed that I just stop listening. I stop moving ahead.” The topic of coping strategies came up repeatedly in the interviews. The women described the emotional turmoil of animal work and of dealing with the knowledge of so much animal suffering. Abby recalled: “During high school, when I was trying to immerse myself in everything there was to know about it, I got really depressed, really overwhelmed. I think it’s taken a lot of hard work on my part to get to a place of accepting everything and doing as much as I can.” Three women also discussed the impact that law enforcement had on activists involved with animal rights. One woman, for instance, came to the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) because she had started an antivivisection group that was publicly supportive of the Animal Liberation Front. The FBI was investigating the firebombing of an animal experimenter’s home, and they began to pay frequent visits to her home: “They would knock on the door and try to talk to me all the time, . . . follow me around, go wherever I was going.” She became unsettled by the FBI visits, and concerned that her animal group was in jeopardy. The agents tried to “undermine me, tried to belittle me,” and their presence took its toll on her life. As a lawyer, Anika was concerned about First Amendment issues and police brutality. She was particularly appalled by the FBI’s recent investigations of animal rights activists, such as indictments of members

RISK AND REWARD

69

of the animal rights group Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC). She described friends who “have had their houses ransacked, computers and other equipment stolen, never to be returned, and property damaged by the FBI and police investigators.” In her view, “most of the police activity is likely illegal, but much of it cannot be challenged due to the broad discretion given these agents.” Frances spoke passionately about the emotional intensity of animal work, and the personal repercussions she had suffered as a result. One of these was harassment, specifically, the mysterious poisoning of her family’s two dogs. I was particularly struck by Frances’s story, as a prominent animal activist in my own town experienced the murder of her cats during the course of my research. Frances and her husband ran a foster home and adoption program out of their personal residence for fifteen years. This came to an abrupt end when tragedy struck. Frances said: “Our two dogs, both rescues—Tripod (with three legs) and Bear—were murdered by a person or persons unknown. Our dogs were vegans, just like we are. They did not eat meat and therefore had no access to bones. Steak bones soaked in antifreeze were tossed over the back fence, and Tripod was the first to go. Antifreeze destroys the kidneys, and after a five-day hospitalization, during which the vets could not determine what was causing the continuing renal failure, he was euthanized. . . . Three months later, a person or persons did it again, this time getting the second dog, Bear, with the same result.” Unsurprisingly, Frances was emphatic about the need for coping mechanisms in the life of an animal activist. She still felt guilt surrounding the death of her two dogs: “Clearly, I have made myself a target—a target that resulted in the deaths of my beloved charges, Tripod and Bear. I will always feel responsible for their deaths.” She struggled seriously with the emotional fallout of her all-encompassing animal activism. When I asked her to discuss how her life had changed since becoming an activist, she gave a solemn reply: “The changes are profound. I had found my life’s work, and I threw myself into it with a vengeance. It affected everything in our lives, because I was so driven to do something—anything—just to let people know what I knew they didn’t. I became extremely angry and rageful. Eventually I had to see a counselor to deal with all the horrors I saw or read about but could not cope with.”

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

70

Frances and her husband divorced after twenty-two years because, Frances commented, “he couldn’t take the intensity any longer.” He also became frightened after their beloved dogs were poisoned, and believed the household was in danger of continued and escalated harassment. Frances discussed the impact her work had on her family over the years: “I ignored my growing children in favor of the foster home, collecting animals, animal rights, public speaking, protests, civil disobediences, arrests, and running animal rights organizations. I didn’t attend their sports events as I should have as a parent; I was in court the day my younger daughter had knee surgery. Basically, they grew up without a mother. I became filled with rage for the people who killed and hurt animals. It wasn’t until the rage boiled over and I submitted to counseling to get my life back that I learned what my personal boundaries had to be. However, that did not save my marriage.” Frances sought counseling and began to limit her activism to manageable proportions. Although she has cut back some of her activities, she still attends protests, does organizing work, writes letters, and observes boycotts. At the age of sixty-three, she said comically that her physical limitations no longer enable her to “leap tall buildings in a single bound.” Just a few years ago, however, Frances was arrested for demonstrating on top of a Wendy’s fast-food restaurant counter. She and her husband eventually reconciled: “He comes for me when I go to jail, but I don’t operate on the scale I once did.” Today, Frances takes it upon herself to talk to other animal activists about her personal struggles. When she meets someone new to animal rights or is asked for advice, she tells them “to examine carefully their existing coping skills.” Then, “if they are lacking, as mine were, I tell them to get psychological counseling before coming on board. Eventually, if they remain active and committed, they will need the help.”

Friends and Colleagues One of the ways that activists coped with the angry, melancholy, or overwhelming aspects of animal issues was to seek out like-minded individuals and groups. As Shapiro points out: “Activists have a sense of belonging, of sharing common values and purpose” as members of the animal rights

RISK AND REWARD

71

community (1994, 162). Ricki laughed while admitting: “It seems like all my friends these days are animal activists.” She felt a sense of camaraderie with other animal activists because “we’re all on the same page. It’s easy to talk about issues. Or if I get frustrated, I can share with them. . . . We can also share our victories when we get them.” Ricki’s relationships with other activists went beyond friendship. They shared the same values and struggle and thus understood Ricki’s frustration, sadness, and anger. This was an important coping mechanism for other women as well—the supportive presence of an activist circle. While activists celebrated their new friendships, there was occasionally a sense of loss when it came to relationships that were left behind. Herzog’s (1993) study of activists found that many friendships did not survive the person’s move to animal activism, an experience that about half the women in this sample shared. Joanne lost her best friend of eleven years after tuning into animal issues and activism. Abby described becoming distant to many friends over animal issues, “because it has become such a big part of something that I feel so deeply about. I can’t just be friends who somebody who doesn’t, at least a little bit, subscribe to my views.” Other women discussed the arguments or tensions that ensued as a result of their activism. Amie had many good friends who were involved in other types of activism but were less enthusiastic about animal rights: “I hear them talking about maybe women’s issues or gay issues. They’re involved in that, they still eat meat, and it’s okay for them to talk about all these issues, but if I start bringing up stuff, they kind of get annoyed or uncomfortable.” Amie felt the pressure to “drop it” when things became too heated or awkward with her friends. “They ask me questions sometimes, but then there is a certain point where they say, okay, you can stop talking, because I don’t want to hear it anymore.” Amie’s experience parallels accounts of other animal rights activists. Jamison, Wenk, and Parker’s (2000) research affirms that activists face ostracism and scorn from family and friends as they try to share their newfound beliefs or lifestyle choices. For instance, Marianna’s Mexican American friends sometimes accused her of “being whitened” by her work with the animal rights movement. In our interview, she discussed how proud she was that Rod Coronado, a Pasqua Yaqui Indian, had received a lifetime achievement award at the animal rights conference we were

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

72

attending. This example led us to a conversation about friendship and outreach to the Hispanic community:

MARIANNA:

With Rod Coronado last night, that was personally just great

for me. Being Mexican, it felt great to see him up there. I often feel— people have even told me, like my husband’s friends. . . . In Spanish they say because of my [animal rights] stickers and everything, they think that I’m whitened, I guess you could say. When my husband says he doesn’t eat meat, they’re like, “Your wife got you into the white thing.” EG:

Why do they think it’s a white thing?

MARIANNA:

I personally believe that in this culture—here in the United

States—the Chicanos and Mexicans that come here, we hold onto culture because you have to. For example, as Chicanos, we’re not American like white people, but we’re not Mexican like people living in Mexico. It’s like you have to fill this gap. We live here and it’s this new deal. But they hold onto traditional things, like the patriarchy, and the meat eating, and the cock fighting, and the dog fighting. I think its part of holding onto traditions, because otherwise they lose part of their world. When I bring up animal stuff, they’re like—it’s a white-world thing. We’re not white; we’re sticking with our deal. Despite these tensions, Marianna was determined to carve out new cultural traditions and space for herself. She noted: “I also have a lot of Hispanic friends who are not like that,” and she rejected the idea that supporting animal rights was incompatible with her culture. Marie’s identity as both a lesbian and an animal rights activist was also challenged by her circle of friends. Some friends suggested that being associated with animal rights would give gays and lesbians a bad name—it was “hippie-like” and too much out of the mainstream. “I have friends who say things like, ‘That’s naïve’ or ‘Just what we need—more granolamunching lesbians’!” When she encountered hostility from her friends over her views on animal issues, she tried to respond with humor. Marie laughed when delivering her usual reply: “I tell them, well, someone has to be ethically responsible, why not the lesbians?” Sue had a unique problem in terms of her friends: some were actually

RISK AND REWARD

73

animal researchers she had met in her graduate work and teaching. She reported with sadness that she had lost some friends since her involvement with animal activism. For instance, Sue’s friendship with a former mentor changed after she began investigating a research protocol at the university where they had worked together. She said: “I’m sure I could go over to the university and see him anytime I want to. But I don’t as often as I used to—now with the litigation over the project and everything.” Sue felt torn over this issue. She explained that she was “not really like a lot of animal rights people. I mean, I have my friends and even if they do something I don’t agree with, I’m not willing to say I think they’re bad people.” While Sue’s opinions about animal research had shifted considerably—“Doing research on animals is not something I advocate at all anymore or support”—her relationships with certain people in the field of animal learning were still important to her. Sue was able to reconcile these two worlds somewhat due to her more moderate stance on animal experimentation. For example, she was not against certain types of noninvasive animal learning research. Furthermore, Sue’s passion for animals was actually nurtured during her years as a graduate student; it was then that she “started to understand the concept that animals have the cognitive powers that they do. The same kind of pain receptors, even down to rats and mice. That’s when I really began to appreciate other animal species for what they are.” Thus, her friendship with the former mentor was also associated with Sue’s positive educational experiences and regard for animals. While some women found it easier or more comfortable to hang around other animal rights activists, others mentioned the importance of having friendships outside this circle. As Herzog (1993) found in his study, some animal activists made conscious efforts to sustain their old friendships. While Katie, for example, sometimes had arguments with her friends over animal issues, she could not recall ever losing a friend over these differences. In fact, she happily reported that a childhood friend and an ex-boyfriend had turned vegetarian. Likewise, Frances spoke affectionately about her social circle. Although not all her friends were vegan or vegetarian, they respected her beliefs. She recalled a specific vacation with a great deal of fondness: “Once, four of us women took a week’s trip to the Caribbean. Two of us were vegans; the others were flesh eaters. But for the

74

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

week we were together, all the meals were vegan. This was something they, independently and without discussion had decided before or as we were shopping for our home-cooked meals. I thought it was a loving thing to give to the other vegan and myself.” Being in the presence of other vegans or animal rights activists provided important camaraderie and emotional support for animal activists, but friendships with people outside this community served an essential function as well. It allowed women to retain special relationships in their life and helped negate the feeling of always being an outsider in society. Zoey actively worked to make animal rights accessible to people outside the movement through her activities in other circles. She tried hard to maintain friendships with people who weren’t activists “so that I won’t get sucked into a little clique of people who can’t associate with anyone in the outside world that they claim to be helping.” She made efforts to meet people through her other interests, such as yoga and herbal healing. She feared that if she hung out exclusively with other animal rights activists, she would lose touch with people she hoped to influence or educate. As Shapiro notes: “If this sense of community can offset the disaffection often felt with respect to larger society, it also has its pitfalls. It may result in a heightening of insularity, and consequently, in diminished effectiveness through a pattern of preaching to the converted” (1994, 162). Zoey echoed this sentiment, asserting that one of the problems she saw with the animal rights movement is that it’s “sort of closed off.” At one point in her life, she lived within an animal rights community in a large city and was disappointed by the insularity of the movement there, where “some of the animal rights people only talk to each other.” While Zoey acknowledged that part of this was due to “security culture” (caution over revealing too much to outsiders who may be infiltrating your organization), her predominant thought was that it isolated activists and hurt recruitment in the movement. She remarked: “I don’t think that’s good for solidarity purposes.” Zoey actively worked to combat this problem by networking with other social justice groups and maintaining friendships with people outside animal rights. The challenges and difficulties women experienced with friends carried over into the workplace. While nine of the women were primarily employed

RISK AND REWARD

75

with animal groups or sanctuaries, and four were self-employed writers or artists, many others worked in more mainstream jobs. They worked in coffeehouses and business offices. They were lawyers, accountants, college professors, and administrative assistants. Ida’s difficulties with her fellow veterinary students made it all the more important for her to be connected to other animal rights activists or vegans. Ida noted that while she had a wide circle of friends, she appreciated the basic level of understanding she shared with other vegans. This was in direct contrast to her life in vet school, where “I can’t be who I am.” Yvonne consistently worked to educate her colleagues at the company where she worked. She clipped articles out of newspapers and magazines, printed out items from the Internet, and read items out loud. When her coworkers expressed interest, she encouraged them to write letters to companies and congressional representatives. Every woman I interviewed discussed the importance of education as a constant form of activism, whether they were interacting with family, friends, colleagues, or strangers. Many talked in relational terms—discovering what issues mattered to different people, and then tailoring their approach to address those concerns. Ruby told me: “I don’t want to dismiss people and sound elitist. I think if they have concerns, . . . try to listen to people. See where they’re coming from.” Abby described a similar educational strategy that looked for different ways people might relate to animal issues: “I try to ask them about their life, find out what they think, and then try to suggest things that go along with that. I try to make them feel like we share some things and that I’m not attacking them.” Likewise, Diane advocated the “gentle” approach to education. “Otherwise,” she noted, “you’re going to hit their defenses and they’re not going to be connecting.” Amie believed that this was a major challenge for the animal rights movement. She noted that it took a certain skill to communicate with people effectively: “I think we really need to know better ways of engaging people. A lot of us know a lot of facts and stuff, but we don’t know how to express it to people so that it comes across in a good way.” Essential to educating others was modeling a compassionate lifestyle yourself. Shana remarked: “There have to be groups that pull hard, and

76

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

that’s how you shift change and awareness. But to be an example . . . on a personal level, I believe in the ripple effect. If I can throw enough stones in that water, it’ll change things in a manner that I think is consistent with my belief system.”

Family Ruby had a positive reception from her family, friends, and coworkers regarding her work with animals, she said; most of them “have been very interested in it, and they’ve actually learned a lot from me.” Amie considered herself lucky that she had support from her family. With regard to her diet, she commented: “You hear stories of people’s families who would tease them at the table. My family never did that. My mom would make vegetarian things every dinner we have.” Yet an ongoing struggle for Amie was that her parents did not change their own diets. Frances, though sixty-three years old at the time of our interview, had parents who were still dismayed by her activism. They avoided watching the news when they knew there was an animal rights event taking place in which their daughter might be arrested. As Frances put it: “They do not like seeing me in handcuffs.” The frustration ran both ways in the family. “My parents have remained steadfast flesh eaters, and we have had words about it,” Frances said. Although she appreciated that her parents served only vegan meals to her and her family, she felt disappointed that she had been unable to change their eating habits, “no matter how I argue for humanitarianism, world hunger, health, or the environment.” Katie experienced mostly supportive reactions to her beliefs and activism. Her brother turned vegetarian under her influence, and her mother began leaning toward veganism when Katie was in jail. Although her mother was initially upset with Katie after her arrest, she eventually began to support the cause of animal rights and even became active in jail-support campaigns for Katie and her codefendants, as well as in demonstrations against animal testing. In contrast to Katie, some of the younger activists in particular encountered resistance from their parents and other family members regarding their activism. Much of the resistance centered on their choice of a vegan or vegetarian diet. While Zoey’s father cooked vegetarian meals

RISK AND REWARD

77

with her, he usually repeated the same tired joke: “This would be really good with meat in it.” Zoey recalled an incident when she and her brother were hanging out together and he suggested they go get ice cream, then remembered that she had turned vegan. He became very upset and accused her of “not being able to have fun anymore.” At first Zoey felt apologetic, “but then I was like, wait a minute! Why does having fun have to revolve around eating things like meat?” Anika and Abby both mentioned family or friends who had lied about the presence of meat in food dishes. Abby’s mother always cooked vegetarian for her, but her father thought it was “really funny to trick me all the time.” Anika remembered people in her town, including her parents, being very unsupportive of her decision to go vegetarian. People snuck meat into her dishes, and her parents thought her new diet was a whim. Anika persevered with her diet of choice, but incidents still came up that left her frustrated: “My dad was helping me move recently, and at the end of it all, I commented that I was tired. And he said, ‘Oh, it must be your diet!’” Marie’s Mormon parents were constantly pressuring her to eat meat (they considered her choice of diet the result of “liberal propaganda”). It had become easier for Marie since she left home to attend college, but she summarized her current relationship with her parents as “considerably strained.” She said: “At this point, I guess we’re just diverging even further. I guess they’re not moving much, but I am, and they’re still right there. They are sort of like, you act like we have to respect all the beliefs you have now, but you don’t give ours the same consideration. I’m like, I’ve considered yours for seventeen years. That’s all I did. So it’s kind of a touchy point.” Other reactions from parents fell more into the category of worrying— anxiety over their children’s health (You’re not getting enough protein), illegal activities (I can’t believe you’re in jail), or livelihood (How will you make a career out of animal activism?). Zoey’s parents, for example, became concerned when she was living in a communal vegan activist house. She had trouble finding steady employment and the phone kept getting cut off due to lack of payments. Although Jacqueline was a middle-aged woman with a law degree, her parents had concerns about her “devoting my whole career to animal law or advocacy, because it’s a hard way to survive and make money.”

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

78

Kira’s parents became upset when she was arrested for animal rights protests or direct actions. “They’re kind of getting used to it, but they get nervous about stuff.” She laughed when offering the details of a card she recently received from her mother: “It was basically a Hallmark card that said, ‘You’re ruining your life! Call me!’” Despite this, Kira maintained: “Given the background and where I grew up, they’re fairly supportive. . . . It’s really weird for Mom that I have tattoos or used to have my tongue pierced. But she knows that I’m more of an individual, not just falling into the crowd.” Marianna’s father worried that she spent too much money rescuing animals, to the detriment of her own health and housing needs. “He’s always saying, ‘You buy all this dog food, but you’re not even eating. You don’t even have money for your rent and you’re buying all this stuff for cats. You have to pay your rent. Don’t worry about getting cats spayed.’” In response, Marianna tried to remind her father that she has different priorities for her life. For instance, she planned to apply for an internship at the Farm Sanctuary. When her father worried that she was “going to work in a barn with your college degree and no money,” she emphasized to him, “This is the work I want to be doing.” She told me: “I don’t want to go do something where I make money and am totally empty inside.” Despite Marianna’s struggles with her parents, she described them as “supportive to the extent that they are parents and don’t want to lose their child to something when they realize that their child has become . . . just has this passion.” Culture and class complicated the way Marianna’s Mexican American family viewed her passion for animals. Her grandmother considered meat a luxury, not something to be avoided. As Marianna explained: “My grandma did something very out of character once. She threw a pamphlet back in my face, saying, ‘I don’t want to read this. You’re so picky.’ My grandma says, ‘We didn’t have meat when I was little—not because I wanted to be like you, but because we didn’t have money for food. We were lucky if we got it. If someone offered you food, you ate it. To refuse food is an insult.’ I also understand that, but I tell her, now it’s not like that.” Marianna struggled to embrace her culture as well as her passion for animal rights. She understood her grandmother’s perspective, because “that’s what my grandparents’ life was like in Mexico.” She was quick to

RISK AND REWARD

79

point out that Chicanos and Mexicans were not unwilling to hear about animal rights; rather, they often did not have information about things like factory farms or vegetarianism for health reasons. “It’s not that we’re not open to it,” Marianna explained, “it’s just that a lot of people—this is what we’ve done all our life. This is what we ate. They hold on to their traditions.”

Intimate Relationships The majority of women were currently married, partnered with, or dating someone who shared similar values about animals. For these women, involvement in the animal rights movement did not present a problem; their partners were either active themselves or supported the beliefs and actions of the women. Eight of the twenty-three activists Herzog (1993) interviewed reported having supportive spouses or partners, but seven of the participants indicated that their activism caused major problems in their intimate relationships. Jamison, Wenk, and Parker (2000) found that some activists attributed their divorces to their newfound beliefs or commitment to animal rights. In this study, two women mentioned that disagreements over their animal activism (or attitudes toward animals more generally) contributed to their divorces. Cassandra left a husband who disliked animals. When Shana’s marriage broke up, she subsequently chose a partner as interested in sanctuary work as she was. The single women I interviewed stated their unwillingness to date people who didn’t like animals. Their reasoning was similar to that regarding their choice of friends: they wanted to share their lives with people who held common beliefs and feelings about animals. As Diane put it: “I guess I’m no longer willing to partner with someone who doesn’t like animals. To me, there’s a missing link there and animals are a huge part of my world.” Robin echoed the changes that Diane had made concerning her relationships with men. When Robin first starting immersing herself in animal work, she was married to a man who “didn’t quite feel about animals the way I did.” In fact, he was critical of her involvement with investigating animal experiment protocols. When she began reviewing her first animal research protocol, Robin recalled: “He was like, that’s none of your

80

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

business. Stay out of it. What do you care?” While he eventually “got on board,” it was because of the money he felt was being wasted on useless experiments, not because of concern for animals. “When we got divorced,” Robin said, “it was on the top of the list to find somebody that—you know, not date anyone that didn’t feel the way I did about animals. . . . Animals are very important to me and I like to surround myself with people that feel the same way.”

Career Six of the women chose to give up established careers (or career paths) to devote themselves to animal work. Women who changed careers usually took drastic pay cuts. One abandoned a promising career as a concert pianist to devote herself to animal issues. Irene, who had completed a college degree, gave up paid work altogether and “made a choice to work for animals instead.” She explained: “I had several very good offers, but you know what? You see all those brown eyes crying in the labs; . . . you have to have somebody willing to work on this. Other people had fancy houses and fancy clothes and all of that. We lived very frugally.” Bonnie left a well-paid corporate career when she realized that occasional volunteering wasn’t enough for her. She felt a strong pull to redirect her energy into the realms of animal and environmental issues she was discovering: “I took a leave of absence at first just to sort of think about all this, but then I decided to leave; . . . I did what most people would consider very foolish, financially. People thought I had lost my mind—like, you know, are you going to save the whales? How can you walk away from all of this? It was just a leap of faith.” In addition to the women who abandoned or changed careers, Robin lost her postdoctoral position as a biomedical researcher—a result, she suspects, of her advocacy work involving animal experimentation. Robin had just finished her Ph.D. in microbiology and immunology. She was doing cancer research in a postdoctoral position when she received a pamphlet from a local animal group discussing animal experimentation, “sent in my donation as usual, and scribbled off a little letter that I was in cancer research, and if I could help in any way, I would.” Eventually Robin received a phone call asking for help in reading over current investigative materials

RISK AND REWARD

81

regarding a research protocol. She agreed, and a few days later “a huge pile of papers came to my doorstep.” Robin quickly diagnosed multiple problems with the research project and wrote to a group of people who donated heavily to the institute associated with the research: I wrote a letter pointing out the problems with the research project. Then I got a nice letter from the P.I. [principal investigator] on the project. He also sent a letter to my direct supervisor. He sent a letter to the head of my pathology department, and I believe the head of the cancer center. So he didn’t like my review at all. Yeah, so the letter—I think it was damaging to me at the university level, and you know, it’s one of those things. I personally have never used animals in research. I would not go after any researcher that was doing legitimate, proper work. . . . But I think I scared a lot of people, because it’s like—oh no, here she is going after someone in animal testing. Ultimately, they decided not to renew my contract. Now, I was told it had nothing to do with this, but I don’t quite believe that.

Although Robin was initially upset by this block to her research career, she eventually found a teaching job at the university level and discovered that she enjoyed it more than the environment of a research center. Robin did not regret the choices she made on behalf of animals and found greater fulfillment in the career change that resulted from her activism. This sense of satisfaction and fulfillment was echoed by many women in the study.

A More Meaningful Life The emotional toll that activism placed on the women’s relationships, careers, and mental health was enormous, yet their participation also engendered positive personal changes in their lives. When I asked Yvonne how her life had changed, she replied: “Well, I’ll put it to you this way. I used to weigh 523 pounds, and my boyfriend and I on a Sunday morning would split a carton of eggs and a pound of cheddar cheese and the only thing I knew how to cook was steak, besides a great omelet. . . . I came home after the first [protest] letter I wrote and the realization [about

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

82

animal abuse] and I threw away every Procter & Gamble product in my house—which was a lot. But it became so easy—so easy. I gave away all the food in my freezer. Had everyone come over and take it away. I guess because it was so here [she points to her heart] that it was so easy.” Yvonne was able to accomplish major life changes due to her heightened political awareness. She had no regrets about the changes that animal rights activism brought to her life, asserting: “I feel that I’m just happier and healthier and am maybe a little more accepting of things and people, but yet so much more aware. It’s definitely been a change for the better; no two ways about it.” Cassandra’s life changed both materially and emotionally as a result of her growing awareness. She maintained: “It’s adjusted my value system. The more you learn about one issue—it makes me value animal life, including humans, and environmental issues more.” Also, “I no longer attach to my stuff. I use old stuff. I recycle. . . . I don’t care if the cats throw up on my bathroom rug. This is a total switch from my yuppie lifestyle, where everything had to look just so.” On a more personal level, Cassandra felt a sense of freedom and possibility as she embraced her new life. This included a divorce from a husband who disliked animals, and subsequently, the joy and healing garnered from living with companion animals in her home. She noted that in the past, “I gave up myself and my ethics and my values to please another person.” Now Cassandra lived life guided by her ethical perspective, and her emotional and spiritual needs. She discussed the positive effect that animals have had in helping her to heal from past sexual abuse: “My independence has become very valuable to me. I can have as many animals as I can afford. I can rescue animals and I can live in a way that accommodates that. I get my nurturing and my nurturing touch from my animals, and it’s safe. And you see, safety for me is a big deal. You can see why it would it be.” Cassandra compared her life before and after activism and concluded that she was much happier being educated and active around social justice issues. This was a common theme among the women. Diane, for instance, extolled the merits of activist work: “I think when people are allowed an opportunity as simple as volunteering, their world becomes so much bigger.”

RISK AND REWARD

83

Ricki expressed the belief that most people were apathetic about animals, and social issues in general. “Most people just go through life and work and earn money and eat and sleep. They’re not doing anything. They’re nothing but zombies. And that may be normal, but who wants to be a zombie?” Ricki was grateful for the changes that her heightened awareness and activism had brought to her life. This awareness, she felt, also set her apart from the mainstream. There are so many people, she remarked, who “care about their kids and their work and that’s it. They don’t give a damn about any of these issues. They’re just in their little tract house and shuttling the kids back and forth to soccer or whatever they do, and god, I’m so glad I didn’t end up like that!” Ricki described her life as “more rewarding” since her involvement with activism. “When we got rid of pound seizure in my city, it was a wonderful feeling.” Now, she says, “I have a lot of respect for what I do.” The pride and sense of accomplishment that Ricki felt as a result of her animal rights activism gave meaning to her life. Ruby reported more self-confidence as she assumed leadership of a group she helped create: “I’ve never really done anything like that, period—trying to lead when I’m not a natural-born leader.” Irene also gained confidence in her abilities as an organizer and political force. When she formed her first animal group, she “didn’t know beans about running an organization or anything like that.” Soon she was appearing regularly at the legislature—“which I had never done before in my life—to lobby for animals.” As her confidence grew, she expanded her level of activity: “I would go to churches and slip the literature in the hymnal. I would go to restaurants and slip it into the menu. I would find a nice little sticker and place them in bathroom stalls. Literature in the seat pockets on planes. I served on the elections board and used to wear this little pin that said, ‘I respect all nature.’ It had little animals and water and things. Very discreet. Didn’t break any laws. But people were curious and would ask about it.” Joanne talked about the knowledge and self-esteem she had gained since tuning into “animals and the planet.” Her involvement in animal issues also led her to participate in the political process. Although she did not usually vote, she intended to cast her ballot in an upcoming election to support a pro–animal rights candidate. Learning about animal issues also

84

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

led Joanne to environmental issues. She reported with great enthusiasm that she had just started recycling a month ago and was now “totally gungho, because I never did it before. . . . I guess people . . . think that the public knows, but I’m not one of those people who just knew. So I was really glad to get the information and now I’m recycling like crazy.” Now when Joanne had questions about products or activities, she researched the issues and made informed decisions—an empowering experience for her: “I love the fact that I have the power to be responsible.” Joanne’s life was changing for the better; she felt more self-confident and knowledgeable about the world around her, and above all, empowered to act on her beliefs. This newfound empowerment that activism can bring has been documented in women’s participation in other social movements. Sally Ward Maggard’s (1998) account of Appalachian women’s union organizing reported that many emerged from the strike with new identities—as educated, self-confident political actors. Women who joined the strike later reflected upon their surprise at taking part in activities they had previously never dreamed of. Some of the animal activists expressed a similar sentiment; recall Joanne’s comment regarding her road to activism: “It just gave me a whole new perspective of the world. . . . I mean, I always loved animals, but I didn’t expect to have this happen to me.” And like the Appalachian union activist who remarked, “I still say it’s the best thing that ever happened to me” (Maggard 1998, 303), the women in this study seemed to agree that their lives had become more enriched and meaningful since they had become animal activists.

Conclusion The stories detailed in this chapter offer insight into the impact that animal rights activism has on women who participate in the movement. The women activists strove to enact changes in their personal lives that were consistent with their beliefs about the rights of animals. Some of these choices, such as purchasing only cruelty-free products, were easier than others. Diet and health care presented particular challenges, and the activists put serious time and thought into these issues. The women also debated how much was enough when it came to avoiding animal products, weighing the abuse/treatment of animals against practicalities or their own

RISK AND REWARD

85

health. The expressed beliefs and ultimate goals of animal rights activists call for extraordinary levels of personal commitment (Groves 1997; Herzog 1993; Jasper and Nelkin 1992; Sperling 1988). At the same time, the women were less likely to focus on the restrictions of such a commitment than to see it as a meaningful opportunity for personal change, political awareness, and the development of a more satisfying moral compass for their lives. They resisted many institutional sites of power by choosing cruelty-free food and products, engaging in protests and other activism, and developing alternative moral and political frameworks in their lives. As these activists’ stories illustrate, the multitude of animal issues could easily feel overwhelming, as if the work they did was “never enough.” The emotional work involved in animal activism required activists to adopt coping strategies to stay personally healthy and politically motivated. Although some described supportive networks of friends, colleagues, and family, the women also had to develop ways to deal with resistance from these groups as well as from outsiders and law enforcement. These challenges ranged from good-natured teasing to more extreme forms, such as difficulty in procuring employment, harassment from the FBI, or the murder of one’s animals. All the women had experienced resistance by people outside the movement. They described family, friends, and work colleagues who questioned, expressed concern over, or actively sabotaged their diets, belief systems, and actions. Many women felt annoyed by constantly having to explain or defend their views. They employed various strategies to cope with this, for example, using humor, making compromises in terms of when and where to engage in discussion about animals, and sometimes ending relationships or limiting contact with people who did not respect their beliefs. Working as an animal activist instilled confidence and self-esteem in many of the women. Some expressed pride in their accomplishments and ability to make a difference in the lives of animals. Others discovered that they had leadership abilities, publicity skills, or political clout. Joanne, for example, had never even voted before becoming an animal activist. Irene found the motivation and confidence to begin regularly lobbying on behalf of animals. I was also struck by a theme that occurred in multiple narratives—a marked change of consciousness about the world and one’s place in it. As

86

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Joanne put it: “It was like an awakening.” The younger activists spoke of feeling alienated by mainstream cultural or religious values. They sought alternative ways of thinking about and being in the world. Their rebellion found a home within the animal rights movement. The older activists tended to emphasize a midlife assessment, or as Shana put it, “where you’ve been, what you’ve done, and where you can go from that point.” Bonnie, for instance, had achieved great financial and career success but found it ultimately unsatisfying. The women’s narratives included a search for something “more meaningful” in their lives. Working on behalf of animals filled this void. It also offered an alternative philosophy or way of life that served as a more satisfying moral compass. The animal rights movement offered a fulfilling way for women to effect change in the world, both personally and as part of a political community. Their interpretation of activism as pleasurable and rewarding is likely a key component to understanding how such activists sustain their commitment to such a cause, particularly given the struggles they endure as a result of their participation in the movement. They struggled as friendships, family relations, and careers suffered, and some experienced harassment and abuse as a result of their activism. But they were just as likely to highlight the rewards they gained from their participation in the cause of animal liberation, the most prominent of which was the satisfaction of making a contribution in the world and living a more meaningful life.

5

VVVVVVVVVV Gender Divisions in Labor, Leadership, and Legitimacy Women are willing to do the little things and chip away at established systems of cruelty, and men want to do the big actions. —Cassandra

As a young activist in the 1940s, Irene cofounded an animal advocacy group with another woman. It was the first and only animal organization in the area to rescue animals and spay and neuter them. When they affiliated with the American Humane Society, Irene was replaced as leader “because they didn’t want women running things.” Irene recalled: “[They] found a man to run things and more or less took it out of our hands. My friend was leaving town anyway, but there I was. And I saw that they were accepting vivisection as a necessary evil. So I went ahead and organized my own group.” Two things were made clear to Irene. First, it was assumed that two women running an animal organization did not carry enough clout to satisfy the standards of a national organization. In “those days,” Irene said, common opinion held that men must be in charge in order for a group to raise funds and create a credible public image. Second, the abolition of vivisection was not a cause that traditional welfare organizations were willing to take on. If Irene wanted to campaign against vivisection, she would have to form her own group to do so. Her experience echoed those of the earliest American women involved in animal causes (see Buettinger 1997). Years later, even after establishing herself as an experienced and dedicated activist, Irene faced stereotypical attitudes about women activists from men in the movement. “Women are not sex symbols,” she said. 87

88

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

“One time I was at an animal convention and one of the male officials said, ‘Why don’t you wear high heels?’ because I was always wearing comfortable, flat sandals. And I said, ‘Listen. Why don’t you?’ Can you imagine me getting out of the car and rescuing an animal I see in the desert or someplace all dressed up in high heels?” This chapter explores the dynamics of animal rights work through the social lens of gender. I first describe the type of work that the women activists were involved in, and how they defined the animal work in which they participated. I then discuss the gendered divisions of labor and leadership within the movement. Many women felt that men were favored as leaders and spokespersons in the movement, and that the day-to-day actions performed by women activists were devalued next to the heroic ideal of radical actions often undertaken by men. The kind of work and image considered more valuable in the movement was a gender issue. Animal rights activists often speak of the importance of counteracting gendered stereotypes of the animal rights movement as overly emotional. The women activists in this study wrestled with these tactical choices in their quest to be viewed as legitimate political thinkers.

Multiple Issues, Multiple Arenas The majority of the women I interviewed worked on a variety of issues and employed multiple tactics. Cassandra opened her home to foster animals from the local shelter, did fund-raising for a humane society, and attended circus, rodeo, and vivisection protests. Anika ran a nonprofit animal organization that worked on everything from wildlife protection to vivisection to greyhound racing. She also volunteered at a community radio station, where she played and produced programs focusing on animal issues. The women were involved with a number of national organizations, including PETA, In Defense of Animals, Last Chance for Animals, Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty, Farm Animal Reform Movement, Humane Society of the United States, United Poultry Concerns, No Compromise, Feminists for Animal Rights, Animal Legal Defense Fund, and many other smaller, locally organized groups and sanctuaries. Twelve of the twentyseven women had either started an animal advocacy group or sanctuary, or currently directed one.

GENDER DIVISIONS

89

Nearly all the women (93 percent) had worked on the issues of vivisection and factory farming. This work ranged from letter-writing campaigns, protests, and direct action to investigations of research protocols. Three women had been arrested for civil disobedience or property destruction related to vivisection protests. Three other women had taken part in home demonstrations, where activists protest at the homes of scientists, corporate executives, or financial backers involved in vivisection. Common activities of “home demos” include marching on the sidewalks in front of homes, chanting slogans, and passing out literature to neighbors. The women’s work on factory farming issues involved legislative efforts, media campaigns, and a great deal of vegan or vegetarian outreach, through which they sought to educate people on the problems of factory farms and alternatives to animal products. Activists distributed literature at community events and university campuses, sometimes passing out samples of vegan food. One activist cooked with Food not Bombs as a way of introducing vegetarian and vegan food to others. Another had been arrested for demonstrating against the fast-food chain Wendy’s, where she stood atop the restaurant’s counter to protest the inhumane treatment of chickens. Fur was also a major issue. Alongside the usual activities such as education, outreach, and legislative campaigns, one woman was involved in a raid on a mink farm, where animals were freed and property was destroyed. Another woman took part in a protest with a student organization for animal rights in Minnesota. Someone had alerted the group that there were piles of mink carcasses at a local dump site, and the students gathered them up and dumped them in front of Dayton’s, a department store that sold fur coats. About half the women mentioned working against animals in entertainment, which involved campaigns against circuses, rodeos, and zoos. I made two of my first contacts while attending meetings of a group formed to raise awareness of cruelty issues at the local zoo. Three women participated in protest activities related to hunting. Three women wrote about animal issues, and two performed legal work on behalf of animals. In addition to animal rights issues, more than half the women (eighteen) were involved with activities traditionally associated with animal

90

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

welfare. These included spay/neuter campaigns for dogs and cats, rescue/ adoption programs, foster care for stray animals, the trap and release of feral cats, investigations of animal cruelty, and animal sanctuary work (caring for rescued birds, cats, dogs, farm animals). Three women worked on campaigns to end pound seizure, the process whereby animal research facilities obtain animals from local pounds. This was just one example of a crossover issue—an area of animal work not easily classified as either animal welfare or animal rights, because it involved companion animals (usually associated with welfarists) and animal experimentation (a cause related to animal rights).

Naming Their Work: “An Animal Rights Wolf Wearing Animal Welfare Sheep’s Clothing” Lola called her work “animal liberation, rights, or advocacy—I don’t have any one thing.” Another popular term was “animal activist.” Women had multiple ways to describe their beliefs and their work; they chose among these labels depending on the context and conversational partner. As Abby explained: “I’m very wary of how I put things and how I say things. If I’m not talking to anyone who’s in the animal rights movement, I word it in a different way.” The term “animal rights” is prone to misconceptions and negative stereotypes. While the term “human rights” often carries a positive connotation, extending the same language to animals does not. Translating the concept of rights to animals provokes cynical notions, such as pigs being allowed to vote and cats being given the right to marry. As Helena Silverstein writes: “Given the popular perception that animal rights means having the same rights as humans, the movement’s identity takes on the appearance of absurdity” (1996, 234). The public also associates animal rights with extreme acts like vandalism and burning buildings, an association that influenced the way women named their work publicly. Abby identified with the term “animal rights” in private, but avoided the term in her advocacy work: “I try to stay away from ‘animal rights,’ although it’s how I feel.” Anika called her work “animal protection,” although she considered herself an animal rightist: “I’m more radical than welfare work. But I’ll make compromises, and people don’t mind the protectionist name as much as they are scared

GENDER DIVISIONS

91

of the animal rights name.” Robin used the words “animal welfare” or “animal advocacy,” she said, “because those terms are the most—they don’t upset anybody. You say ‘animal rights’ and people automatically start thinking you’re a radical, you’re burning down buildings, you’re throwing paint on people.” When asked how she would describe her beliefs if talking to a friend, she laughed and said: “Oh, that’s different. I think animals should be treated like humans.” Bonnie, who served on the board of directors of her local humane society but was also involved in an animal rights network, called herself “an animal rights wolf wearing animal welfare sheep’s clothing.” She explained her compromise: “I do whatever I have to do. I sit on the board with people who eat meat and hate PETA. The humane society people think it’s all about cats and dogs. So I switch hats and try to tie it together for people.”

Animal Welfare versus Animal Rights Bonnie’s experience illustrated the division between animal welfare and animal rights groups. Ricki tried to get animal rescue groups interested in the issue of vivisection, but did not meet with much success. “You’d be surprised how many of them believe in conventional medicine and the need for animal research, even though they’re in rescue. It was a big disappointment for me to find this out,” she said. Ricki held hope that things might change over time, but for now, “we’re close, but no banana. We just don’t connect. . . . I mean, some of them do both. I do rescue and I do animal rights.” Yvonne volunteered at her local no-kill animal shelter, but found it hard at times because fellow volunteers were not aware of or involved in other types of animal causes. She expressed empathy and described them as “wearing blinders . . . because it’s so overwhelming.” Cassandra, another activist involved in both companion animal work and animal rights causes, echoed the approach: “The issues are equally important. Everybody needs to find their niche and work on what they feel empowered to work on. I support others to do the work they’re doing.” Abby was supportive of animal welfare organizations even though she was concerned that many group leaders continued to eat meat: “I commend them and have deep respect for them. . . . But I have a problem

92

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

with people being meat eaters and saving dogs. If you’re going to lead one of these groups, then you should live your life in an example kind of way.” She was particularly concerned that outsiders would view people who led animal groups and ate meat as inconsistent and thus less credible. While the women I interviewed wished their colleagues in animal welfare causes were more aware or active (or vegetarian), they usually tempered their criticism by acknowledging the value of the work the volunteers or organizations did. This attitude contrasts with the atmosphere that Groves (1995) detected in his study of male and female animal rights activists, who generally criticized animal welfarists as just “cat and dog people.” I attribute the difference between our findings to my sample, which was entirely women and thus more likely than men to have worked on animal welfare issues and in animal welfare groups. Women activists seem to be more forgiving of what they view as inconsistencies in the field of animal welfare. Diane, who supervised volunteers in a welfare organization, observed that many did not make connections between the companion animals they were helping and what they were eating for dinner. “It bothers me,” she said, “but I’m not an extremist—I think that people can have a threshold and they can only look at so much. Maybe they’ve never been told . . . or if someone approached them about it, they may not even want to look at it because they already are looking at a problem with the cat/ dog, companion animal population. And so I guess I give everybody the benefit of the doubt. I’m glad that people are engaged and participate in the ways they do. They’re all equal. We need them all.” Lola pointed out that while “animal shelter people” were usually not vegans, some vegans she knew were not interested in animal shelters: “certain people are interested in certain things, and we should not be at odds with each other.” She laughed. “I don’t think we should try to kick people out of the movement because they’re not vegan. They will help us in some way. Maybe they just don’t feel ready yet to be a vegan, but they might be helping the cat-and-dog issue or against hunting or fur or dog racing.” Irene agreed, and was upset by animal groups that pressured members to be vegetarian. She was concerned that people sometimes dropped out of organizations because of implied or even direct pressure. None of the women completely discredited animal welfare work, but

GENDER DIVISIONS

93

a few held less than enthusiastic views. “I feel like what they’re doing probably has a place,” Kira said, “only because there has to be something between animal rights and the average Jane public.” Zoey had mixed feelings about animal welfare work: “I feel like its more charity-type stuff. Which is good that it gets done, especially no-kill shelters and stuff like that. I’m glad that it gets done, but it’s not something I really want to be involved in.” Zoey’s feelings about animal welfarists stemmed from discomfort with the ownership of pets. “I’m not sure how I feel about people owning pets,” she said. Anika was supportive of spay/neuter and adoption campaigns but ultimately believed companion animals were unnatural and bad for the ecosystem. She discussed the pet-food industry’s ties to factory farming and advocated an end to the breeding of domesticated animals (but the care of those presently living). Anika was also disappointed that welfarists sometimes denigrated animal rights activists. Three women discussed the opposite problem—the denigration of welfare work by animal rights activists. Welfare work is feminized and thus devalued. As Carol said: “Women do a lot of the maintaining work—actually caring for animals, raising the money. And then there is this idea that to do any welfare work is not really addressing the real abuse of animals.” Amie observed that during one animal rights conference, only women attended panel sessions and planning groups on companion animals. She remarked: “A lot of the issues I work on deal with companion animals. I volunteered at a shelter for a long time, and a lot of that work is relegated to—oh, that’s companion animals, that’s the women’s issue because they care about the dogs and the kittens and it’s not serious. They don’t take it as a serious problem because it’s like the old ladies working on the dog issues and not other important stuff.” When I asked her what was considered “the important stuff,” she offered the following observation: Factory farming, vivisection—especially the vivisection. That’s testing and science. That’s, you know, men’s. It was interesting, the planning groups we had. There was one for vivisection and one for factory farming, and the companion animals one was all women. Granted, there are more women than men at this conference,

94

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

but not a single man was there. I guess it kind of made me think, because I believe that’s one way to get people aware of animal rights issues. If you can have people recognize that they have to treat their dog or cat or rabbit well, that means they might start to be open to vegetarianism. So if you have men who are saying, Oh, that’s not an important issue—well, I think it is.

Amie brings up two important and related points. The first is that some animal rights activists view companion animal work as less serious and less valuable than work on issues such as vivisection or factory farming. The second is that such work is identified primarily with women activists. It begs a larger discussion of women’s experiences within the animal rights movement, including leadership positions, group dynamics, and the value assigned to types of work.

Gender, Labor, and Leadership Research on social movements has revealed complex patterns of gendered divisions of labor and leadership. It is common for women to create and lead grassroots movements, only to see the leadership turn over to men as the movement or organization becomes national or institutionalized (see Lawson and Barton 1980). Other patterns include a tendency for women to be the “organizers” while men occupy the public stage as the “leaders” (Payne 1990). Within revolutionary movements that utilize extreme tactics and guerilla warfare, men generally occupy the front lines while women remain in the background in positions of support (Lobao 1990). These divisions frequently involve a devaluing of the work women do, and a valorization of the methods and imagery of “masculine” work. Environmentalist Judi Bari pointed out that while Earth First! was founded by men and selected men as its speakers, “there have always been competent women doing the real work behind the scenes. But they have been virtually invisible behind the public Earth First! persona of ‘big man goes into big wilderness to save big trees’ ” (1994, 220). Recent works on gender and social movements (Einwohner et al. 2000; Kuumba 2001) urge us to reconceptualize the idea of leadership,

GENDER DIVISIONS

95

and to consider the importance of a variety of tactics and roles within movements. Women often enter social movements through informal networks and grassroots organizing rather than formal structures (Kaplan 1997; Kuumba 2001). Women activists formerly seen as existing in the background of movements actually perform essential roles such as coalition building. As M. Bahati Kuumba’s study of African American women in the civil rights movement suggests, “they organized from below, linked movement organizations to each others, and galvanized mass support” (2001, 18). While women have comprised the majority of animal activists, men have historically dominated the political and philosophical leadership of the movement. Men constitute 75 percent of the notable writers, organizers, and philosophers featured in Marc Bekoff’s Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, according to Herzog (2007). In this study, more than half the women (63 percent) reported a gendered division of labor and leadership within animal groups. Frances observed that men continued to occupy many positions of leadership in national organizations: “They tend to grab for these positions faster than women are willing to do.” She said women often resented that “positions of power in the wealthy organizations are usually occupied by men, yet these same organizations were probably built by women.” Anika, the director of a nonprofit animal organization, reported that her group was mainly women. She told me: “The one thing I hate to see is when the people speaking or who are heads of groups are mostly men—but the membership is mostly women. That makes me angry.” Amie agreed. Many of the groups she knew were run by men, but nearly all the members were women, she said, “so it’s like one man in charge of a lot of women.” When I interviewed women at the 2003 Animal Rights Conference, the issue of who was given a platform to speak came up in conversation repeatedly. Amie observed that the majority of the speakers were men. She was able to name some well-known women activists but pointed out that the movement consisted of a lot of women working behind the scenes, “with the man out in the spotlight.” She was irritated by certain men whom she described as “wanting to have their name be

96

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

everywhere.” In contrast, she saw women activists as less concerned with being in the “limelight” and more interested in just getting the job done. “They’re not really concerned with getting themselves to be the center of attention,” she said. There was frustration on the part of women who observed that “men do a lot of talking, but not a lot of moving,” a statement uttered by Diane. She knew very few men in the animal advocacy groups she worked with but thought that even when men were members, “the women are the ones who do most of the work.” I witnessed an example of this myself during a protest I attended at the Phoenix Zoo. A young man who attended the protest but had not been involved in any of the organizing used the occasion as an opportunity to pass out his phone number to young women approaching the zoo (along with leaflets about the protest issue). A young woman who had helped organize the protest asked him to stop, with a good amount of exasperation in her voice. In organizational meetings, the women complained, some men talked “more than their fair share” or tried to tell other people (usually women) what to do. Marie described a trend within the campus group she was involved with: men were the most outspoken members, “or at least the ones who seemed to assume that they ought to be the ones talking.” She continued: “It’s not like they would be unwilling to let you talk, but they would always be talking first.” Ruby spoke of a man in her animal advocacy organization who is very dedicated “but seems to see his role as overseeing the organization and telling other people what to do.” Cassandra described another variation of the problem: “Men have ideas that they want other people to carry out.” Katie spoke of male activists who show up with ideas of what should be done and then try to get others to carry out the actual work. She said: “There’s always some dumb boy who wants to hand you his paperwork to do and then say, ‘Look, we all have to play our part. It’s not all glory you know.’ That sort of behavior can be stifling to our creativity and our ingenuity.” Katie resisted these behaviors with a variety of techniques. “I’ve found it easy enough to say, ‘No, you look. You do your paperwork and I’ll do mine,’ and then just generally not coordinate with him anymore. The only way some asshole who commands power and the spotlight will get that is if you give it to him.”

GENDER DIVISIONS

97

Dramatic Acts of Daring, Daily Acts of Drudgery: Assigning Value to Movement Work Cassandra observed that “women are willing to do the little things and chip away at established systems of cruelty, and men want to do the big actions.” While she certainly supported direct action, she saw men as more interested in the “dramatic stuff” versus what she called the “nittygritty,” such as talking to people, putting up flyers, and raising money. “They want to go for the big showy rescue—free-the-mink kind of deals, or let the llamas loose.” When I asked her why, she replied: “Well, it’s the big payoff. They like big payoffs.” She added: “Quite honestly, the men I’ve worked with—when they show up is when we do protests, where we get to be out and very loud. It’s like they want to stand on the corner and be very visual with signs and can only get excited about yelling about stuff.” Marti saw a divide between the kinds of labor women and men performed in the movement: women were more likely to be involved in organizations that performed “day-to-day work with individual animals,” while men led most organizations. She detected a trend in the movement that valorized “looking up to the celebrities and stars of the movement,” rather than everyday acts of courage and determination by activists. There was a tendency for men “to endorse the more heroic attitudes toward animal advocacy, and the acts of daring.”1 Taking note of Carol Gilligan’s work on gender differences with regard to “rules versus relationships,” Marti wondered if men tended to focus on the “principle” first, while women cared more about individual relations. She discussed the tactic of home demonstrations to illustrate this point: When people don’t have any problem targeting homes, it’s because of the principle—these people are doing evil. We should be making their lives miserable. Instead of looking at how that affects a whole dynamic. How does that affect children in those homes? They put the principle above everything else. I think there is more of a tendency for women to look at the individual relations. To not have the same kind of need for heroic acts, but to do more of the day-to-day groundwork. It’s not just these dramatic acts; . . . when they do studies of revolutions, they make it sound like it was just this event that happened over a short period of time, but it was

98

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

all the groundwork that was done before the revolution that really was the major factor behind it. So I think there is a tendency for women to engage in more of those mundane kinds of acts that get less attention.

Activists who performed direct action that involved high levels of confrontation or illegal activity were sometimes held up as models for the movement. As Ricki pointed out: “That’s why so many of these guys are probably leaders of the movement, because they were the ones going to jail. . . . These guys will do big macho heroic things, like break into labs and get documents and film.” Lola placed a high value on the most radical tactics of the animal rights movement because she believed these tactics “put us on the map,” she said. “I think that’s what made people take us seriously as a cause. Knowing that people will risk going to prison for liberating animals from a laboratory or destroying a fur farm or destroying instruments of torture in a laboratory.” Lola associated radical tactics with male activists: “People are in prison for it. Mainly guys—guys are so brave. You know, each sex has their place. Thank you, men, for going to jail for the animals. You have to thank them for that.” Lola kept updated on the lists of those incarcerated and noticed more women were appearing on the lists. She corresponded with prisoners and subsequently gained the impression that male activists “really have a great feeling about being in prison for the animals,” while the women activists “really hated it” and would talk about things like “missing their kids.” In this example, even when women engaged in radical action that led to prison, they were considered less heroic because they expressed emotion about not being with their children. Kira’s experiences in radical grassroots animal groups led her to conclude that many women took part in animal rescues, property damage, and civil disobedience. She acknowledged that there were more men than women in the “hard-core groups” and attributed part of this influence to punk rock and “straight-edge” culture: “It’s very different for grassroots animal rights, because we’re coming out of punk rock, a lot of us. Punk rock is very male dominated. That definitely affects the numbers, because a lot of people who identified as vegan straight-edge are guys. It’s interesting, because you think of veganism as caring, in touch with—but at

GENDER DIVISIONS

99

one time, it was very masculine, like ‘I’m vegan and I’m straight-edge to save the animals.’ You have hard-core bands talking about liberating the animals and killing abusers. I was definitely around the tough-guy type of image.” Women discussed both the sliding scale of value assigned to types of activism, and the gendered dimensions of activist motivations and choices. Zoey was bothered by the low value placed on the kind of work she often performed, such as writing, doing vegan outreach and jail support, and putting up flyers.2 She felt pressure to become involved in direct action to demonstrate her commitment: “Sometimes I want to do direct action because I feel like I have to prove myself. That’s sad.” Some in the movement saw direct action as a mark of dedication, even selfsacrifice. “I mean, I can kind of understand,” Zoey said. “I want to work with people who are dedicated, but what’s dedicated? Dedicated is also staying at home for twelve hours doing jail support and handing out the flyers and making the phone calls.” Abby agreed that the public face of animal rights was often male. She noted that men appear more on the “front lines,” performing work likely to be seen as masculine. This included direct action, property damage, and investigating and arresting people for animal cruelty (“animal cops”). Abby knew women who engaged in these activities, but she wondered if men felt more comfortable than women in such circumstances “because it’s more accepted by society if they’re fighting for animal rights that way. It’s along the testosterone man thing.” Shana observed that the few male activists she knew seemed to be drawn to more extreme actions. She described her theory of this gender divide: “In our culture, men get frustrated by pain and suffering and it makes them angry. So you may have male activists, but they’re the ones who are donning the ski masks and liberating the guinea pigs. Where women are going to be the ones . . . nursing and cleaning out the stalls and finding homes for them and cooking the food.” Other women mused over the element of anger present in some male activists’ work. “I think that in terms of emotion, that our culture allows men to be angry. The animal rights movement gives men a legitimate reason to be angry,” said Carol. She viewed this as troubling. “I don’t think our culture should give men any more reason—that the animal

100

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

rights movement should not be the place to give men more reasons to be angry. That is not what we need in the world.” Writing on the radical group Animal Liberation Front, pattrice jones has addressed this concern: “An uncomfortable issue that cannot be avoided is the potential for disaffected and potentially violent young men to use the ALF as an excuse to vent their anger in inappropriate ways.” Shifting the public image of the ALF is suggested as a potential remedy to this problem. Putting “a feminine face on the ALF” would be a shift away from the images of young men in black clothing and ski masks rescuing laboratory animals and the “macho posturing” by ALF spokespeople. Jones suggests the ALF choose more female spokespersons and use images of young women and grandmothers on ALF clothing and promotional materials. This shift would make the ALF “much less attractive to young men motivated more by macho ego than by compassion” (2004, 149).3

Confronting Male Privilege Some of the men in the animal rights movement were “very aware and open about class issues and sexism,” according to Zoey. She enjoyed her friendships with men who were animal activists, because they were more likely to be enlightened on social issues such as gender and the environment. But she was uneasy about men in the movement who used “security concerns” to keep women “out of the loop.” She recalled one man in particular who “held these secret meetings, which sometimes have to happen for security reasons, but I think he did more than it had to happen. It was mostly men invited to the secret groups, and women he was dating. . . . The communication is ridiculous. I think it’s mostly women trying to communicate and men hoarding information.” One activist I interviewed refused to work with men she viewed as disrespectful to women but explained that this was a resource problem for women trying to fund their causes and organizations because “a lot of the people who have money or resources tend to be men.” Within local groups, she saw that the need for funding or resources sometimes placed women in uncomfortable positions. She gave an example of a man in the movement “who has made so many derogatory comments about women, who has yelled at women at demonstrations and events,

GENDER DIVISIONS

101

is completely disrespectful to women and has a history of it,” yet whom groups continued to work with because of his ownership of a kind of “portable theater”—a truck expensively outfitted with large screens to show animal rights footage in films and advertisements. She sympathized with one of her friends who belonged to a group that was working with this activist: “I know it’s a hard position to be in because she’s trying to run her organization and get her message out. What do you do? I’m not in any position to tell her not to do that, but at the same time I have very mixed feelings about it.” Her mixed feelings were a reflection of empathy for her friend, and concern over the movement’s apparent disregard for this man’s behavior toward women—due in part to his access to valued resources and perceived contributions to the movement. This example illustrates the attitude held by some within the animal liberation movement: men who are disrespectful toward women or engage in other divisive behaviors should not be subject to sanction by their colleagues if they are perceived to be doing valuable work for the movement. Zoey shared a troubling story about a male activist who worked in her grassroots animal liberation group: “One time he read my friend’s e-mail password over her shoulder and started sending these sketchy e-mails . . . coming on to her, and then also checking her e-mail with the password he got.” Zoey was unsure how to address this harassment, because her experiences in the movement indicated that a confrontation would probably be considered divisive and unimportant compared to the “larger goal” of animal liberation. She said the culture of the group was such that the other activists didn’t care what you did “as long as there was work getting done.” As activist pattrice jones notes: “Such problems are always difficult for groups to process, even more so when the group is underground and group members may feel it would be disloyal to confront the rapist or batterer” (2004, 150). Given the high levels of violence against women in society at large, it is not surprising that such behaviors surface among members of social movement organizations, including animal rights. Incidents of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and battering within animal activist groups have prompted calls for education and action. For instance, pattrice jones’s 2007 book, Aftershock: Confronting Trauma in a Violent World: A

102

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Guide for Activists and Their Allies, urges organizations to take proactive steps to educate their members about sexual and domestic violence. Such education is necessary to undo the misinformation and socialization that tends to neutralize offenders’ accountability and blame victims. As jones notes: “Like everybody else, activists also can make the mistake of blaming the victim for bringing what seems like a private dispute into the group” (143). Male privilege also impacted animal activism at the structural level. Kira observed that money, age, and tradition played a factor in who was held up as “models” for the movement and who was asked to speak at plenary sessions or keynote addresses. She noted differences between national organizations and grassroots groups: “At the national level, more so than the grassroots, it’s just the traditional male patriarchy that lords over what is supposed to be a progressive movement.” Some of the older men in the movement, Kira maintained, seemed more comfortable with traditional divisions of labor and leadership and less supportive of direct action. She found grassroots groups to be more radical in nature, as they tend to draw younger activists and are less hierarchical in their organizational structure. Although the form and variety differed, Kira said that dealing with sexism was “just as problematic in the grassroots.” She knew people who had left animal rights groups because of racist and sexist attitudes among members. As Kira saw it, the problem at this level was with male activists who saw themselves as social justice activists and “self-labeled as antisexist and feminist.” When these men made stereotypical comments or engaged in questionable behavior, Kira noted, it was hard to talk about their missteps: Everybody makes mistakes. Everybody slips—and they’re living under a system where they’ve been taught certain things and they’re trying to continually fight off reinforced stereotypes of women. So I mean, it’s not like I’m trying to give less credit to them at all, but when it does happen, and there are things that are said, those men tend to be very defensive, because they say, “No, I am antisexist, I am antiracist. So therefore, I wouldn’t say that.” The worst confrontation can be with someone who thinks they are

GENDER DIVISIONS

103

progressive in those ways. You also don’t want to be discouraging to people who seem to be making a sincere effort to reject traditional stereotypes of people. So you want to do it in an encouraging manner, but at the same time, you want to be firm and tell them that, no, what you’re saying is sexist and this is why.

Other women in the sample, such as Joanne, Shana, Sue, and Karen, reported more collegial relations between men and women. Joanne even offered a mild critique of people who complained about inequity in the movement. She described an encounter with a woman at the animal rights conference who was “really upset, because she was talking about how women are 80 percent [of the movement] and we’re not respected and that most of the speakers here were male.” When I asked how she felt about that statement, Joanne replied: “I don’t know, to be honest with you. I know some really nice guys who are helping animals. [They are] really sweethearts. . . . I really just think about the animals, but not the politics of the people or what’s going on.” Joanne had a profound distaste for anything that she labeled “politics,” because she wanted to focus only on animal work. Shana worked with a gender-balanced staff at her sanctuary and “found very little gender bias in what I’m doing, personally.” Her only complaint was a gendered assumption made by men among the work crew: “If a guy’s in a bad mood, he’s just in a bad mood, and if a woman’s in a bad mood, oh—it must be that time of the month.” Shana labeled this behavior “more societal than anything having to do with animal rights.” Sue did not believe she was treated any differently because she was a woman, she said: “That might be because I have ‘doctor’ in front of my name, but I don’t think so. Everyone I’ve worked with has just rolled up their sleeves and got down to business.” Karen, who also held a Ph.D., expressed a similar sentiment: “I’m obviously a very strong person, well educated, very clear about my goals and my mission and what I’m doing. Very informed on my subject. I think that is communicated to people, so I’m not really in a position of being victimized by other people in the movement.” At the same time, she noted “certain tensions” between herself and some male leaders in the movement. “Essentially we have the same goals, at least for animals. Maybe not for women.” She laughed.

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

104

“There is some residual sexism—maybe more than that—in the leadership of our movement.” Overall, Karen felt that she occupied “a good position within the movement, with certain qualifications.” It is of note that Shana, Sue, and Karen, who all felt they were treated as equals, were each currently directing an animal organization or sanctuary—positions that may have afforded them greater legitimacy and respect among male colleagues. There was also mention of supportive men who worked alongside women with mutual respect and equality. Frances spoke of a man who had consistently stuck by her animal rights group for more than twenty years and worked with her on many campaigns, including those where they were arrested together. Although he was “definitely the exception,” Frances said, “he has not had any desire to take over the reins of leadership, even when a male voice is needed.” Animal rights activists in other studies have echoed the need for male voices to bring legitimacy to the movement. Within Groves’s sample of activists, it was widely believed that women (particularly homemakers) were more emotional than men. “Given their concern not to be construed as overly emotional, a few activists recalled being disappointed at finding that the members in their local animal rights chapter were mostly women,” Groves reports (1995, 454). These activists commonly believed that incorporating more men into their organization could be a strategic device to bring “credibility” to the animal rights movement. Four of the women I interviewed specifically said they wished there were more men in the movement. These women believed the presence of male activists might be encouraging to men outside the movement, that they brought an air of “legitimacy” to the cause, or that men conveyed an image of strength and power. “I’m always refreshed when I see a man” among the activists, Yvonne commented. “It’s always exciting to me.” Two women also expressed disappointment with the men they usually saw at protests or in groups. One remarked: “It just seems like they’re younger guys who just rolled out of bed and are kind of hippy looking.” In other words, they were hoping that men with a more masculine image would join the movement. One activist who started an antivivisection group and served as its primary leader for nearly two years gave the organization a militaristic name to craft an image of seriousness and power. She

GENDER DIVISIONS

105

described herself as very “feminine looking” and not the type to “scale a wall and let animals out,” so she chose a name for the group that would convey such an image: “I just figured I’m probably the least likely looking commando-type person. So partially, not only did I think it was kind of an ironic title, I also thought it might make us at least seem like we were really serious; . . . you know, like a woman with big boots and a gun!” After the group began receiving wider recognition and media publicity, she contemplated bringing a man into the leadership role, preferably one who could impose an image of power and strength. “[The group] had gotten bigger and more influential . . . to the point where I felt I needed—How shall I say it?—a man to protect me, to make our bark bigger. I wanted to be backed up by a powerful force that would back up anything I wanted to say and do.” After reflecting upon her statement, she amended it: “I don’t know if it was really men I needed. A woman would have a done a good job too. I just wanted to be more of a force to be reckoned with.” Later she did form a coalition with another woman and they merged their groups. Several of the women experienced sexist, racist, and homophobic reactions from people outside the movement. Kira, an Asian American, was on the receiving end of both racist and sexist slurs. She recalled: “The very first time I was arrested was at a lockdown at a slaughterhouse. The butcher stood outside and said, ‘Why don’t you go back to your own country?’ You get that sort of thing—and ‘Chink’—even though I’m not Chinese. That’s one of my comebacks: ‘I’m not Chinese—get your slur correct!’ ” Kira described other incidents she had faced at protests, including being called a bitch and being hit in the face while protesting a fur farm. Amie had been called a dyke at numerous protests. She observed that women activists were usually on the receiving end of the worst treatment by counterprotestors and the general public. Once while passing out leaflets protesting Procter & Gamble’s testing on dogs, she was spit on, yelled at, and even grabbed. She noticed that when men in the group leafleted, people seemed “to listen to them more” and to treat them with more respect. Cassandra described taunts that implied women activists were out there protesting because they “didn’t have a man” and had nothing better

106

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

to do with their time. She had been called a “frustrated spinster” and was told at a protest that “what you need is to be laid.” She offered her analysis of this phenomenon: “They infer that you’re weird and that if you had a life and a relationship with a man, you wouldn’t be frustrated and out there demonstrating about animals.” When Abby went to protests, she often encountered people who accused her of being overly sensitive, irrational, and a “bleeding heart.” She thought women activists were seen as uneducated on the issues and driven by silly emotions. Other women mentioned being called “crazy” or “uninformed.” Opponents often accuse animal rights activists of being overly emotional and anti-intellectual (Einwohner 1999). These accusations hold particular meaning with regard to gender. In Herzog’s study of animal activists, one woman voiced her resentment at the related stereotypes of gender, emotion, and animal advocacy: “I have been called soft-hearted, which bothers me, because you generally do not call a man soft-hearted. You call a woman softhearted. Someone the other day said to me, ‘Well, I guess you always were a little soft-hearted toward animals.’ I got ticked off. A lot of people still do perceive animal rights as an emotional kind of thing. I don’t like the term softhearted. To pass off all the years that I have been thinking through these issues as being soft-hearted is really condescending” (1993, 108). Groves discovered that animal rights activists engaged in a number of strategies to counteract the sort of perception this woman complained of. Most of the activists he studied experienced deep compassion for animals and were attracted to the movement “because of its ability to legitimate their affection and empathy for animals in a way that reduced difficult interactions with outsiders who viewed them as being too emotional and therefore irrational.” Some activists attempted to replace empathetic advocacy for animals with a more objective stance that might be more convincing to others. They believed it was counterproductive for people to say they were in the movement because they “loved animals.” Making rational or intellectual arguments was deemed more respectable. It was more important to frame animal rights as a social justice movement than as a movement consisting of a bunch of animal lovers. Language that emphasized respect, rights, or justice was preferable to being emotional about the suffering of animals (Groves 1995, 438).

GENDER DIVISIONS

107

The majority of activists Groves spoke with reported significant problems interacting with family, friends, and coworkers who were not sympathetic to the movement, and “most of these difficult interactions related to the emotional qualities associated with being an animal rights activist” (440). Activists were accused of being misanthropists and overly emotional, and of distorting or exaggerating the truth. Some male activists experienced ridicule relating to their masculinity and sexuality. One man described how hunters called him an “animal rights queer” during a protest against hunting (443). These gendered perceptions of emotion and strength also exist among some animal rights activists. One consequence of gendered emotional stereotypes was that male activists were often chosen for speaking and leadership positions. When men expressed emotion about animal cruelty, it was interpreted in a much different way than when women did. For women in the movement, Groves reported: “Men’s willingness to express their feelings was considered a sign of masculinity and fearlessness. However, women’s willingness to express their emotions was a sign of femininity and low status because it was expected of them” (455). In other words, emotions were acceptable when men felt them. The emphasis on “nonemotional” or “scientific” frameworks of rights and justice (rather than on compassion and care) is evident in many other social movements in the late twentieth century, including civil rights and women’s movements (Groves 1995). The phenomenon of devaluing emotion is not unique to the animal rights movement, although it may be more pronounced there.

Crafting an Image: The Politics of Emotion and Reason Many of the women activists in this study were initially drawn to the cause through attachments to animals or emotional reactions to animal suffering, but their subsequent investigation of animal issues convinced them of various philosophical and scientific reasons for animal rights. For example, Katie said that in the beginning, her concern for animals was “entirely based on emotion.” As she began to look into the issues that concerned her, “I learned more about the scientific arguments and philosophical aspects of the issues as well. Although these are very valid

108

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

points of view, mine is still mainly from an emotional place and the philosophical or scientific arguments are sort of like added bonuses.” Yvonne, who described herself as an avid reader, felt she needed to keep well informed on animal issues in order to effectively respond to people’s questions. Although her passion for animal rights was “on the gut level, the emotional level,” Yvonne accumulated facts and debating points from her reading. Once people discovered she was vegan, they would bombard her with inquiries and challenges. “You have to know all of it,” she said, “because people ask you so many questions and you’re supposed to be an authority on it. . . . So I like to be armed with a lot of information.” Marie reported that her initial involvement with animal issues was “somewhat emotional—when you’re just like, that’s so horrible. But then . . . I wanted it to go beyond that. So much of the United States’ population has ideas based exclusively on beliefs or emotional reactions. So [philosopher Peter] Singer was kind of right—that utilitarian school of thought was the ideal ethical structure for these emotional reactions. Especially when you see videos—it’s extremely emotional, but you need to have a structure to sort of paste that on.” Marie found Singer’s line of argument useful because it offered a rational structure to complement her feeling about animals. Only one woman specifically criticized herself for being “too emotional.” Joanne described animal advocacy as “very emotional” and “very draining.” She said sadly: “I actually have a hard time with that. I think I’m too emotional; . . . I don’t like debating with people. It drains me.” Joanne wished she didn’t feel “so much” for animals, because it made debating with other people who didn’t share her emotions all the more upsetting. Despite the societal and movement pressures to present themselves as rational advocates for animals, most activists did not see anything wrong with the feelings they had concerning animals. Cassandra acknowledged that she “can go all intellectual if I need to” but said with no shame that her involvement with animal activism came largely from an emotional place. She emphasized her “connection on an emotional, physical level to other animals and my own life experiences with animals,” conceding: “If I need to come up with justifications for what I’m doing or why other

GENDER DIVISIONS

109

people should be doing what I’m doing—yeah, I can find intellectual arguments, but that’s not driving me. No, not at all.” In Cassandra’s view, Western society denigrates emotions because “science has been elevated to the status of God.” Cassandra saw rationality and science being used to justify many wrongs in society, including animal suffering and environmental destruction: “When you can show some science, however faulty, that animals aren’t suffering measurably, than you can justify doing whatever you’re doing to them. You can rationalize a lot of things.” In contrast, she believed that emotion and feeling are “what calls us to do the right thing.” Activists frequently spoke of using “rational” or “intellectual” arguments while in the public sphere. When I asked Zoey what kind of arguments she tended to use, she replied: “I use intellectual arguments for certain types of people who [say] we have to eat animals because that’s just what people do.” Zoey would then provide arguments based on human physiology or world hunger. “I guess maybe I do use intellectual arguments more than emotional ones, but I guess I feel like the reasons I’m into it are emotional reasons.” I found it interesting that although most of the women declared that their own motivations were primarily emotional, they believed that the general public (or at least certain segments of the population) was more likely to be convinced by intellectual or scientific arguments. Similar to the animal activists in Einwohner’s (2002) study, the women took great care to present logical and scientific arguments during encounters with the public. Abby described herself as “just purely passionate about it” but made calculated decisions about her approach when talking with people. “With women, 85 percent of the time I can let that emotional kind of thing come out a little more. I don’t know if it’s always true, but I guess just because of our society’s conditioning, I try to stay more on the intellectual side when I’m talking to men about it.” Ricki was of the opinion that being emotional about animal issues was not as effective as “arming yourself with facts and knowledge,” because “if it’s just people who love animals, then you can dismiss it.” She used emotional arguments with some people (“You have to use different strategies for different people”), and Frances described

110

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

a similar approach. While she too portrayed her initial reaction as an emotional one (“What would I feel like if treated with this kind of cruelty?”), she believed in using “every armament in my arsenal.” When teaching or speaking, Frances employed scientific arguments in addition to ethical and humanitarian ones: “Different people are coming from different places, and therefore, getting to them may take several different approaches.” Sue, a scientist by training, usually tried to appeal to people through logic in the e-mails, action alerts, and other publicity she wrote on behalf of animal issues. She believed that with most animal causes, “the facts are so egregious that if you state them, that is enough.” When I asked Sue whether she had been personally affected by the characterization of animal issues as emotional, she said adamantly: “I never get reactions like that.” She explained she had a “pretty strong science background that I operate from,” as well as legal experience (she had previously been a paralegal). “They’ve characterized me as aggressive, as assertive, as a bulldog, and probably obnoxious—but never emotional.” Amie, however, felt annoyed by the assumption that animal rights was only an emotional issue and believed she was labeled because of her gender. Her experiences as an activist suggested that the general public was more inclined to question and harass women than men animal activists. When she tried to talk to men about animal rights issues, they tended to “get very arrogant and start getting pushy and trying to be in charge and talk down to you.” She said that male activists within the same groups were less likely to have their positions challenged. “People don’t really believe that I’ve read so much about it. They think it’s an emotional issue. They don’t realize that there is scientific proof that I do know about and that I can talk about.” Although Erin agreed that animal issues provoked an emotional response in her, she was one of the few activists who deemphasized emotion as a motivational aspect of her activism. Erin called her shift from vegetarianism to veganism “an individualistic and academic decision.” Fellow college students accused her of hypocrisy because she advocated vegetarianism but wore leather shoes—“a vegan no-no,” she explained. Erin’s motive was to “win the debate,” and she conducted an investigation of veganism for a class paper. Although her choice

GENDER DIVISIONS

111

contained emotional elements, it was largely motivated by her desire to model a more consistent stance of animal rights. The woman who made the most definitive statement about emotional motivations was Kira, who emphatically denied that her activist work was driven by emotional feelings about animals or cruelty. She described a panel session on tactics and the use of violence that she had attended at the Animal Rights Conference. “A woman brought up yesterday that we are vegan because we want to end violence,” said Kira, a view that did not resonate with Kira’s reasons for being part of the animal rights movement: “I’m not vegan because I care about animals. I’m vegan because I want to stop the torture of them.” Kira’s rejection of “caring talk” might be at least partly a result of the way she became involved in animal rights—through the punk-rock, straight-edge scene. As she remarked earlier: “I was definitely around the tough-guy type of image.” She related more to the traditionally masculine themes of “fighting” for animal liberation, rather than “caring” about the animals. Utilitarian animal liberation theory has been criticized for its rejection of “emotions” or “caring” as a basis for animal defense. Peter Singer prefaces his groundbreaking 1975 book Animal Liberation with a story about visiting the home of a woman who claimed to love animals. Singer is contemptuous of what he views as the woman’s hypocrisy—she professes her love for animals while eating a ham sandwich, and then asks Singer and his wife what pets they have. Singer uses this anecdote to distance himself from the apparent unreliability of sentimental feelings toward animals, explaining: “We were not especially ‘interested in’ animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn’t ‘love animals.’ We simply wanted them treated as the independent sentient beings that they are.” Singer objects to the common portrayal of animal advocates as “sentimental, emotional ‘animal-lovers.’ ” This reference to emotion, he believes, will exclude the entire issue of animal treatment from “serious political and moral discussion” (1975, ix, x). Tom Regan, in his influential 1983 work The Case for Animal Rights, makes a similar protest against “sentimental” or “emotional” language in animal rights. To counter such undesirable labels, he suggests “making a concerted effort not to indulge our emotions or parade our sentiments.

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

112

And that requires making a sustained commitment to rational inquiry.” Since emotional expression or feelings are linked to feminine characteristics, this distain for sentimentality toward animals invokes a gendered framework that values masculine “reason” over feminine “irrationality” (1983, xii). Some within the animal rights movement have emphasized the need for alternatives to the dominant (and best-known) theoretical frames of Tom Regan and Peter Singer. Uncomfortable with the abstract theorizing, Western “rights” frame, and rationalist positions of the dominant animal rights ideology, some feminists propose an alternative view that values the emotional dimensions of human advocacy for animals, often referred to as an “ethic of care.” Feminist concern over the philosophical underpinnings of major animal defense theories has produced an impressive number of responses, launching the “rights-care” debate among animal liberation theorists.4 Marti Kheel’s (1985) early essay on environmental ethics discusses the importance of sensitivity, love, and personal experience in moral decision making, rather than rigid guidelines designed to provide “resolution” and a sense of control. Donovan makes a case for “an ethic that requires a fundamental respect for nonhuman life forms, an ethic that listens to and accepts the diversity of environmental voices and the validity of their realities” (1990, 374).5 Carol Adams has stressed that denying caring as an essential motivator for animal advocacy ignores the value judgments assigned to both who is involved in animal defense, and which tactics are considered appropriate: “Because the animal advocacy movement has failed to incorporate an understanding of caring as a motivation for so many animal defense activists, and because it is has not addressed the gendered nature of caring—that it is woman’s duty to provide service to others, while it is men’s choice—it has not addressed adequately the implications that a disproportionate number of activists are women motivated because they care about animal suffering” (1996, 174). Yet feminist animal defenders also assert that an ethic of care must be politicized and contextual. Women’s qualities of care/responsibility, for instance, may result from social inequities and power differences. Typically, those in power advocate rules, discipline, control, and ratio-

GENDER DIVISIONS

113

nality, while those without power espouse relatedness and compassion (Hare-Mustin and Marecek 1988). People in lesser positions of power must negotiate with those in power through relationship to survive in the workplace, school, or family. However, we need not abandon an ethic of care because some aspects of caring are survival skills necessitated by women’s lack of power. As Adams asks: “Were the day to come when women’s oppression was eradicated, would we also wish to eradicate caring for others?” (1996, 171). Rather, to hold a caring ethic for others, one needs protective boundaries for oneself that resist self-sacrifice and offer space for relaxation and rejuvenation. This framework acknowledges all types of oppression (gender, race, and species) rather than an ethic of care focused solely on animals. As Deane Curtin argues, we need to carefully evaluate caring for the interests of others before our own to avoid abusive patterns. Curtin contends that caring “must be understood as part of a radical political agenda that allows for development of contexts in which caring for can be nonabusive. It claims that the relational sense of self, the willingness to empathetically enter into the world of others and care for them, can be expanded and developed as part of a political agenda” (1991, 66). Furthermore, a political ethic of care is one that goes beyond caring only for one’s own family, friends, or species. For the women in this book, it meant caring for all animals (not just those residing in one’s home). For example, the choice of veganism or vegetarianism expands the moral relational web to countless animals and challenges societal norms about who is valuable. As Curtin writes: “To choose one’s diet in a patriarchal culture is one way of politicizing an ethic of care” (71).

Conclusion Women’s activist work encompassed a wide range of issues that affect animals and employed tactics that ranged from lobbying and letter writing to civil disobedience and property destruction. Although all the women believed that radical changes are needed regarding the treatment and status of animals in society, they were keenly aware of public perceptions and often crafted their language to suit them. Many women talked about using a “soft” approach when describing the work they did, relying

114

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

on words like “advocacy,” “activism,” or “protection,” rather than the language of rights or liberation. They saw major differences between animal rights and animal welfare, yet the majority of them worked with both kinds of organizations. This was but one of the distinctions that women drew between themselves and the majority of male activists. Over half the women I interviewed believed there were gendered divisions of leadership and labor in the movement. First, women had concerns that men continued to occupy many of the leadership positions in animal organizations, despite the fact that membership in such groups was predominantly female. Amie summed up this problem: “So it’s like one man in charge of a lot of women.” Yet twelve of the twenty-seven women I interviewed had started their own groups or currently directed organizations, perhaps indicating that a more gender-equitable trend is emerging in the animal rights movement. Herzog (1999) reports that in the United States, groups with an animal rights emphasis are more likely to have women in leadership positions than are groups oriented toward animal welfare, possibly because welfare-oriented groups take in more money than do animal rights groups. This held true in my sample: six of the women founded or directed animal rights groups, two directed hybrid groups, and four directed animal welfare groups or sanctuaries. Another gender division involved the hierarchical values assigned to types of work. Radical direct action or confrontation tended to be highly regarded and were considered “front-line” work. Although women did participate in such activities (including some of the women in this study), the general consensus was that men were more likely to be drawn to this kind of work, perhaps because radical actions are associated with masculinity. In contrast, the day-to-day tasks of phone calls, writing press releases, leafleting, and direct care of animals were certainly less glamorous and in the experience of some women were considered less important. Women objected to men in the movement who were unwilling to work on these details or even tried to pass off this work to their female colleagues. Some women in the study, such as Katie and Kira, described their active resistance to this kind of gender stereotyping. However, Zoey felt pressure to keep quiet about the harassment of her female friend by a male activist in the group because there was not a forum to address such problems. Complaining about the behavior of other activists was viewed

GENDER DIVISIONS

115

as divisive to the movement. I relate this problem to a specific ideology in the movement that prioritizes animal issues over “human concerns.” I contend that ignoring racist or sexist remarks and behaviors misses an opportunity to educate and expand the animal rights movement. A movement culture that excessively and uncritically embraces “movement unity” fails to challenge overt or unconscious acts of male dominance and white privilege. Finally, this chapter explored the meaning of “emotion” from the perspective of women activists. The animal rights movement’s struggle for credibility is connected to the characteristics associated with feminine identity, such as emotionality (Einwohner et al. 2000). Throughout history, the cultural links between animals, women, nurturing, and emotion have led to the portrayal of animal advocacy issues as a “feminine” cause. Perhaps in reaction, some animal theorists such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan have denounced the more emotional aspects of animal rights thinking in favor of rational arguments. There is much debate and dialogue in the movement over the symbolism and value assigned to emotion and reason. Feminists in animal rights have called for a theoretical approach based on an ethic of care. Such an approach, they believe, challenges gendered assumptions about “acceptable” ethical frameworks and validates the motivations of the many activists drawn to the movement out of concern for the well-being and treatment of animals in society. A belief in sympathy as the basis of moral awareness dates back at least as far as eighteenth-century Western philosophy and has flourished within contemporary feminist theory (see Donovan 1996). Contrary to charges that sympathy is “irrational,” these theorists emphasize the role of observation and evaluation in a sympathetic experience. Donovan concludes: “It is a matter of trying to fairly see another’s world, to understand what another’s experience is. It is a cognitive as well as emotional exercise” (1996, 152). The women activists with whom I spoke validated the importance and value of emotions as a motivating force behind animal activism. Many indicated that emotions had brought them to the movement, but that further investigation (often through reading) had confirmed and enriched their original incentive to work on behalf of animals. They

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

116

sometimes downplayed emotional arguments while in public in order to legitimize their cause and craft an image of what they thought the animal rights movement should look like. This created a curious contradiction: the majority of the women agreed that emotions were a primary motivating factor behind their work, yet they assumed that rationalist discourses (and men) would be more convincing to the public. This assumption lends support to Einwohner’s (2002) assertion that external views (and stereotypes) about animal rights participants shape activists’ sense of identity. Animal rights activists try to invalidate emotional labels by framing their public message in “logical” or “fact-based” terms. At the same time, they tend to agree privately that emotional responses to animals motivate activists. The women in this study did not readily accept or internalize the negative discourse surrounding emotion, though they sometimes shaped their public behavior to accommodate it. While a select few denied that their activist work was driven by emotional responses to animal cruelty, most women viewed empathy as integral to the moral foundation of their activist work. Challenging narrow views of ethical formation, their selfunderstanding and identity as activists suggest that “reason and emotion work together” (Luke 1995, 292). They saw themselves as informed individuals who were also passionate about violence and cruelty toward animals.

6

VVVVVVVVVV “The Animals Come First” Using Sex(ism) to Sell Animal Rights

Just because people are animal rights activists doesn’t mean they know anything about feminism. —Amie

At a busy intersection in an Indiana city, two naked women were the highlight of a PETA animal rights demonstration. The activists simulated taking a shower together, naked behind a banner that read: “Clean Your Conscience: Go Vegetarian! 1 lb. of Meat = 6 Months of Showers.” They soaped each other’s backs and smiled at the audience as a cascade of water streamed down their bodies. PETA’s news release announcing the protest promised: “Two PETA beauties will shower together at a busy Evansville location to let consumers know that the best thing that they can do for the environment is to go vegetarian” (see PETA). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), one of the bestknown animal rights organizations in the world, is also a source of major controversy within the animal rights movement. In recent years, PETA has undertaken a number of sexualized media tactics, including shock campaigns like the one in Evansville, performed live by animal rights protestors. PETA billboards and print advertisements feature scantily clad models in cages to protest animals in captivity, and former Playboy models with half-open shirts urging consumers, “I Want You to Go Vegetarian.” Among their most famous campaigns are “I’d Rather Go Naked than Wear Fur” advertisements featuring nude or seminude female celebrities such as Pamela Lee Anderson. PETA campaigns such as these have generated heated debate among animal rights activists, especially those who identify as feminist (see Adams 2003b; Craft 2001; Herzog, Dinoff, and Page 1997). 117

118

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

In this chapter I examine women activists’ views on PETA’s sexualized advertising campaigns as a framework for understanding gendered tensions within the animal rights movement, and I analyze how activists position animal rights within other social struggles such as gender and racial equality. In preparation for the interviews, I contacted PETA and requested a variety of their print advertisements featuring women. They sent me twelve images, more than half of which featured naked or semiclothed women. Most of the activists I interviewed already knew of the campaigns and had seen the images, but I gave each interviewee a stack of PETA’s print advertisements to look through and comment on. Some of the advertisements I chose included: Playboy model Kimberly

FIGURE 1. Advertisement courtesy of PETA (www.peta.org).

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

119

Hefner in an Uncle Sam outfit, breasts spilling out of the front, with the caption, “I Want YOU to go Vegetarian”; Pamela Lee Anderson naked against a background of snowflakes, arms covering her breasts, with the caption, “Give Fur the Cold Shoulder”; Patricia Manterola posed in a cage, her naked body painted with tiger stripes, with the caption, “Ni Los Animales mas Exoticos Merecen Estar Tras las Rejas” (Not even the most exotic animals deserve to be behind bars); and Bea Arthur fully clothed sitting next to a dog, with the caption, “Your Fur Coat Could Save an Animal’s Life”).1 Women’s responses to the PETA sexualized advertising campaigns fell into three basic categories: they opposed the ads (44 percent), were supportive of them (30 percent), or harbored mixed feelings (26 percent).

FIGURE 2. The English translation of this ad is: “Not even the most exotic animals deserve to be behind bars.” Advertisement courtesy of PETA (www.peta.org).

120

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

These numbers are not meant to suggest how women animal rights activists as a group feel about the PETA campaigns.2 Instead, I use the responses from the activists in this study, first, to explain the positions taken for and against the PETA campaigns and, second, to illustrate the dilemmas of women activists in the movement.

Perpetuating Sexism: Critiques of Sexualized Campaigns The twelve women who spoke in opposition to the PETA campaigns voiced a number of objections. In summary, such campaigns: (a) were demeaning to women and perpetuated sexism in the culture; (b) made them feel disrespected as women activists; (c) were inconsistent with fighting objectification and oppression; (d) were ineffective; and (e) were damaging to the animal rights movement. Some of the women were completely turned off by PETA, while others supported the general mission of the group and respected other work it did. Diane, for instance, liked some of PETA’s campaigns but objected to “the ones using little Twiggy models and sex.” She wished that the animal rights movement would have a better understanding of the way “women are all victims of this kind of advertising in our culture, in the fact that we’re supposed to be so beautiful and unnatural.” She preferred animal rights ads that “supported women at the same time.” Erin had no problem with nudity; what bothered her about the PETA ads was their focus on “showing a certain type of nudity, always with a certain type of woman—a very sexualized, certain body type.” She noted that if “all the guys and girls were getting naked for the animals to get press—awesome! But when you’re always using women—and a certain type of woman . . .” Zoey echoed Erin’s objection to featuring “mostly women who have big breasts and are blonde and don’t have a lot of weight on them. It’s not good to tell people to be vegetarian so they can be anorexic.” Zoey saw connections between the objectification of women and the exploitation of animals, and characterized PETA’s attempt to capitalize on hypersexual views of women as abusive. She called it “blatant, vehement sexism. You can never bring yourself up by squashing someone else down. Trying to bring up the animal rights movement by squashing the feminist

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

121

movement—it just doesn’t make any sense. We need to be holistic in our approach.” As Jacqueline put it: “Are we going to use other forms of oppression to eliminate speciesism?” These women called for consistency and respect in the tactical approaches of animal liberation; organizations should not rely on tactics that come at a cost to other social movement causes. A theme some women raised earlier—a connection between the exploitation and abuse of women and the oppression of the animals—resurfaced in their discussions of PETA. Jacqueline reasoned that the intersection of oppression across gender, race, and species made campaigns featuring women’s nude bodies ineffective, because “the mindset that allows people to oppress people also allows them to oppress animals, and vice versa.” Marianna saw this inconsistency as the ultimate failure of such campaigns. She was unconvinced that the sexual advertisements changed people’s attitudes or behaviors: “It’s the wrong way to go. I think that PETA’s defense is that we’re working for the animals. We have to work with the society that we’re in. So we’re in this macho, patriarchal society, and if we want to free animals in a patriarchal society, we need to work with the tools that we’re given in this society. But in a patriarchal society, animals will never be free. No matter how much PETA does.” Marianna disagreed with both the logic and the impact of the PETA campaigns. Her concern was focused less on the use of female celebrities in advertisements and more on the street theater that encouraged “ordinary” (noncelebrity) activists to display their bodies for the cause. She was uncomfortable attending protests where naked women were the focus. In her view, demonstrations of this kind asked women to put themselves in vulnerable positions—to be the recipients of staring, pointing, and commentary about their bodies. PETA does in fact solicit animal rights supporters to participate in these campaigns. Their Web site lists a number of ways to help the cause, and among suggestions of boycotts and letterwriting campaigns is an invitation to “get naked for the animals.” Activists are encouraged to sign up to be on PETA’s e-mail list, for “the next time we need someone in your area to bare some skin to help save animals’ skins.” While the Web site encourages both “lovely ladies” and “gorgeous guys” to consider dressing up as “Lettuce Ladies and Broccoli Boys” to hand out vegan food at public events, the video accompanying the invitation is a

122

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

slideshow featuring only women (most with large breasts and wearing high heels). The women are dressed in synthetic lettuce bikinis or in yellow bikinis with signs proclaiming “KFC Tortures Chicks,” or they appear nude, painted with tiger stripes, behind makeshift cages (see PETA). Katie believed that sexual images of women in PETA campaigns marginalized women activists in the animal rights movement. “It gives us the role of sexual objects, when we are so much more.” She might feel differently “if the campaign were like a huge crowd of young, old, large, small men and women naked with the slogan; . . . then I’d probably join.” Two other women also mentioned feeling uneasy at protests of this kind, where the women’s role seemed to be going naked or wearing bikinis, and the men’s role was to hand out leaflets and talk to people about the issues. They felt the campaigns undermined women’s position as intelligent and thoughtful actors in the animal rights movement. Ida suggested that many people were turned off by the PETA campaigns; she suspected that women, especially feminists, would be offended rather than encouraged to explore the cause of animal liberation. The naked PETA ads, in her opinion, alienated a huge percentage of the population and in the process missed the real message—the animals. Several women echoed this sentiment. They suggested that using sex in advertising was not as necessary or helpful as PETA claimed it to be. Zoey believed it took the focus off the animals. She said: “Sensationalism doesn’t last; . . . do they really think they’re going to get a bunch of jocks to go vegan just by showing a naked woman?” Diane expressed a similar view: “The thing I worry about with these ads is the constant sexual poses, and the beautiful women over and over again. Is anyone even looking at the words? Are they missing the message? Are they going to stop eating meat because of this woman with her open shirt and breasts practically falling out? It’s disconnected.” Beyond alienating the general public, the sexual advertising also gave a few women activists cause to consider their own participation in the movement. One activist said: “It makes me not want to associate with the animal rights movement.” She observed that people in the movement seemed uninformed about the context of oppression with regard to women, sexuality, and economics, for example, “when it comes to things like stripping or prostitution, you’re looking at a lot of the issues of class and economics and what women are forced to do in order to make a livable

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

123

wage.” When PETA promotes the use of women’s bodies to sell animal rights, she commented, “they reinforce the system and the oppression.” While women may “choose” to display or sell their bodies (whether for economic survival or a political cause), the movement lacked a more complex understanding of women’s sexual agency and empowerment in a patriarchal society.3

Whatever It Takes: In Support of PETA The eight women who supported the PETA campaigns did so for the following reasons: (a) the campaigns could heighten publicity for the cause of animal rights; (b) sexual ads were appropriate in a male-dominated society where “sex sells”; (c) the women who chose to participate in the campaigns did so of their own free will and therefore were not being oppressed; (d) while women face oppression, animals face the “ultimate” oppression and must be the focus; and (e) whatever was best for the animals was an appropriate tactic. Robin believed the PETA ads were an example of practical marketing. She felt their ads raised awareness and suggested that the sexual nature of the ads attracted the attention of people not normally interested in animal rights: “If Pamela Lee Anderson is naked on the cover of a magazine, they’re going to pay attention—so that’s good.” Even though Robin acknowledged that PETA’s ads “can turn people off,” she thought the benefits outweighed the negative publicity. Sue agreed that men might be more inclined to look at animal rights ads with sexy women in them. She said somewhat apologetically: “I know there is probably a women’s issue here, but let’s face it—that’s the way the world of advertising works. So I say put it out there.” Yvonne believed that the shock value of the campaign worked in “a male-dominated society where men control the media.” Ricki called it “a brilliant way to publicize their campaign. They know how to play the media and really get out there and publicize what they’re doing.” She understood the objections to PETA ads: “They’re trying not to project that image toward animals being used as objects, so why do it with women? That’s a perfectly logical train of thought . . . but you know, I understand why PETA’s doing it and I’m not condemning them because they’ve done a fabulous job getting publicity

124

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

for so many.” She concluded: “if they have to use blonde, beach-babe types to do it, well . . .” Ricki and Sue were aware of the potential pitfalls of this type of advertising, and the objections some people might have to it. In the end, they still favored the tactics because they believed they worked. As Yvonne put it: “At this point, we have no pride. You know, we’ve gotta get it out there.” The “whatever works” philosophy was a dominant theme among activists who supported PETA’s sexual campaigns. Bonnie named this her highest priority when evaluating movement tactics: “I understand the criticisms of the feminists in this movement who are offended by that . . . but this is where I draw the line—I just say whatever works. PETA has made animal rights a household word, probably more than any other organization. They’re like, whatever it takes. And they know what sells. Sometimes the ends justify the means. What we ultimately need to question at the end of the day is, how can we best help the animals?” Bonnie was willing to overlook arguments about objectification because she believed the advertisements helped the animals. She also disagreed with “denouncing another group publicly” because “that’s when we leave an opening for the public and the media just to skewer us and find weaknesses within the movement.” Lola offered a sharp commentary along the same lines. She loved PETA and thought their ads “were really great and very cute.” Lola, who told me that she “has never pretended to be a feminist,” then explained: “Yeah, I know the feminists in the animal movement were mad about that. But I say leave your feminism at home and do what’s best for the animals.” The women who supported PETA ads also responded to the argument that the ads objectified women. Yvonne: “I don’t think it’s objectifying them if she’s willing to do it—she wasn’t forced into it.” And similarly, Bonnie: “No one’s forcing people to be models for these ads, so we’re not really exploiting women in that way.” Frances acknowledged that women faced inequalities but ultimately deemed that issue of lesser importance because “women can choose” to partake in actions that objectify them, and animals have no choices at all: This is a touchy subject. . . . It is true that all rights movements are the same or have core issues in common. However, . . . if sexual-

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

125

izing consenting women will help animals, then go for it. I am in PETA’s corner on this. . . . Women can choose to take their clothes off for publicity to help animals; animals cannot choose to not be captured and exploited. For me, it’s not even a close call. Do opponents of this position have a point? Yes, indeed. Aren’t these issues all related, and if we were against one, shouldn’t we be against another? Yes. But as long as humans can consent and animals cannot, I say use every weapon in your arsenal to get attention.”

Frances ended by adding: “If I’m asked to choose between educating an ignorant public with a flagrant and flamboyant campaign using consenting adults, including myself, . . . I’m going to go against the politically correct and take off my clothes for the animals.” Her belief that the ads helped animals trumped other considerations. Educating people through the PETA campaign was more important than what she viewed as “political correctness.” The women who supported PETA’s sexual advertising were generally aware of why others so vehemently objected to it. Some, like Lola, were completely unsympathetic to their arguments. Others were in agreement about the negative ramifications of using women’s bodies to sell animal rights but saw the issue as helping those who in their view were most in need—the animals. Anika described herself as a feminist and told me that “almost everyone I know struggles with this issue.” She offered the following opinion: “I do believe that consenting adults should do what they want with their bodies. I’ve thought about the arguments for and against and the conclusion I come to is that we’re in such a desperate situation with the animals, with the cruelty—that I don’t care what it takes. As much as I don’t want to see scantily clad women, some of the ads make a difference. As much as I hate it. It’s not that I don’t see the contradictions.”

Competing Loyalties: Torn between Issues Anika struggled with the contradictions but was ultimately driven to support PETA by the desperation she felt over the plight of animals. Other women, torn by what they called “competing loyalties,” remained undecided when it came to PETA campaigns. These seven women

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

126

were aware of the arguments on both sides of the issue and had not yet resolved their conflicted feelings. Joanne described herself an activist who had no problems with any kind of tactics when she first joined the movement, including sexualized PETA ads. “In the beginning,” she said, “my pain was so raw—it was like I didn’t give a shit what people did as long as they were helping animals.” Her opinion was slowly changing, and she now questioned the idea of “displaying women like meat too.” She added: “I suffer with that, and every woman in Los Angeles suffers with that, and that PETA message keeps the broader message continuing.” At this point in time, Joanne wasn’t definite about whether she completely supported or opposed the ad campaigns: “I’m not sure how I feel about it.” These women vacillated between their distaste for the female stereotypes featured in the campaigns, and their desire to gain publicity and promote awareness of animal issues. Many spoke of having to “make a choice” between helping animals and contributing to the objectification of women. For instance, Abby identified as a feminist and was extremely conflicted over this issue. She wasn’t positive that the ads actually “change people’s minds,” but she did think they made people pay attention. She had heard many people talk about the PETA ads, and this publicity made it difficult for her to condemn the tactic. “I feel like you’ve got to choose, in a way, and the lesser of two evils almost,” said Abby. “You have to let some things go if you’re going to try to fight for animal rights in a society that is completely about sex.” At the same time, Abby “disagreed with setting back the women’s movement.” She felt the ads compromised the goals of feminists and was torn between the ethics of the ads versus their possible effectiveness. Marie couldn’t see herself participating in most PETA campaigns, particularly the sexualized ones. She allowed that the tactics might gain attention for the movement, thereby helping animals. She wondered out loud: “Maybe that’s a more urgent issue? Decreasing the suffering of all these animals?” Yet she also saw the campaigns as “contributing to pervasive cultural problems—misogyny, sexism, antifeminist ideas.” She wondered if the ads contributed to further suffering, such as rape and other forms of violence against women. Marie concluded: “So you’re kind of torn. You’re like, well, that’s effective, but hmmm.”

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

127

Amie did not like the naked PETA campaigns, but she stopped short of completely withdrawing her support: “It might get someone to look at the sign, search that Web site, and start talking about it. . . . You’re kind of torn, because you want to get the message out and have people be aware of it.” Yet she questioned whether “any coverage is good coverage”—a contention often made by PETA. She wondered: “Is it good that it got out and got attention, or are people going to see us as those animal rights people who always have the naked women?” Amie definitely saw “how that is upsetting to a lot of women,” and she was concerned that the ads gave the animal rights movement a sexist image. She added: “If you start making it look like we only care about animals and will do anything to get our message across, it kind of sounds like we don’t care about people and how we might be hurting people. So that’s also bad.” One of Karen’s main questions about the PETA campaigns involved their purported effectiveness. While PETA argues that more people visit their Web site after their campaigns hit the public, no systematic or reliable studies have measured their success rate.4 “I certainly think that if Go Naked ads would reduce the number of furs that people bought and the number of animals in captivity,” Karen said, “I’d say good—let’s have more of the Go Naked ads.” She did not necessarily have moral objections to the ads but questioned whether sexuality and celebrities were really the most effective tactics, “because we don’t have any way of gauging these things.” For instance, Karen asked, “do they bring more people into the movement or drive more people away from the movement? We don’t have the information to talk about that.” While she thought it was certainly possible that the ads helped recruit vegetarians or raised awareness, “at the same time, it can also be pointed out that lots of us have gotten media coverage for campaigns that we’ve done without resorting to that type of image.” Although Karen was undecided about the campaign, she did emphasize that she “did not support degradation on behalf of any goal.” She did not see the PETA ads as particularly degrading, but rather “more like fun sex, and I’m not sure that’s something we should get all hot and bothered about.” Karen’s last point regarding this controversy paralleled the confusion that many of the women expressed over the inconsistent logic of PETA ads: “I understand what women are saying about trying to get people to stop looking at the bodies of animals in an objectified way. . . . Yet we’re

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

128

using women’s bodies to get people to stop viewing animals’ bodies that way, you know—aah! Go figure! I mean, that’s a good point. It’s a very good point. So again, I go back to, I have mixed feelings about that type of campaign.” The sexual campaigns of PETA forced the activists to confront the question of what they were willing to support in the name of animal advocacy. Some sought to balance considerations of public image, ethics, and effectiveness. Others based their decisions solely on what might make a difference for the animals. As Abby said during a conversation about the use of illegal tactics, she sometimes let her ethical concerns “go out the window” if a particular action could help animals. The desperation that Anika felt was one echoed by women activists time and time again: the nature of animal activist work was overwhelming, the result of endless issues that could be worked on and the sheer number of animals affected by confinement, abuse, or slaughter. At the 2003 Animal Rights Conference, Carol Adams spoke to this phenomenon, calling it “traumatic knowledge.”5 She defined it in the following manner: “Traumatic knowledge is the knowledge a person has about the fate of animals. It is painful knowledge. . . . We respond to facts about nonhuman animals’ suffering with shock and horror. We think, ‘I’ve been a part of that?’ With traumatic knowledge, we feel the suffering of animals acutely. It feels relentless. It does not provide relief, but intensifies our emotional connections to animals” (Adams 2003a). Adams called traumatic knowledge a “major challenge of the animal rights movement,” because of the way it affects important decision-making processes and the general well-being of activists. Traumatic knowledge, said Adams, “asks that the trauma-provoking experience be stopped” and thus “acts insistently upon us. At times we feel frantic—there is so much to be done. I must do anything to stop the suffering; . . . but this urgency is dangerous. We sometimes make decisions based on this urgency, losing sight of the need to evaluate.” Adams concluded her talk with a parting plea to “take care of ourselves as we process this incredibly difficult, demanding, depressing information,” and equally important, to “be careful, and take care as we relate to others” (Adams 2003a).6 This observation follows the call by some activists to create and evaluate tactics in terms not simply of what is best for animals, but also the degree to which these

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

129

tactics acknowledge human inequalities and support other social movements for change.

Uneasy Allies: Animal Rights and Other Social Causes The animal rights movement has a reputation as a single-issue movement. In fact, Jasper and Nelkin argue that “the single-mindedness of many animal rights groups has obstructed efforts to form strategic relationships with other protest movements.” These authors suggest that the “fundamentalist urges” of animal rights activists, as well as their “political naïveté,” make for awkward alliances or even offensive behavior with regard to other social justice groups. Finally, they discern that “links between animal rights and other protest movements remain at the theoretical level, developed by the philosophers, journalists, and politically sophisticated in the various movements” but “not adopted by many rank-and-file” (1992, 53). Like Jasper and Nelkin, I detected single-minded attitudes through the course of my interviews and participant observations. Yet I also observed that a good number of women animal activists see social issues such as gender, race, and class as integral to their broader vision of human and animal liberation. Consequently, tension and controversy exist within the animal rights movement over issues such as gender, as we have seen. I now focus on the question of how the animal rights cause integrates or ignores other social inequalities.

“I Don’t Believe in a Hierarchy of Issues”: Working on Multiple Causes Most of the women could easily identify common ground or links between animal rights and other social problems. Cassandra named the connections in this manner: “All issues of war, violence, and peace are connected to social justice. . . . When there’s bad treatment or what we call inhumane treatment, it’s because you’ve objectified something—made it into a thing that you can rationalize as not being significant.” She offered an example of how these rationalizations cut across both human and animal rights: “That’s how we sustain racism—we make ‘those’ people substantially different from us. And because they’re substantially different, they don’t deserve the same treatment. That’s how we handle the war in Iraq. Those babies are not as precious as our babies. Those grandmothers are not as

130

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

precious as our grandmothers. It’s the same thing with ‘it’s just a dog.’ People will say, ‘Why are you getting so upset about that? Yeah, it’s sad, but it’s just a dog.’ I believe they are creatures with a soul just like my soul and not any more or less valuable.” Although Zoey participated in a number of animal rights activities on a frequent basis, she “never just focused on animal rights” and she doesn’t “really feel like I have to choose. I think it’s all one issue anyway. I don’t believe in a hierarchy of issues.” She called herself “an animal activist, environmentalist, peace activist, women’s rights, nuclear issues. I do it all.” At times, Zoey’s interest and involvement in a broad range of social issues put her at odds with others in the animal rights movement: I have a friend who respects animals and used to be vegan. Now he eats roadkill. I have mixed feelings about it, but he’s doing something with it and being resourceful. But I guess what I don’t like about some animal rights folks and the reason I don’t want to just be involved in animal rights work is that they get so caught up in it that it’s like they’re blinded to anything else going on. Like any kind of parallels, you know. Like they know all the answers to questions that people bring up and it’s like tunnel vision. And I hate to compare this, because I love animal rights activists, but like—bornagain Christians. They have a set list of answers, like a script for any question you might ask. Like, what about roadkill? Oh, okay—see page three! Whereas I always want to see it in context.

Marianna had heard both animal rights proponents and other social movement activists prioritize their issue over other causes—a hierarchy she profoundly disagreed with. She recalled arguments with fellow animal activists who told her that “animals come first.” Marianna reasoned: “Any movement is a movement because someone’s being oppressed, right? It has to be together—not separated as in we’ll do this now, and this one later. I think that we have to do it at the same time.” While Marianna’s personal call was helping animals, she adamantly stated: “I don’t think we have a right to say that other movements are not as valid.” Anika drew a generational distinction between people in the animal rights movement in this regard. She thought that younger activists were

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

131

more likely to make connections among social causes. “They have probably been exposed to more media on war and violence,” Anika surmised. “I just don’t see some of the older activists paying attention to other causes.” Anika was happy to report the presence of young animal rights activists at a 2003 antiglobalization protest she attended in Miami, Florida. Such cross-movement alliances are growing in number, particularly nourished under the umbrella of global justice. The following account describes a blend of feminist, ecological, and animal liberation issues at antiglobalization protests: “In Seattle in 1999, people around the world saw ‘the teamsters and the turtles’—unionists, animal advocates, and environmentalists—marching and chanting side-by-side to stop a meeting of the World Trade Organization. In Quebec City in 2001, I turned around to see a herd of ‘cattle’ (activists dressed in cow costumes to represent animal concerns) walking alongside a cluster of radical feminist affinity groups. It was a colorful scene of mutual action” (homefries 2006, 392).7 Erin wished for more of these cross-movement alliances. She perceived a generational gap between activists who focused solely on animals and those with the “understanding that everything is interrelated.” Erin, who identified as an ecofeminist, sometimes felt shocked that other activists didn’t understand the connections between environmental issues, women’s issues, and animal issues. Yet she also acknowledged coming from an academic setting, “where I sat in a class, read a book, got tested on the book, and wrote papers and got to really understand ecofeminism. Some of these people [animal rights activists] have been around a long time. And ecofeminism is pretty new.” Erin added: “I was an environmental studies major who was an animal rights activist and I’m a woman. I was set to get this.” Erin recognized that some others in the movement might not be “as well equipped” to work within a broader framework of social justice. She reflected on how to talk about feminism with activists who were unaware or even hostile to such issues; it was important to avoid “attacking” them, because it would lead only to defensiveness. “We are a family,” she explained. “We are all so precious. Every single person that has self-reflected enough to go vegan and come into the movement and get active is so necessary.” There needed to be a balance in the movement between pointing out wrongs like inattention to gender or race and “loving each other for at least recognizing that we all came to a realization about animals.”

132

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Amie wished that animal rights groups would be more open to feminist ideas because she thought animal rights activists could garner support from feminists “if they approached them in a different way. If we said, hey, we’re interested in your issues, then maybe people who are feminists who are not necessarily vegetarians would realize that they’re all connected.” She also acknowledged the difficulty of this task, noting that “just because people are animal rights activists, it doesn’t mean they know anything about feminism.” Amie recommended an approach to the women’s movement that would begin by indicating interest and support for feminist issues. Feminists for Animal Rights (FAR), for example, reached out to women’s organizations through the issue of domestic abuse. One of FAR’s projects was the Companion Animal Rescue Effort program (CARE), which established a nationwide network of individuals and agencies that provide resources to women and companion animals experiencing domestic abuse (FAR Web site).8 Marti Kheel cofounded FAR in 1982, after “a series of events where I had just become increasingly aware of the sexism in the animal rights movement.” She also saw a need for animal rights to reach out to the feminist movement. I remember a few things, such as a man who was doing a garage sale. He was looking for people to donate different things and he was giving us samples of things you could donate. You could donate kitchen appliances, Hustler magazines—and I was like, wait a minute! I tried to explain to him that I did not think that was the best way to help animals. It was the same old thing: you don’t care about the animals; the animals come first. So I was just realizing that that was a real problem in the movement. Just going to demonstrations where I’d seen women do all the legwork and the media would come in and interview somebody and who should step up to the microphone but a man, and they would get all the credit. I just became aware that there really was this need to make connections between feminism and the animal rights people. I wanted to have an organization where women could be addressing those concerns.

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

133

Other women echoed the charge that the animal rights movement was at least partly responsible for the scarcity of coalitions with other social justice groups. Many animal rights people are interested in a variety of social justice causes, said Carol, but “the animal rights movement doesn’t show them the integrated point of view. There is a lot of this mindset that says people can fend for themselves; animals can’t—I must devote all my time to the animals and do anything that works, regardless of ethics.” This was indeed the case for some of the activists I interviewed.

“They Don’t Have Any Voice At All”: Prioritizing Animals The overwhelming majority of women in this study acknowledged that women continue to face barriers to equality in society—sexual and physical violence, objectification, threats to reproductive freedom, gendered family roles, unequal work opportunities, and so forth. Despite this recognition, however, some activists felt that animals “suffered the worst” and therefore should be prioritized over any human concern. This was a common reason for supporting the PETA advertisements, but it also made its way into discussions about issues of gender and racial equality. Lola drew comparisons between the animal rights movement and the struggles of women and people of color, but she also distinguished animal rights from other social movements because “unlike any other movement there has ever been, they [animals] can’t help themselves as much.” Humans, Lola felt, could at least speak up and battle for themselves, whereas she characterized animals as “innocent, defenseless, helpless.” Specifically, “They can’t write a letter to their congressman. They can’t open a door to get out of a terrible situation. They can’t call on the telephone for help.” Lola was angry that other social movements seemed to ignore animal issues or relegate them to the back burner. She was particularly appalled that the women’s movement was not more supportive of animal rights, given the connections between society’s treatment of women and of animals. She noted that Feminists for Animal Rights had made efforts to make women more aware of animal suffering, “but it hasn’t really worked. Women are not seeing that. They’re not including animal rights into whatever rights they want.” This was one of the reasons Lola “didn’t really have

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

134

much sympathy for their [feminists’] criticism of ads of women who want to show some kind of message.” In her view, “women have pretty much all of their rights now. All they need now is maybe a little more respect, but they certainly have full rights. In fact, women get a lot of perks that men probably can’t. So I don’t think the women need to worry about themselves so much.” The idea that women should relegate concerns about their own status in society to the back burner for the sake of the animals was a popular narrative in the animal rights movement. A related code of conduct emphasized the importance of “solidarity” within the movement; critiques of individuals or organizations were labeled “in-fighting” and were frowned upon. One incident that I heard about multiple times while attending the 2003 Animal Rights Conference involved a contentious debate over a remark made by a prominent male activist at the previous year’s conference. One of the plenary sessions at the 2002 conference included two women speakers who were models and celebrities. A male activist who was also featured on the plenary panel gestured toward the attractive young women and said: “If this is the new shape of the animal rights movement, I think we’re in pretty good shape.” Some conference attendees (male and female) were offended by the remark and chose a representative to approach the stage and address it. A conference organizer then told the “main agitators” (the people who were most outspoken in their criticism of the remark) that they would not be welcome at next year’s conference. Later, another activist mediated the dispute, the ban was lifted, and the conference organizers offered an apology. Regarding this incident, Karen asserted: “I thought the jokes and humor being used were very stale and that we need to move past those types of jokes.” She “wasn’t as totally offended by it as some people were,” although she would have “preferred if he didn’t talk that way and then not really apologize for it and just blow it off, which compounded the problem.” While she wasn’t terribly upset by the remark itself, Karen was perturbed at the notion of people being punished for expressing their opinions about it. She wanted space in the movement for dialogue over such disagreements: “I think it was one of those issues that helped to focus attention on the fact that there can be a problem in the movement—that if

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

135

we are truly talking about ending speciesism, which is analogous to sexism, and degrading or potentially degrading comments about anybody, that we can’t just let that slide by—that we need to address it. At least talk about it, let it be an issue.” Bonnie, who also attended the conference and witnessed the incident, did not agree that gendered jokes were an issue the movement had the time or luxury to address. She was visibly irritated by what she called the “seething element on the sidelines”—people who continually raised gender or race issues within the movement. She was particularly perturbed by the “shape of the movement” controversy at the conference. She offered her view of the situation: “So most of the people here are women, but the speakers are always men—you know, [they’re] always kind of complaining about that. Whatever. And then you’ve got the—I don’t mean to be unkind, but last year it sort of culminated. I saw firsthand the angry lesbian contingent who were just outright hostile.” In Bonnie’s mind, the complainers were feminists, whom she further identified as lesbians. After the controversial plenary session had concluded, Bonnie observed a debate between some of the women who were posing for the PETA advertisements and a group of “older-like feminists.” She explained, “The women who posed for PETA—hey, for them, that’s their contribution. The feminists were just angry and directing it at them, because of some comment about the shape of the movement. They were sort of piggybacking onto that, saying, ‘You’re not the shape of the movement—we’re the shape of the movement!’ I walked away from that mostly disappointed and sad at all this brouhaha. All this energy! What about the animals?” From a theoretical standpoint, Bonnie agreed that the animal rights movement should support other social justice groups. She believed that oppression connected “pretty much every single group you could possibly imagine—human rights, women’s rights, abuse issues . . .” Yet when it came to putting this theory into action, she worried that the movement “would get so bogged down in all this other stuff that we lose sight of where we are.” Certain coalitions made more sense to her than others, such as the “obvious connections” between animal rights and environmental and peace groups. She said, “There is too much at stake for us not to be able

136

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

to pull this together.” The best way to pull it together, in Bonnie’s opinion, was to “embrace diversity” in the movement, but not allow it to change the focus of the animal rights movement: However, what I’m seeing now in the grassroots groups who are coming together to organize a conference, . . . it’s almost falling apart sometimes because of these other elements trying to—you know, gay rights, and the women, la la la. It’s like, yeah, no one’s saying that you’re not welcome and your view or whatever you bring—but you have a voice, a lot more than the animals do, by the way. I haven’t seen any factory farms for gays lately. . . . I do agree that diversity has always been a challenge for this movement—you know, like where are the people of color? It’s tough to find a solution and strike a balance between—yes, diversifying our movement, embracing the diversity, honoring the diversity of the people in the movement, without letting them hijack our agenda for the animals. The problem I have is that before you know it, we’re sitting in a room arguing about who doesn’t have a voice, and discrimination and racism and all this other stuff, and what about the animals? What about the animals?

Bonnie was firmly focused on the desperate situation of animals to the detriment (or outright dismissal) of other social injustices. Her comment, “I haven’t seen any factory farms for gays lately,” reveals a lack of knowledge about historical and contemporary violence and discrimination facing the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community, similar to Lola’s remarks about women, “who pretty much have all their rights now.” Bonnie wanted to see more diversity in the movement, but she feared that such diversity would lead to a “hijacking” of the agenda for animal rights. In other words, she would welcome a token kind of diversity—more people of color, for instance—but not the uncomfortable issues (such as white privilege) this might bring to the movement. The basic message of such activists is this: Certain humans (women, people of color, gays) have had their struggles, but things are much better now. Animals, in contrast, are still denied basic rights. They are the most deserving of our attention, and humans complain too much about their own problems.

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

137

My research suggests that some activists in the animal rights movement lack a basic understanding regarding the history and contemporary reality of social injustices. For example, at the 2003 Animal Rights Conference, I attended a panel session entitled “Engaging Women and Ethnic Minorities.” The focus was on strategies for connecting in meaningful ways with different communities and constituencies. One panelist discussed the importance of not using tactics to advance animal rights that appear sexist to other movements. Another panelist asked the audience to consider why there was only one panel focused on race, ethnicity, and gender within a five-day conference, and why more people of color weren’t invited. Another brought up the issue of class, and the cost of attending such conferences. After the presentations, a hand shot up in the audience. This conference participant announced that his international animal rights group was very ethnically diverse, and thus the charge that the animal rights movement was not particularly welcoming of people of color was wrong. He stated: “I’m not running a recruitment table. If someone wants to join, they are more than welcome. We don’t discriminate against anybody. Anybody can join.” He also dismissed the idea of an economic divide in terms of conference attendance fees, stating that “some people pay more for rock concert tickets.” After the panel ended, I gathered with a group of activists to continue the discussion. One woman who attended the panel told us that she cared only about animals. “I do not like humans,” she asserted. “The purpose of my life is to save animals.” She explained that she had been a vegan for only fifteen years and that she needed to spend the rest of her life “making up for the years that I harmed animals.” She announced once again: “I care about animals and the planet. I don’t like humans, myself included. I just don’t really care about women’s issues. If someone calls me a cunt, I don’t care. I am not hurt by that. I was a bartender for too many years to care.” She concluded: “All this attention to sexism or racism in the animal rights movement is human triviality and it detracts from the animals.” Although I didn’t have the opportunity to conduct an interview with this woman, I did run into another audience member from the panel at a later session, Jacqueline, and asked if I could interview her. We sat down to talk the next day, but before I had the chance to ask her opinion regarding

138

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

the session, she brought up the topic herself within the context of another question. Jacqueline had given a great deal of thought to what occurred the previous day: I went to a panel yesterday about engaging women and ethnic minorities, and people started talking about how the leadership tends to be more male. I thought, hmmm, okay. I hadn’t really thought about that—but yeah. And then being a black woman, I became—I don’t think I really felt like I was the only black person here until yesterday in that meeting, until one particular man started talking. He made some comment about I don’t really care about the people, or any people’s issues, I care about the animals. And so if you want to deal with issues around race, then you go to civil rights. You want to deal with issues around sexism, you go to a women’s rights group. You don’t bring that here. This is about the animals. I sat there and was just mortified. And again, I never felt like I was the only one until that moment.

Jacqueline felt most aware of her identity as the only black woman at the conference as the result of a fellow activist’s contention that issues and identities of race and gender had no place in the animal rights movement. Despite this, she was generous in her critique: “I have no doubt he is passionate about animals.” However, “the people out there—and they’re not all white men—that he’s trying to influence, he’s not going to reach them if he’s not willing to engage them.” Jacqueline was not unsympathetic to the idea that animals were oppressed more than other beings in society: “As oppressed as people are, at least they have a voice somewhere that is representing them to some extent. Animals are property. At least right now, people aren’t property anymore.” Even given the magnitude of animal abuse in society, it was not “trivial” to Jacqueline to focus on human concerns such as racism or sexism: “The thing is—and this is what makes me want to get up and leave when I hear those comments—still, in the end, whose behavior do you have to change? People’s behavior. So you’re going to have to deal with the interpersonal relationships between people in order to make a difference for the animals.”

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

139

The tendency for animal rights to ignore such issues was one reason, Jacqueline suspected, that more people of color were not involved in the movement—“because we’re not necessarily willing to say or talk about the link between all the different types of oppressions, . . . between the oppression of animals, women, people of color, economic oppression, and so on.” She outlined a different vision for the animal right movement: “If we were willing to speak to that, and we were willing to recognize that link, especially in our own lives—deal with our own sexism and racism— then the people who are leaders in those other movements would be like, these animal rights people are actually our partners in eliminating oppression.” Jacqueline suggested that recognizing the links between liberation movements for the rights of women, people of color, and animals would create a positive space for coalitions between these groups. Rather than simply agreeing that “all oppressions are related,” animal rights groups need to “speak to” these links, preferably in both their campaigns and stated goals. A further step in this coalition-building process would be confronting “our own sexism and racism,” rather than labeling these unimportant in the fight for animals. These changes would signify a more trustworthy and authentic approach to women and people of color. Another activist suggested that building solidarity with people of color would require animal rights groups “to go to people and say, not this is what you can do for us, but also, what can we do for you?” Several of the white women in this study recognized how the economic effects of racism might discourage some people of color from getting involved in animal rights. “It could be that when you have a full belly, it’s easier to think about other things. Like if people of minority status have their own fight to fight every single day, then they might not have the energy or resources to fight for anything else,” Abby suggested. Anika echoed this theme: “I generally believe that whites have less survivaloriented issues facing us on a day-to-day basis, and as result we can focus on the survival of another species.” Amie readily acknowledged that the movement was mostly middle class and racially homogenous, adding: “If you don’t have to worry about buying food or paying your bills, then you have time to focus on other issues.” Even though Amie saw animal rights

140

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

and human rights as inextricably linked, she said, “if I was struggling each day to feed or house myself, I’d likely be focusing on that before the health and well-being of other species.” Another factor she mentioned was the problem of vegetarian outreach in some communities: “If you go to a grocery store in the African American part of this city, you’re not going to find much that is vegetarian. Cheapest foods are all like hotdogs, and if someone doesn’t have a car they can drive to go buy stuff, or they can’t afford organic things, how are you going to tell them you should be buying this and that when they can’t pay for it? I haven’t really seen anyone trying to act on this knowledge.” White activists struggled to identify ways of integrating racial justice into the animal rights agenda; they were often embarrassed by the lack of diversity in the movement but unsure how to change it. Animal liberation activist pattrice jones has worked to educate the movement in this regard, writing: “All animal liberationists must, at minimum, avoid contributing to the ongoing oppression and exploitation of women and other persecuted groups. At best, animal liberation activists will forge alliances with social justice activists and sometimes structure their actions so as to illustrate one of the many connections among speciesism and sexism, racism, militarism, and economic exploitation” (2004, 150). The recent anthology edited by A. Breeze Harper, Sistah Vegan: Black Female Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health, and Society, contains a variety of reflections on the intersection of animal rights and antiracist work, including concrete examples of how to authentically build coalitions among social justice campaigns and organizations. Sistah Vegan demonstrates the growing number of people of color interested in the intersection of antiracism work with environmentalism and animal liberation. Although poor people and people of color encounter barriers with regard to veganism or eco-sustainability, Harper suggests, “it has been the tone and delivery of the message—via the white, class-privileged perspective—that has been offensive to a majority of people of color and working-class people in America” (2010, 20). Indeed, a few of the white women activists denied that there was “any racism in the animal movement” or, as noted previously, didn’t want to talk about issues of race at all because “this movement is about the animals.”

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

141

It was not surprising to hear Kira, an Asian American woman, critique the way the animal rights movement dealt with issues of diversity. “I don’t like the superficial conversations about diversification for the purpose of looking more diversified,” she said. “Many times it’s not because you value a different point of view, it’s because, oh, we can use this person to reach out to this community—and that is very, very different from valuing a point of view. Even the people with the best of intentions don’t realize that they’re doing it.” After many years of working within the animal rights movement, Kira declared: “I have so many issues with the movement as far as sexism, classism, heterosexism, racism, and tokenism.” Compared to other social justice movements, she viewed animal rights as “behind the times.” She observed more openness to diversity and understanding about social issues among her generation, which she defined as between the ages of seventeen and thirty, and more specifically, “that whole range of people who are young radicals, who are at the WTO [World Trade Organization protests] and stuff.” She thought the antiglobalization movement, for instance, worked on diversity issues with greater success. Kira discussed some avenues where animal rights could engage with issues of concern to poor people and people of color, for instance, “women of color and immigrants are mostly the people working in the slaughterhouses—they are brought in and then oppressed by the corporation.” As Kira saw it, part of the problem with animal rights was that the nature of the work (speaking on behalf of other beings) tended to attract more-privileged people: “You’re not fighting for yourself, so of course the most privileged facets are going to be doing that work. People who don’t have a more immediate human problem.” The idea held by some in the animal movement that animal suffering was more important than human suffering was “completely ignorant,” in Kira’s view. This kind of attitude “just reflects who created the movement. Not that I’m giving any kind of disservice to Peter Singer or Henry Spira or Cleveland [Amory] or any of the other great leaders, but—white men. It was mostly created and led by white men.” She continued: “I don’t want to be trying to get people who face oppression and have other issues, which to them are important and more pressing, . . . I don’t feel it is my right to say to any person of color, no, you should be prioritizing animal

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

142

rights.” Her concern over such attitudes among animal rights activists made her cautious about encouraging other people of color to join the movement: “I have very, very mixed feelings about bringing people of color into specifically animal rights, because it is such a privileged movement. . . . I don’t want to bring in a few people of color here and there and have them have to deal with these issues—the anger and frustration that I have to deal with. I would feel bad if I were to bring in people of color who care about animals but who aren’t necessarily familiar with the movement. I’d feel like I was just feeding them to the fire.”9 Similarly, Marti pointed to the “disconnect” between the feminist and the animal rights movements that created caution on the part of some women who were sympathetic to the animal rights cause, using a friend as her example.

MARTI:

I have a feminist friend now who wants to have me over for dinner

because she’s somebody who is a strong feminist and interested in animal rights but has not been actively involved in any organizational work. She wants to pretty much interview me to find out if it’s safe for her to come into the movement, or is the level of awareness about feminism so abysmal that it’s just going to be intolerable for her. EG:

And what will you tell her?

MARTI:

Enter at your own risk! [laughing] We would love to have you, but

it is an uphill struggle.

Competing Frameworks in the Movement Bonnie’s repeated plea, “What about the animals?” represents the focused standpoint of some women’s animal rights work. Whatever is deemed to be in the best interest of the animals prevails. If they struggle with a moral dilemma or choice, this is the rule they rely upon. This attitude causes a stir among activists who actively support or work on other social justice issues and do not believe in a hierarchy of issues; they work from a philosophy that sees human, environmental, and animal liberation as the same goal. They are concerned that animal rights is being elevated to a plane that disallows the questioning of tactics or individual behavior, as long as the action or person is purported to be helping the animals. Some denounce people who raise issues of race, class, or gender within the animal rights

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

143

movement as being selfishly concerned with human needs and causing divisiveness among animal activists and organizations. It is possible that some women activists are cautious about criticizing the PETA campaign for this very reason. Gary Francione, for instance, has suggested that there has been little criticism regarding sexism on the part of national organizations “in part because any criticism is usually met with a response that the critic is disloyal or is not acting with the best interests of the animals in mind” (1996, 76). PETA’s sexual advertising campaigns raise serious questions involving the politics of gender in the animal rights movement. Those who disagreed with PETA’s sexualized campaigns believed them to be ineffective, sexist, inconsistent, hostile to women activists, and alienating to the public. Those who supported the campaigns thought they were a successful way to catch the public eye and bring awareness to animal issues. These activists did not perceive women as being oppressed or demeaned in the ads, because the adult models had the choice (some called it “the right”) to do this for the animals. In many ways, those who expressed conflicted feelings about the advertisements represent the pressure that women activists faced. Women said that the horrifying and pervasive nature of animal suffering often felt overwhelming. They felt the impact of traumatic knowledge, and it had the power to affect their ethical boundaries and tactical approaches. Anika, for instance, felt so “desperate” about the plight of animals that she was willing to support tactics (such as PETA ads) that she hated. PETA appears to capitalize on both the desperation of activists and their willingness to suffer for the cause (Luke 2007). The identification some women feel with animals’ abuse or powerlessness is co-opted in certain PETA ads and street theater pieces, where women activists “demonstrate” the vulnerability or objectification of animals by placing themselves in similar positions of disempowerment. Luke’s critique of these campaigns notes: “Men remain firmly in place as viewers of these spectacles. Though the primary perpetrators and beneficiaries of animal abuse, men are not through these media invited or challenged to renounce animal exploitation. In addition to its main pleasures, steaks, hunting trips, research opportunities, and the like, animal exploitation now affords men the further gratification of watching vegetarian women stripping and donning

144

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

shackles ‘for the animals’” (2007, 219). The PETA campaigns are but one example of how ideological pressures within the animal rights movement support a framework in which the perceived needs of the animals triumph over women’s vested interest in gender equality. The subordination of women’s concerns is certainly not unique to the animal rights movement. Research on other social movements has revealed how issues of gender discrimination and equality can take a backseat to causes deemed more important by some in the movement. Hierarchies of need have been extolled in various revolutionary struggles, and in civil rights, labor, and antiwar movements. Cuban women who participated in the socialist revolt were told that their specific concerns would be addressed only after the revolution; after waiting, they still found little improvement in the patriarchal structures. Latin American women in countries such as El Salvador and Nicaragua faced similar struggles to place women’s concerns (such as discrimination, violence, and lack of political representation) within the class-based revolutionary framework (Stephen 1997). In the United States, feminist scholars have noted the marginalization of women within the civil rights, New Left, antiwar, and environmental movements (see Evans 1980; hooks 1981; Kuumba 2001). Noel Sturgeon (1997) suggests that the ecofeminist movement in the United States emerged partly as a rebellion within male-dominated radical environmentalism. Greta Gaard’s (1998) work on ecofeminist participation in the U.S. green movement chronicles the struggles of ecofeminists to transform sexist behaviors and masculine styles of leadership, organizing, and communication within the movement. Sara Evans describes how women activists involved in Students for a Democratic Society and related antiwar organizations were considered self-indulgent when they discussed the secondary position of women in society. Women felt they were largely auxiliaries to the central issue of the movement—the draft. “Men were drafted, women were not. Men could resist the draft; they burned draft cards; they risked jail. And women’s role was to support them. ‘Girls Say Yes to Guys Who Say No!’ was a widespread slogan of the movement.” Some in the movement (including other women) labeled as divisive complaints of sexism within the movement, or requests for a broader agenda that included women’s rights. The problem of gender

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

145

inequality was not as legitimate or important as the “larger war” they were fighting. Thus, the issue of women’s liberation largely took a backseat to the cause deemed more crucial—the Vietnam War or civil rights (Evans 1980, 179). A similar thread runs through the animal rights movement, where some activists argue that “human-based” concerns, such as race or gender, have no place. The suffering and abuse of animals is of singular importance, and animals (unlike humans) have no voice or political power in society, thereby making their oppression the most pressing and deserving of causes. However, there is also considerable resistance to such an idea within the movement. A few of the younger activists detected a generational gap between younger people in the movement, who seemed more in tune with other social issues like race and gender, and older activists, who, as Erin put it, had “been around a long time” but had not been exposed to ideas such as ecofeminism. I found some support for this theory within my sample of women activists, as younger women were more likely to embrace an intersectional framework of animal and human liberation. Another mitigating factor seemed to be prior involvement in social movements besides animal rights. For instance, the older women who talked about the importance of interconnections were all seasoned activists. Nine of the women in this study had been involved in other social movements before becoming animal activists, as noted earlier. They were most likely to have specific ideas about and experiences with coalition building with other activist groups. One commonly discussed coalition involved feminism and animal liberation. An important aspect of building bridges with feminist groups was to demonstrate solidarity with issues of concern to them, in both personal interactions and movement goals. This same approach was suggested with regard to reaching out to communities of color. As Jacqueline pointed out, the participants of other social movements would probably be more inclined to join forces if animal rights activists demonstrated both a personal acknowledgment of race and class power imbalances in society, and a commitment to goals of human equality as well as to those of animal equality. These discussions about coalition building offer a vastly different view of animal rights activists than others have portrayed. Jasper and

146

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Nelkin (1992), as noted earlier, described the animal rights movement as “single-minded” and politically naïve. These attitudes certainly do exist among animal activists—yet I also observed them being challenged by other individuals within the movement. In fact, it appears there are two competing frameworks in animal rights. The first views the oppression of animals as the worst and most widespread atrocity. In this view, debates about race, class, and gender are unnecessarily divisive and interfere with the work that needs doing. The second framework suggests that animal inequalities are related to human inequalities, and integrated action is needed to dismantle both. Most of the women in this study struggled with these competing frameworks. As we have seen, a significant number of women personally identified with the unequal status of animals in society, and some were drawn to the movement because of these similarities. Yet their passion about the cause of animals and the seemingly endless array of work to be done on their behalf were also driving forces. The pressure to prioritize animals over other social causes or even their own needs certainly came from inside the movement culture, but it was likely influenced by larger cultural forces that suggest that women should prioritize the needs of others over their own (see Aronson 1992; Cancian and Oliker 2000; Devault 1991). Women are often pushed into caregiving roles very early. As cultural standards for these roles are nearly impossible to achieve, women may feel guilt when they depart from the caregiver role to advocate for themselves. There were also many fears associated with coalition building and intersectional organizing—foremost, that the focus on animal rights would be lost in the midst of a dozen other causes. The already overwhelming nature of animal activism may be compounded by the thought of taking on even more issues. As one activist asked me: “Does everyone have to work on everything?” Yet when I heard the stories of women activists who were indeed doing it all, I did not sense any loss of clarity or shift in focus on their part. Rather, I observed women who defined themselves as animal activists (some primarily so), but who also identified with other social categories, supported other causes, and actively networked among these groups. I also heard such activists express dismay and even embarrassment at the way that some within the animal rights movement dealt with issues like gender and race. These activists, though seriously

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

147

dedicated to the cause, felt the need to give fair warning of the climate before encouraging others to join the movement. Acknowledgment, dialogue, and coalition building on these issues would create an important paradigm shift in the animal liberation movement, one that is essential to establishing integrity and credibility with other groups working for social change. Such efforts lay the groundwork for promising results—the broadening of a movement base and greater success in the pursuit of freedom for animals and humans.

7

VVVVVVVVVV Connections, Contexts, and Conclusions I think oppression is oppression, and although I am more active in animal rights, all forms of oppression—racism, sexism—are connected in some sense. Until all are free, none of us are. —Katie

My interest in the animal rights movement as a subject of study was stirred by the impressive number of women involved in the movement. I wondered what that connection had to say about larger social relationships, inequities, empathy, and political choice. I can only begin to answer the question of what distinguishes women animal activists from others in society or what made them connect to animals in such a political way. Most of the activists professed an early fondness for animals, but as I have argued, this characteristic alone cannot explain the choice these women made to embark on such a serious and transformative journey to animal activism. Further investigation into the motives of the activists revealed experiences that heightened their sensitivity to animal suffering and raised their level of consciousness. Some were raised in families that taught care and respect for animals. Others reacted in defiance to the abuse of animals at the hands of family or community members. Five women made connections between the abuse of animals and their own experiences of sexual or physical violence, while others related to animals’ lack of voice and power in society. Some women discovered animal rights through their involvement in other social causes. A few were influenced by friends, colleagues, or books. Others received a “moral shock” that shook the foundation of their lives, yet even women who experienced epiphanies did not become activists 148

CONNECTIONS, CONTEXTS, AND CONCLUSIONS

149

overnight. I found, almost without exception, that women set out to investigate the emotions or experiences that had awakened their senses to the plight of animals. Their willingness to learn about animal suffering played a large part in their road to activism. An obvious distinction between these women and the general public is their choice and commitment to act on their experiences and knowledge, in both deeply personal and political ways. This leads to a crucial question I have explored in this book: What is the relationship between gender and animal rights activism?

Political Animals: Women as Social Movement Actors Most women made sense of their majority status in the animal rights movement through cultural accounts of sex and gender. Gendered social learning, societal expectations, biological natures, and empathy based on shared inequities were the accounts the women most prominently used. Women are often socialized to be nurturers and caretakers of others. Following this, they are more likely to define themselves and make choices on the basis of relationships to others. This combination of social learning and societal expectations suggests that women may feel more comfortable expressing care for and acting on behalf of the vulnerable than do men. Many of the women in this study also experienced empathy toward animals based on what they perceived to be common roots or methods of oppression. They saw symbolic connections between the status of women and animals in society, but also identified personal experiences they considered to be similar to those of animals, including violence, disempowerment, lack of voice, and treatment as objects. The comparisons they made suggest the importance of empathy as a motivation toward activism and social change. Biological explanations of women as natural nurturers also appeared. Some believed that women had instinctual responses to the exploitation or suffering of animals. I suggest that these “instincts” can be attributed to empathetic reactions rather than biological ones. People who have experienced systematic oppression, such as inequality, powerlessness, or violence may instinctively recall these experiences when observing the suffering of animals.

150

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Clearly not all women are supporters of animal rights. Many men and women play a part in supporting industries that cause harm to animals. Others make a choice to challenge these systems. Biological assumptions appear on the surface to compliment women as more life affirming or caring. But women animal activists are driven by ethical views and political goals, not biology. They make unpopular and sometimes risky decisions to defy conventional society’s treatment of animals. Biological essentialism also drives sexist rhetoric about overly emotional women advocating for animals; as Luke reminds us: “Women’s rage (labeled ‘sentiment,’ ‘hysteria,’ etc.) is divested of political significance by interpreting female reaction against the established order not as a moral challenge to that order but as a biosexual phenomenon to be ignored or subdued” (2007, 211). This informs a central argument I have made in this book: when women make the choice to denounce violence, domination, and speciesism, they should be considered, in the words of bell hooks, “political thinkers making political choices” (1989, 95). A commonly held belief about animal rights activists is that their political choices are fanatic, unyielding, and rigidly self-denying. Contrary to notions that animal rights activists live strictly defined lives that border on “asceticism” (see Jamison, Wenk, and Parker 2000), I found that women experienced both the pain and the joy of their transformation toward animal activism. The emotional toll that activism took on their personal relationships, careers, and well-being was enormous. They struggled as friendships ended and family relations grew tense. They even suffered harassment and abuse as a result of their efforts. Despite these costs, the women were just as likely to extol the virtues and pleasure gained from their participation in the cause of animal liberation. Some gained confidence in their abilities as political actors to affect social change. They valued the personal aspects of animal activism. Instead of seeing veganism as a difficult restriction or self-denial, they generally viewed it as a healthy opportunity to create a more satisfying moral framework for their life. They felt better about themselves because they were more aware, educated, and active on social issues. In fact, some women in this study used the animal rights movement as a way of exploring their own personal and political battles with oppression. Adams has called attention to this dynamic, noting that survivors of

CONNECTIONS, CONTEXTS, AND CONCLUSIONS

151

sexual and physical violence may be particularly affected by a movement that valorizes self-sacrifice and thwarts discussion of gender or racial oppression. Women might choose to disregard their own victimization, as it is more acceptable to fight on behalf of others. This is quite likely if the source of one’s victimization goes unacknowledged within the activist culture. The singular focus within the movement culture (it’s all about the animals) tends to “reinforce women’s sacrificial way of saving others. . . . We put our oppression aside to address someone else’s.” Adams concludes: “The challenge for women is to define our own boundaries, so we are simultaneously saying ‘I will care for myself’ as we care about and respond to the suffering of others” (1996, 187). Marianna’s story of rescuing an abused animal on the streets of Los Angeles represents a cautionary tale of this kind. She risked her personal safety to rescue a dog in need. As a survivor of rape, she connected with the dog’s position of vulnerability and fear. It is possible to interpret this story in multiple ways. It could be an admirable tale of courage and compassion, about a person who drew no distinction between her own pain and that of another being. However, it is disconcerting to think of a young woman already hurt by an abusive experience overriding her need for safety in the name of animal activism. If such actions emerge out of self-sacrifice (as has been the case with women all too often throughout history), it’s troubling as well. Yet if women like Marianna or Cassandra, a survivor of child sexual abuse, were able to use their animal activism as a way to heal, it is also possible to see this kind of action as empowering.1 They worked for the animals, but at the same time, they worked for their own liberation. Women’s connections to animals were not mere personal attachments. They may have loved or cared for individual animals in their work, but their ethic of care extended far beyond that. They cared about the lives of all animals, whether they knew them personally or not. This ethic of care has radical political implications that challenge powerful interests and institutions, reaching into the pockets of industries that prosper off the bodies of animals. While I have argued that it falls well within accepted gender roles for women to care about the suffering of animals, the ways in which these animal activists act on their ethics are decidedly unacceptable in society. Women’s fondness for individual animals and more moderate attempts to protect them may be seen as relatively safe political activity.

152

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Yet the kind of sweeping revolutionary change that these activists call for goes well beyond the political relevance and moral power generally afforded women in this society. They challenge the type of political ideology and action deemed appropriate for women.

Challenging Sexism within Animal Rights Gender is far more than a demographic characteristic of social movement activists. Just as social movements can influence ideas about gender in society, so too can societal ideas about gender shape social movements. Although this movement is focused on animals, its activists are influenced by gendered expectations and experiences. Activists operate within a sexist society, and their tactical choices and goals either accept or contest those constraints. Many of the women were angry about gendered hierarchies within the movement. Men dominated leadership roles and worked as media spokespersons, highly public positions that garnered respect and attention. It was well known that the rank-and-file membership of animal rights groups was largely women, yet men were in charge of a good number of these organizations. Women also observed that the everyday tasks of animal organizations—phone calls, leafleting, tabling, putting up posters, and doing direct care work for animals—largely fell to women. Some women mentioned that men had a tendency to demean “welfare concerns” such as companion animal issues (again, work largely done by women). The more extreme or radical actions, such as liberating animals, destroying property, or confronting people directly (such as harassing researchers or hunters), were held up as the highest pinnacle of what one could do for animals. It was not that women activists denounced extreme tactics—the majority actually supported illegal activity and direct action within certain contexts. Rather, they wanted all contributions to the movement to be honored and valued. Another gendered inequality that affected the activists was the association of women with emotion, typically viewed as a feminine trait and devalued as such. Women sometimes downplayed their empathetic connections to animals in attempts to legitimize the cause. A few of the women even actively encouraged men to take leadership and spokes-

CONNECTIONS, CONTEXTS, AND CONCLUSIONS

153

person roles. The women animal activists acknowledged that as women, they were vulnerable to stereotypes of being overly emotional and not understanding the facts. Even if they disagreed with the perception, they responded to its relevance. As Ricki stated: “It’s definitely still a man’s world.” It may be a man’s world, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the animal rights movement should support tactics that mirror it. “A postsexist environment is not something that animal liberationists need passively await, in the meantime deferring to present sexism in the manner of our presentation” (Luke 2007, 313). Opponents of animal rights who respond to women with sexist rhetoric should be challenged on these grounds, instead of capitulated to by downplaying empathy or the role of women altogether in recognition of the “realities” of sexism. Sexualized campaigns that use stereotypical images of women have been similarly defended, on the grounds that “sex sells” in a patriarchal society. Yet this same patriarchal society is implicated in the values and practices of animal exploitation. Luke’s cultural exploration of hunting and vivisection link such practices to rites of passage into manhood, leading him to argue that “to stop animal exploitation we must challenge manhood as it has been constructed under sexism” (229). The gender inequalities described in this book cannot be resolved unless the animal rights movement challenges the sexist devaluation of emotion and the sexual objectification of women that saturates our culture.

The Future of Animal Advocacy: A Single-Issue or Solidarity Movement? I have argued that two competing frameworks exist within the animal rights movement. The first names the oppression of animals as the most crucial social justice issue of our times. This framework focuses on animal liberation as its central, indeed its only, goal. Coalitions or support of those involved in other causes are welcomed if they contribute to the overall goal of animal rights. Expressing “human” concerns about gender, race, or class is considered divisive to the movement, and even selfish. Focusing on one’s own concern for liberation, voice, or equality is unacceptable when animals suffer the greatest oppression of all.

154

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

The second framework names the oppression of animals as part of a broad, intersecting web of inequality that encompasses gender, race, class, and environmental concerns. It suggests, for instance, that patriarchal and racist thought give rise to the same ideas that justify the devaluing of animals and the use of their bodies for instrumental means. This framework considers the participation of diverse groups of people within animal rights as an important aspect of the relational web. It also prioritizes campaigns and coalition building that reflect the common goals of other movements for social change. The direction of the animal liberation movement hinges, to a large extent, on which of these frameworks the movement culture adopts. In the afterword to Sistah Vegan, an anthology of writings by black vegan women, activist pattrice jones reflects: “All movements seem to start out with a relatively narrow focus, which then widens in response to the recognition of the interconnectedness of oppression. All movements struggle with the tendency for societal imbalances in power and privilege to reproduce themselves within groups. The relatively young animal-advocacy movement has only just begun to wrestle with the often agonizing conflicts that always arise when social change movements broaden their analyses while addressing internal power disparities. Neither as affluent nor all white as it is stereotyped to be, nor as diverse as it ought to be, the movement is in the midst of an active process of internal change” (2010, 188). This process of change jones refers to is evident in the new writings and dialogue emerging in books like Sistah Vegan, the Facebook group Feminism and Animal Rights, and Internet blogs such as Vegans of Color (whose tagline is “Because we don’t have the luxury of being single-issue”). Similarly, my data suggest that a good number of women animal activists believe it is important to connect animal rights to related social issues, though some remain unsure how to actualize this vision within their campaigns or the movement as a whole. A minority of women activists appears less interested in a broadened vision for the animal rights movement. These women acknowledged interconnections but determined that animals faced far greater odds than any oppressed class of humans. The animals’ perceived utter lack of voice and power in human society made them the worthiest cause of all. In many ways, PETA’s gendered and sexualized campaigns illustrate the pressure that women animal activists

CONNECTIONS, CONTEXTS, AND CONCLUSIONS

155

faced. Whether they were for or against the campaigns, all had thought about the issues a great deal and made multiple, well-reasoned arguments. The women in the middle felt caught between competing loyalties—they recognized the possible negative effects the ads could have on women, but they wondered whether the ads raised awareness and ultimately helped animals. Was it worth it to sacrifice some of the goals of women (who had at least some voice in society) to satisfy the goals of the animals (who had none)? An ecofeminist perspective says that feminism and animal rights can both win, that the struggles are inextricably linked. It argues that animals will never be free in a patriarchal society. Its most practical implication is this: hurting women to help animals is counterproductive to the cause. I have heard harsh criticisms hurled at the animal rights movement from other social justice activists. Some critiques may come from a place of defensiveness. Conceivably, they reflect discomfort with the issues that animal activists raise. But such critiques also highlight serious issues. They charge that animal rights activists turn a blind eye to sexist campaigns, that they work from a place of political naïveté or insularity, that they remain unaware or uninterested in other important political and social struggles. When I first heard animal rights people espousing rhetoric that claimed, “It’s all about the animals,” I felt irritated and angry. I believed it was shortsighted, uninformed, and generally offensive. In short, I could not understand where these activists were coming from, and I’m not sure I wanted to. My perspective began to shift after overhearing the words of a woman who debated with a group of us after the controversial panel session “Engaging Women and Minorities.” She declared that she did not care about women’s issues, did not care if she was called sexist, abusive names. Her troubles were “trivial” in the face of animals who suffered much worse abuse. I recoiled at her words, as I heard her disregard her own right to be treated with respect. Humans, in her view, were the scourge of the planet. She did not like them; she did not like herself. She said she had been vegan for only fifteen years and needed to spend the rest of her time on this planet doing everything she could to make up for her past selfish behavior. Her misanthropic viewpoint stunned me. And it also awakened my sense of compassion for the deep struggle she was experiencing—

156

WOMEN AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

the guilty knowledge of what humans do to animals, and the sense of self-sacrifice this invoked. Although I am no closer to agreeing with her conclusions, I thank her for helping me understand just how painful and traumatic the knowledge of animal suffering can be. A compassionate and contextual understanding is, I think, necessary for anyone who struggles with such rhetoric in the animal rights movement. It means opening our minds to the complex and sometimes contradictory conclusions people can draw in the wake of suffering, the depths to which pain can compromise our ethical structures, our relationships to others, and our own well-being. The implications of such understanding can, I hope, provoke us to take meaningful action without hurting ourselves or others in the process. Finally, I recognize that the context of this book, although focused on a movement for animals, is distinctly a human one. I did not seek to understand or attempt to explain the perspective of animals (nor do I think I could). This work is not about animals, but about the women who enact a dedicated struggle to stand in solidarity with them. The lives of animals are drawn into the narrative, nonetheless. Images of suffering, imprisonment, and death haunt the minds of animal rights activists, and so they too find their way, albeit translated, onto these pages. The activists I interviewed for this project generously offered me their time and their stories. I close the book with the words of one of them. Irene had trouble getting around and had lost much of her eyesight as she approached her ninety-first birthday. She told me: “I will be dedicated to animals until the day I die. I can’t do much these days, but I can talk. And when my helper comes, we write letters.” She showed me a stack of papers containing editorials and letters to the newspaper she had written about animal cruelty issues. I glanced at the one on top, which began: “Today my friend is here to read and write for me.” I was struck by Irene’s frail figure and clouded eyes. Her commitment, despite so much physical adversity, remains etched in my mind. She is a testament to the determined, thoughtful, and enduring spirit of women animal rights activists.

SKETCH OF THE WOMEN ACTIVISTS INTERVIEWED

Abby: A twenty-two-year-old white activist. A college student who began animal activist work in high school. Founded a group that provides foster care to the companion animals of battered women and worked in wildlife conservation.

Amie: A twenty-eight-year-old white activist. Began animal rights work as a college student. Performed outreach work with a vegetarian environmental group and also volunteered with rescue, shelter, and adoption programs for companion animals.

Anika: A twenty-nine-year-old white activist. A lawyer who heads a nonprofit animal advocacy organization. Worked on a number of other peace and social justice issues in addition to animal rights.

Bonnie: A forty-eight-year-old white activist. Left a corporate job to focus on animal advocacy. Served on the board of her local humane society and also worked on vegetarian outreach and other animal rights issues.

Cassandra: A fifty-five-year-old white activist. An artist who worked for a variety of animal rights and welfare organizations. Involved in numerous peace and social justice groups in addition to animal rights.

Carol: A fifty-three-year-old white activist. Author and editor of numerous books on feminism and animal rights, including The Sexual Politics of Meat. Active in other social justice causes such as domestic violence, hunger, housing, and antiracism.

157

158

ACTIVISTS INTERVIEWED

Diane: A thirty-three-year-old white activist. Founded and directed a nonprofit thrift store that supported local animal organizations. Also operated a foster care/adoption center for cats.

Erin: A twenty-two-year-old white activist. A vegetarian at age sixteen who learned about ecofeminism as a college student. Active in both environmental issues and animal rights, and worked at a nonprofit organization promoting veganism.

Frances: A sixty-three-year-old white activist. Started a foster care/adoption program for cats and also led a number of animal rights organizations through the years. Had been arrested numerous times for civil disobedience related to animal activism.

Ida: A twenty-two-year-old Indian and white activist. Active in animal rights since college. A veterinary student who was passionate about vegan outreach and an end to factory farming.

Irene: A ninety-year-old white activist. Cofounded a humane organization in the 1940s, only to watch it taken over by men when it affiliated with the American Humane Society. Formed a separate group that focused on issues such as the abolition of vivisection.

Jacqueline: A thirty-nine-year-old African American activist. A lawyer in public interest work, particularly on behalf of low-income, battered women. Performed volunteer legal work on behalf of animals.

Joanne: A forty-one-year-old white activist. Became an activist in her late thirties. Worked on numerous animal rights and welfare issues with local organizations, including anticircus campaigns, factory farming, and spay/neuter programs.

Karen: A forty-five-year-old white activist. Founder and president of United Poultry Concerns, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl. Author of numerous books and articles and lecturer on farm-animal advocacy issues.

ACTIVISTS INTERVIEWED

159

Katie: A seventeen-year-old white activist. A vegetarian at age nine, active in animal rights organizations and other forms of community activism. Served time in jail for direct action.

Kira: A twenty-six-year-old Asian activist. A vegetarian at age fourteen who started doing animal rights work in college. Involved in broad-based revolutionary politics with a number of radical grassroots groups, including those focusing on direct action to liberate animals.

Lola: A fifty-something-year-old white activist. A former model and actress. Founded an animal rights organization and served as codirector of a group where she specifically focused on ending vivisection.

Marianna: A twenty-four-year-old Mexican American activist. Focused on animal cruelty issues and spay/neuter programs in both Mexico and the United States. Worked on translations of animal rights films and materials for Spanish speakers.

Marie: A twenty-one-year-old white and Native American activist. A college student who was new to the animal rights movement. Also worked in student groups on environmental, antiwar, and globalization issues.

Marti: A fifty-five-year-old white activist. Prolific author and activist in the areas of ecofeminism, animal advocacy, and environmental ethics. Founded Feminists for Animal Rights (FAR).

Ricki: A thirty-nine-year-old white activist. Founded a local chapter of a larger animal rights organization, where she led a campaign to end pound seizure. Served as codirector of an antivivisection organization.

Robin: A thirty-four-year-old white activist. A former cancer researcher who now teaches at a community college. Served on the board of an animal advocacy group.

Ruby: A thirty-one-year-old white activist. Worked at a university and founded an animal welfare organization that focused on feral cat

160

ACTIVISTS INTERVIEWED

colonies. Involved in environmental and antiracism issues in addition to animal advocacy.

Shana: A fifty-four-year-old white activist. A longtime artist and writer who gave up her career to focus on animal advocacy. Founded and ran a nonprofit bird sanctuary.

Sue: A forty-nine-year-old white activist. An experimental psychologist who used to perform research and teach surgical techniques on animals. Worked with various animal advocacy groups on vivisection and animal cruelty issues.

Yvonne: A thirty-six-year-old white activist. Worked for a telephone company. Involved in many animal rights issues and volunteered with a local animal rescue/shelter group.

Zoey: A twenty-three-year-old white activist. Worked with several animal rights groups. Involved in numerous other social movements and issues, including feminism, environmentalism, nuclear disarmament, and Food not Bombs.

NOTES

CHAPTER 1

CONNECTING INEQUALITIES

1. I use the term “animal rights movement” throughout most of the book because it is the most commonly recognized way to refer to activism related to animals. However, it is a contested term among activists, with many preferring descriptors such as “animal advocacy,” “animal liberation,” or simply “animal activism.” I prefer terms other than “animal rights” and so use these alternatives in the text as well. See Silverstein 1996 for more discussion on the political and legal meaning of rights language with regard to animals. 2. See Nel Noddings’s (1991) “Comment on Donovan’s ‘Animal Rights and Feminist Theory,’” Donovan’s reply (1991), Kathryn Paxton George’s (1994) challenge to vegetarianism, “Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?” and the vigorous back-andforth that followed (Adams 1995; Donovan 1995; Gaard and Gruen 1995; George 1995). For more recent commentary in this debate, see Bailey 2007. 3. To illustrate this point, Grauerholz describes a Burger King commercial for Whoppers featuring women dressed as sandwich parts, singing lyrics such as, “Yes, we’re tasty and eye-popping,” and, “Ask away, we’re always willing” (2007, 350). 4. Vivisection is defined as the practice of cutting or operating (experimenting) on living animals. 5. For a full account of this interesting coalition, see Carol Lansbury’s 1985 book, The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England. 6. In both Britain and the United States, the movement to prevent cruelty to animals was connected to the movement to protect children. Caroline White was also instrumental in the formation of Philadelphia’s Society to Protect Children (Buettinger 1997). 7. U.S. women claimed antivivisection as a cause for every Christian woman and concerned mother, while British antivivisection was more closely connected to British feminism (Buettinger 1997). However, see Birke 2000 for an account of U.S. feminist animal rights activists Alice Morgan Wright and Edith Goode. 8. See Herzog 2007 for a review of quantitative research on gender differences in human-animal relationships, and a helpful guide to interpreting the statistical reports on this topic. 161

NOTES

162

9. Even the criteria I established had flexible boundaries. I did not quiz the participants on their level of agreement with any particular author’s or organization’s definition of animal rights. Instead, I asked them to describe their beliefs concerning animals in society, specifically inquiring about topics such as animals as food or animals as experimental subjects. While the women shared many common beliefs about the rights of animals in society, there was some variation among participants regarding the specifics of these positions. For instance, some believed that human diets should be strictly vegan, while others thought that subsistence hunting or free-range eggs were acceptable. In my participant selection, I tried to exclude women whose beliefs and activism were clearly welfarist, while allowing for multiple interpretations of “animal rights” positions. 10. I entered the interviews with a predetermined set of questions, but most of the interviews were shaped by the way each woman chose to tell the story of her activism, and what she determined was most important to discuss. Interview questions focused on four main areas: background, beliefs, tactics, and gender and racial politics in the movement. I also showed participants various PETA ads featuring women and asked them to comment on each. The interviews ranged from forty-five minutes to four hours in length, with the average being two hours. All interviews were conducted individually. I interviewed some of the women multiple times. With the exception of the incarcerated woman mentioned earlier and one additional interview conducted via electronic and postal mail, I conducted all interviews in person, tape recorded them, and transcribed them. 11. For instance, at the Animal Rights Conference in 2000, a panel presentation on goals and strategies addressed the use of sex to “sell the issue.” Some activists strongly objected to the use of sexualized images of women to convince the public about the problems of animal abuse. Other activists intimated that the objectors needed to “put that issue on the back burner” for the larger issue at hand—the animals. CHAPTER 2

THE ROAD TO ANIMAL ACTIVISM

1. The most common differentiation between vegetarians and vegans is that vegetarians do not eat meat (such as cows, chickens, fish, pigs), while vegans also eschew dairy products and eggs. However, vegans also try to avoid purchasing or using any kind of animal byproduct, including fur, leather, and gelatin. As Stepaniak has noted: “Veganism encompasses all aspects of daily living, not just diet” (1998, 21). 2. A zine is a small booklet, pamphlet, or magazine that is produced noncommercially. Zines are usually distributed through activist info shops, record stores, independent media outlets, and the Internet, as well as at concerts, often for free or at very low cost. Topics include political, social, or sexual content too far outside the mainstream to be published in more traditional media. Zines created and distributed today are often associated with the do-it-yourself (DIY) movement. Popular topics include globalization, the environment, animal rights, feminism, media conglomeration, and consumerism.

NOTES

163

3. Food not Bombs groups work to educate about world hunger, militarism, and vegetarianism. Alongside their political message, the two major components of their work are the recovery and redistribution of food, and feeding the hungry. They recover wasted food from restaurants and grocery stores before it reaches landfills, then cook and serve vegetarian meals to people free of charge (Butler and McHenry 2000). 4. Straight-edge is both a philosophy and a lifestyle that grew out of the early 1980s punk rock/hardcore music scene. The original definition espoused the rejection of all mind-altering substances (no alcohol or drugs) and promiscuous sex (defined as sex with multiple partners). Modern interpretations include a vegetarian or vegan diet, and an awareness and involvement in environmental and political issues. It consists mostly of young men and women who are disenchanted with the U.S. mainstream and societal problems. They adopt the straight-edge lifestyle “as a blueprint to better first themselves, and then the world in which they live” (www.straight-edge.com, retrieved May 27, 2010). 5. It is likely that other women I interviewed also experienced sexual violence, given that at least one in five women in the United States reports having been sexually assaulted. However, I did not directly ask women this question. The five women who spoke of these experiences offered the information within the context of other questions. CHAPTER 3

WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T

1. Pioneering works in animal rights are heavy on philosophical reasoning that protests the use of “sentimentality” and champions “rational inquiry” (see Regan 1983). Feminists in the animal rights movement have challenged such notions (see Adams 1996; Donovan 1990). CHAPTER 4

RISK AND REWARD

1. Abby’s skepticism over free-range meat is well founded. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s definition of “free range” applies only to poultry. It requires that chickens raised for their meat have access to the outside to receive the freerange certification. This requirement does not assure that chickens actually go outdoors, nor does it indicate anything about the quality of their lives. There is also no federal inspection system for companies that label their eggs “freerange,” so misleading or exaggerated claims are common. CHAPTER 5

GENDER DIVISIONS

IN LABOR, LEADERSHIP, AND LEGITIMACY

1. See Kheel 2006, “Direct Action and the Heroic Ideal: An Ecofeminist Challenge,” for more on this theme. 2. “Jail support” is a term commonly used in social movements. It refers to supporting people who have been arrested for political activity. It includes

NOTES

164

things like being available by phone for activists who call from jail, making notification phone calls to an activist’s family or friends, and fund-raising for bail money. 3. Others feminists call for a fundamental change in the ALF to foreground education and compassion in its campaigns (see Kheel 2006). 4. For a detailed look at various feminist critiques of “utilitarian” and “rights” theories, see Kheel 1985; Donovan 1990; Curtin 1991; Slicer 1991; Luke 1992, 1995; and Adams 1994. 5. One of the major issues that marks Donovan’s disagreement is a critique of the Enlightenment epistemology from which Regan makes the “rights case” and Singer makes the “utilitarian calculation.” Donovan’s (1990) appraisal of these works notes that the Cartesian objectivism used a basis for their animal defense theories is the same framework used to establish a major theoretical justification for animal abuse. For instance, she contends that Singer’s utilitarian ethics resemble the kind of calculations used by scientific and medical experimenters to justify such practices as vivisection. Donovan also questions the reliance on universal rules and quantifiable judgments, which often depend on an assumption or argument that humans and animals have certain similarities, such as sentience, intelligence, or emotion (ironically enough). In other words, animals must be like us in order to have rights distributed to them.

CHAPTER 6

“THE ANIMALS COME FIRST”

1. The advertisement featuring Bea Arthur, an actress from the television show Golden Girls, was the hands-down favorite of the women interviewed. The activists liked the older age of the featured actress, the friendly expression on her face, and the presence of an animal in the ad (“to keep the focus on the animals”). 2. A larger sample would be better equipped to answer this question. 3. Feminist scholars have interrogated the significance of gender, agency, and power from a number of angles, including fashion, athletics, sexual desire, prostitution, stripping, and pornography. For a sampling of this literature see Jeffreys 2008; Tolman 1994; Wendell 1990; and Wesely 2002. 4. PETA measures the success of their sexual media tactics by how many hits they receive on their Web site after featuring a new sexualized ad. I am not aware of any attempts to track whether such ads affect attitudes or behaviors. For instance, Luke (2007) has questioned whether the spike in visits to the PETA Web site simply reflects people looking for free soft-core porn images. 5. Adams adapted this term from Bonnie Smith’s 2000 book The Gender of History, which identifies the multiple traumas that women of the early nineteenth century faced, including the awareness that their rights were eroding at a time when universal rights were supposedly being championed.

NOTES

165

6. See Jones’s (2007) excellent book on responding to issues of trauma within animal activism. 7. The antiglobalization movement is also known as the “global justice movement” (see Della Porta 2006), the anticorporate movement” (see Juris 2008), and the “alterglobalization movement” (see Starr 2006). Some members of this movement reject the label “antiglobalization” as pejorative and incorrect because they do not oppose economic globalization; they see their movement as an alternative to globalization in which international institutions (WTO, World Bank, IMF) and major corporations create wealth in the developed world while disregarding the detrimental effects of such actions on the people and environments of less-developed countries. 8. FAR is inactive today, but the organization maintains a Web site (http://www. farinc.org, accessed March 15, 2005). Numerous studies describe the connections between domestic violence and animal abuse. Ascione’s (1998) study found that 71 percent of women at a Utah battered women’s shelter who had lived with companion animals reported that their animals had been threatened, abused, or killed by their male partners. Additionally, one woman in five had delayed seeking safe shelter due to her concern for her animals. Flynn (2000) reported similar findings at a South Carolina shelter—almost half the women with companion animals said their violent partners had threatened or harmed their animals, or both, and again, one in five delayed leaving the abusive situation because of this concern. 9. Amory Starr writes that antiracist organizing must “acknowledge and show commitment to transforming the experiences of the marginalized group. And it must be safe from daily experiences of racism and violence” (2006, 382).

CHAPTER 7

CONNECTIONS, CONTEXTS, AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Judith Herman (1997) explains that trauma survivors may seek to help others and engage in meaningful social action as part of their own healing process. This activity is seen as a final stage in recovery, best undertaken once survivors have reestablished safety, created the necessary boundaries and capacity for self-care, and mourned and integrated their experience.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, C. J. 1990. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum. ————. 1994. Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. New York: Continuum. ————. 1995. “Comment on George’s ‘Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?’” Signs 21(1): 221–25. ————. 1996. “Caring about Suffering: A Feminist Exploration.” In Beyond Animal Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals, ed. J. Donovan and C. J. Adams, 170–196. New York: Continuum. ————. 2003a. “The Challenge of Animal Rights.” Plenary address, Animal Rights West Coast Conference, August 1–5. ————. 2003b. The Pornography of Meat. New York: Continuum. Adams, C. J., and J. Donovan, eds. 1995. Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Agarwal, B. 1992. “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Studies 18(1): 119–158. Aronson, J. 1992. “Women’s Sense of Responsibility for the Care of Old People: ‘But Who Else Is Going to Do It?’” Gender and Society 6(1): 8–29. Ascione, F. R. 1998. “Battered Women’s Reports of Their Partners’ and Their Children’s Cruelty to Animals.” Journal of Emotional Abuse 1(1): 119–133. Bailey, C. 2007. “We Are What We Eat: Feminist Vegetarianism and the Reproduction of Racial Identity.” Hypatia 22(2): 39–59. Bari, J. 1994. Timber Wars. Monroe, Me.: Common Courage Press. Beers, D. 2006. For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States. Athens: Swallow Press/Ohio University Press. Bekoff, M. 1998. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Birke, L. 1994. Feminism, Animals, and Science: The Naming of the Shrew. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press. ————. 2000. “Supporting the Underdog: Feminism, Animal Rights, and Citizenship in the Work of Alice Morgan Wright and Edith Goode.” Women’s History Review 9(4): 693–719. 167

BIBLIOGRAPHY

168

Buettinger, C. 1997. “Women and Antivivisection in Nineteenth-Century America.” Journal of Social History 30:857–872. Burghardt, G. M., and H. A. Herzog Jr. 1989. “Animals, Evolution, and Ethics.” In Perceptions of Animals in American Culture, ed. R. J. Hoage, 129–151. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Butler, C.T.L., and K. McHenry. 2000. Food not Bombs. Rev. ed. Tucson, Ariz.: See Sharp Press. Byrne, B. 2003. “Reciting the Self: Narrative Representations of the Self in Qualitative Interviews.” Feminist Theory 4(1): 29–49. Cancian, F. M., and S. J. Oliker. 2000. Caring and Gender. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press. Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Coleman, S. H. 1924. Humane Society Leaders in America. Albany, N.Y.: American Humane Association. Craft, N. 2001. “PeTA: Where Only Women Are Treated Like Meat.” http://www. nostatusquo.com/ACLU/PETA/peta.html. Retrieved May 25, 2010. Cuomo, C. J. 1998. Feminism and Ecological Communities: An Ethic of Flourishing. New York: Routledge. Cuomo, C. J., and L. Gruen. 1998. “On Puppies and Pussies: Animals, Intimacy, and Moral Distance.” In Daring to Be Good: Essays in Feminist Ethico-Politics, ed. B. Bar On and A. Ferguson, 129–142. New York: Routledge. Curtin, D. 1991. “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care.” Hypatia 6(1): 60–74. Della Porta, D., ed. 2006. The Global Justice Movement: Cross-national and Transnational Perspectives. New York: Paradigm. Devault, M. L. 1991. Feeding the Family: The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Diamond, I., and G. F. Orenstein, eds. 1990. Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Dietz, M. G. 1985. “Citizenship with a Feminist Face: The Problem with Maternal Thinking.” Political Theory 13(1): 19–37. Donovan, J. 1990. “Animal Rights and Feminist Theory.” Signs 15(2): 350–375. ————. 1991. “Reply to Noddings.” Signs 16(2): 423–425. ————. 1995. “Comment on George’s ‘Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?’” Signs 21(1): 226–229. ————. 1996. “Attention to Suffering: Sympathy as a Basis for Ethical Treatment of Animals.” In Beyond Animal Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals, ed. J. Donovan and C. J. Adams, 147–169. New York: Continuum. ————. 2006. “Feminism and the Treatment of Animals: From Care to Dialogue.” Signs 31(2): 305–327. Donovan, J., and C. J. Adams, eds. 1996. Beyond Animal Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals. New York: Continuum. Driscoll, J. W. 1992. “Attitudes toward Animal Use.” Anthrozoos 5(1): 32–39.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

169

Einwohner, R. L. 1999. “Gender, Class, and Social Movement Outcomes: Identity and Effectiveness in Two Animal Rights Campaigns.” Gender and Society 13(1): 59–76. ———. 2002. “Bringing the Outsiders In: Opponents’ Claims and the Construction of Animal Rights Activists’ Identity.” Mobilization: An International Journal 7(3): 253–268. Einwohner, R. L., J. A. Hollander, and T. Olson. 2000. “Engendering Social Movements: Cultural Images and Movement Dynamics.” Gender and Society 14(5): 679–699. Elston, M. 1987. “Women and Anti-Vivisection in Victorian England, 1870–1900.” In Vivisection in Historical Perspective, ed. N. Rupke, 259–294. London: Routledge. Evans, S. 1980. Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left. New York: Vintage Books. Fausto-Sterling, A. 1987. Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men. New York: HarperCollins. FAR [Feminists for Animal Rights]. 2005. Web site. http://www.farinc.org. Retrieved March 15, 2005. Ferguson, M. 1998. Animal Advocacy and Englishwomen, 1780–1900: Patriots, Nation, and Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Fine, M., L. Weis, S. Weseen, and L. Wong. 2000. “For Whom? Qualitative Research, Representations, and Social Responsibilities.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., ed. N. Denzen and Y. Lincoln, 107–130. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Finsen, L., and S. Finsen. 1994. The Animal Rights Movement in America: From Compassion to Respect. New York: Twayne. Flacks, R. 2004. “Knowledge for What? Thoughts on the State of Social Movements Studies.” In Rethinking Social Movements: Structure, Meaning, and Emotion, ed. J. Goodwin and J. S. Jasper, 135–153. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. Flynn, C. P. 2000. “‘Women’s Best Friend: Pet Abuse and the Role of Companion Animals in the Lives of Battered Women.” Violence against Women 6(2): 162–177. Fox, M. F., and G. Firebaugh. 1992. “Confidence in Science: The Gender Gap.” Social Science Quarterly 73:101–113. Francione, G. 1996. Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Franklin, A. 1999. Animals and Modern Cultures. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Frasier, N. 1994. “After the Family Wage: Gender Equity and the Welfare State.” Political Theory 22:591–618. Gaard, G. 1993. “Living Interconnections with Animals and Nature.” In Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, ed. G. Gaard, 1–12. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ————. 1998. Ecological Politics: Ecofeminists and the Greens. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

170

————. 2001. “Tools for a Cross-Cultural Feminist Ethics: Exploring Ethical Contexts and Contents in the Makah Whale Hunt.” Hypatia 16(1): 1–26. ————. 2002. “Vegetarian Ecofeminism: A Review Essay.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies 23(3): 117–146. Gaard, G., and L. Gruen. 1995. “Comment on George’s ‘Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?’” Signs 21(1): 230–239. Gallup, G. G., Jr., and J. W. Beckstead. 1988. “Attitudes toward Animal Research.” American Psychologist 43:474–476. Galvin, S. L., and H. A. Herzog Jr. 1992. “Ethical Ideology, Animal Rights Activism, and Attitudes toward the Treatment of Animals.” Ethics and Behavior 2:141–149. ————. 1998. “Attitudes and Dispositional Optimism of Animal Rights Demonstrators.” Society and Animals 6(1): 1–11. George, K. P. 1994. “Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?” Signs 19(2): 405–434. ————. 1995. “Reply to Adams, Donovan, and Gaard and Gruen.” Signs 21(1): 242– 257. ————. 2000. Animal, Vegetable, or Woman? A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism. Albany: SUNY Press. Gilligan, C. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Goodman, J. 2007. “For Animals: Motives and Accounts of Animal Rights Activists in Defense of Militant Direct Action.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, August, New York City. http://www. allacademic.com/meta/p183281_index.html. Retrieved December 15, 2008. Grauerholz, L. 2007. “Cute Enough to Eat: The Transformation of Animals into Meat for Human Consumption in Commercialized Images.” Humanity and Society 31(November): 334–354. Greanville, P., and D. Moss. 1985. “The Emerging Face of the Movement.” Animals’ Agenda 5(2): 10–11. Groves, J. M. 1995. “Learning to Feel: The Neglected Sociology of Social Movements.” Sociological Review 43(3): 435–461. ————. 1997. Hearts and Minds: The Controversy over Laboratory Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Gruen, L. 1993. “Dismantling Oppression: An Analysis of the Connection between Women and Animals.” In Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, ed. G. Gaard, 60–90. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hare-Mustin, R. T., and J. Marecek. 1988. “The Meaning of Difference: Gender Theory, Postmodernism, and Psychology.” American Psychologist 43(6): 455–464. Harper, A. B. 2010. “Social Justice Beliefs and Addiction to Uncompassionate Consumption: Food for Thought.” In Sistah Vegan: Black Female Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health, and Society, ed. A. B. Harper, 20–41. New York: Lantern Books. ———, ed. 2010. Sistah Vegan: Black Female Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health, and Society. New York: Lantern Books. Harvey, J. H., T. L. Orbuch, and A. L. Weber. 1990. Interpersonal Accounts. Oxford: Blackwell. Hercus, C. 1999. “Identity, Emotion, and Feminist Collective Action.” Gender and Society 13(1): 34–55.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

171

Herman, J. L. 1997. Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books. Herzog, H. A., Jr. 1993. “‘The Movement Is My Life’: The Psychology of Animal Rights Activism.” Journal of Social Issues 49(1): 103–119. ———. 1999. “Power, Money, and Gender: Status Hierarchies and the Animal Protection Movement in the United States.” ISAZ Newsletter 18 (November): 2–4. ———. 2007. “Gender Differences in Human-Animal Interactions: A Review.” Anthrozoos 20(1): 7–21. Herzog, H. A., Jr., N. S. Betchart, and R. B. Pittman. 1991. “Gender, Sex Role Orientation, and Attitudes towards Animals.” Anthrozoos 4(3): 184–191. Herzog, H. A., B. Dinoff, and J. R. Page. 1997. “Animal Rights Talk: Moral Debate over the Internet.” Qualitative Sociology 20(3): 399–418. Hochschild, A. 1983. The Managed Heart: The Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. homefries. 2006. “Identity Politics and Poetic Solidarity: Roots of Alliance between Feminism and Animal/Earth Liberation.” In Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth, ed. S. Best and A. J. Nocella II, 387–393. Oakland, Calif.: AK Press. hooks, b. 1981. Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism. Boston: South End Press. ————. 1989. Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press. Jagger, L.J.S. 1992. “Collective Identity at an Animal Rights Sanctuary.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, August, Pittsburgh. Jamison, W. V. 1998. “A Profile of Animal Rights Activists.” In H. D. Guither, Animal Rights: History and Scope of a Radical Social Movement, 60–72. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Jamison, W. V., and W. M. Lunch. 1992. “Rights of Animals, Perceptions of Science, and Political Activism: Profile of American Animal Rights Activists.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 17(4): 438–458. Jamison, W. V., C. Wenk, and J. V. Parker. 2000. “Every Sparrow That Falls: Animal Rights Activism as Functional Religion.” Society and Animals 8(1): 305–330. Jasper, J. M. 1997. The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jasper, J. M., and D. Nelkin. 1992. The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest. New York: Free Press. Jasper, J. M., and J. D. Poulsen. 1995. “Recruiting Strangers and Friends: Moral Shocks and Social Networks in Animal Rights and Anti-nuclear Protests.” Social Problems 42(4): 493–512. Jeffreys, S. 2008. “Keeping Women Down and Out: The Strip Club Boom and the Reinforcement of Male Dominance.” Signs 34(1): 151–173. jones, p. 2004. “Mothers with Monkeywrenches: Feminist Imperatives and the ALF.” In Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, ed. S. Best and A. J. Nocella II, 137–156. New York: Lantern Books.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

172

———. 2007. Aftershock: Confronting Trauma in a Violent World: A Guide for Activists and Their Allies. New York: Lantern Books. ———. 2010. “Afterword: Liberation as Connection and the Decolonization of Desire.” In Sistah Vegan: Black Female Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health, and Society, ed. A. B. Harper, 187–201. New York: Lantern Books. Juris, J. S. 2008. Networking Futures: The Movements against Corporate Globalization. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Kaplan, T. 1997. Crazy for Democracy: Women in Grassroots Movements. New York: Routledge. Kappeler, S. 1995. “Speciesism, Racism, Nationalism . . . or the Power of Scientific Subjectivity.” In Animals and Women, ed. C. J. Adams and J. Donovan, 320–352. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Kendrick, J. R., Jr. 1991. “Meaning and Participation: Perspectives of Peace Movement Participants.” Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and Change 13:91–111. Kheel, M. 1985. “The Liberation of Nature: A Circular Affair.” Environmental Ethics 7(2): 135–149. ————. 2006. “Direct Action and the Heroic Ideal: An Ecofeminist Challenge.” In Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth, ed. S. Best and A. J. Nocella II, 306–318. Oakland, Calif.: AK Press. Kidd, A. H., and R. M. Kidd. 1990. “Factors in Children’s Attitudes toward Pets.” Psychological Reports 66(3, part 1): 775–786. Kimmel, M. S. 2008. The Gendered Society. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Kruse, C. R. 1999. “Gender, Views of Nature, and Support for Animal Rights.” Society and Animals 7(3): 179–198. Kuumba, M. B. 2001. Gender and Social Movements. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Alta Mira Press. Lansbury, C. 1985. The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Lawson, R., and S. E. Barton. 1980. “Sex Roles in Social Movements: A Case Study of the Tenant Movement in New York City.” Signs 6(2): 230–247. Lobao, L. 1990. “Women in Revolutionary Movements: Changing Patterns of Latin American Guerilla Struggle.” In Women and Social Protest, ed. G. West and R. L. Blumberg, 180–204. New York: Oxford University Press. Lowe, B. M., and C. F. Ginsberg. 2002. “Animal Rights as a Post-Citizenship Movement.” Society and Animals 10(2): 203–215 Luke, B. 1992. “Justice, Caring, and Animal Liberation.” Between the Species 8(2): 100–108. ————. 1995. “Taming Ourselves or Going Feral? Toward a Nonpatriarchal Metaethic of Animal Liberation.” In Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations, ed. C. J. Adams and J. Donovan, 290–319. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. ———. 2007. Brutal: Manhood and the Exploitation of Animals. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

173

Maggard, S. W. 1998. “‘We’re Fighting Millionaires!’: The Clash of Gender and Class in Appalachian Women’s Union Organizing.” In No Middle Ground: Women and Radical Protest, ed. K. M. Blee, 289–306. New York: New York University Press. McCrea, R. C. 1910. The Humane Movement: A Descriptive Survey. New York: Columbia University Press. McDonald, B. 2000. “‘Once You Know Something, You Can’t Not Know It’: An Empirical Look at Becoming Vegan.” Society and Animals 8(1): 1–23. Men Lead—Womyn Organize! N.d. Pamphlet. Distributed by Roberts Creek, British Columbia, Canada: Black Cat Distro. Merchant, C. 1989. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Harper and Row. Michel, S. 1998. “Golden Eagles and the Environmental Politics of Care.” In Animal Geographies, ed. J. Wolch and J. Emel. New York: Verso. Midgley, M. 1983. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Munroe, L. 2001. “Caring about Blood, Flesh, and Pain: Women’s Standing in the Animal Protection Movement.” Society and Animals 9(1): 43–61. Naples, N. A. 1998. “Women’s Community Activism and Feminist Activist Research.” In Community Activism and Feminist Politics: Organizing across Race, Class, and Gender, ed. N. A. Naples, 1–27. New York: Routledge. Noddings, Nel. 1991. “Comment on Donovan’s ‘Animal Rights and Feminist Theory.’” Signs 16(2): 418–422. Orbuch, T. L. 1997. “People’s Accounts Count: The Sociology of Accounts.” Annual Review of Sociology 23:455–478. Payne, C. 1990. “‘Men Led, but Women Organized’: Movement Participation of Women in the Mississippi Delta.” In Women and Social Protest, ed. G. West and R. L. Blumberg, 156–165. New York: Oxford University Press. Peek, C. W., N. J. Bell, and C. C. Dunham. 1996. “Gender, Gender Ideology, and Animal Rights Advocacy.” Gender and Society 10(4): 464–478. PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]. 2010. Web site. http://www. peta.org. Retrieved May 25, 2010. Pifer, L. 1996. “Exploring the Gender Gap in Young Adult’s Attitudes about Animal Research.” Society and Animals 4(1): 37–52. Pifer, L., K. Shimizu, and R. Pifer. 1994. “Public Attitudes toward Animal Research: Some International Comparisons.” Society and Animals 2(2): 95–113. Pipher, M. 1994. Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls. New York: Putnam. Plant, J., ed. 1989. Healing the Wounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism. Philadelphia: New Society. Plous, S. 1991. “An Attitude Survey of Animal Rights Activists.” Psychological Science 2:194–196. ————. 1998. “Signs of Change within the Animal Rights Movement: Results from a Follow-up Survey of Activists.” Journal of Comparative Psychology 112:48–54. Regan, T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reinharz, S. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

174

Richards, R. T., and R. S. Krannich. 1991. “The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement and Activists’ Attitudes toward Wildlife.” Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:363–371. Rosenwald, G. C., and R. L. Ochberg, eds. 1992. Storied Lives: The Cultural Politics of Self-Understanding. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Ruddick, S. 1989. Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace. Boston: Beacon Press. Scarce, R. 2001. “Scholarly Ethics and Courtroom Antics: Where Researchers Stand in the Eyes of the Law.” In Extreme Methods: Innovative Approaches to Social Science Research, ed. J. M. Miller and R. Tewkesbury, 258–273. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Scott, M. B., and S. M. Lyman. 1968. “Accounts.” American Sociological Review 33:46– 62. Seager, J. 2003. “Rachel Carson Died of Breast Cancer: The Coming of Age of Feminist Environmentalism.” Signs 28(3): 945–972. Shapiro, K. 1994. “The Caring Sleuth: Portrait of an Animal Rights Activist.” Society and Animals 2(2): 145–165. Silverstein, H. 1996. Unleashing Rights: Law, Meaning, and the Animal Rights Movement. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation. London: Jonathan Cape. Slicer, D. 1991. “Your Daughter or Your Dog? A Feminist Assessment of the Animal Research Issue.” Hypatia 6(1): 97–113. Smith, B. G. 2000. The Gender of History: Men, Women, and Historical Practice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Sperling, S. 1988. Animal Liberators: Research and Morality. Berkeley: University of California Press. Starr, A. 2006. “Grumpywarriorcool: What Makes Our Movements White?” In Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth, ed. S. Best and A. J. Nocella II, 375–386. Oakland, Calif.: AK Press. Stepaniak, J. 1998. The Vegan Sourcebook. Los Angeles: Lowell House. Stephen, L. 1997. Women and Social Movements in Latin America: Power from Below. Austin: University of Texas Press. Straight-edge. 2010. Web site. http://www.straight-edge.com. Retrieved May 27, 2010. Sturgeon, N. 1997. Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender, Feminist Theory, and Political Action. New York: Routledge. Taylor, N. 2005. “Luddites or Limits? The Attitudes of Animal Rights Activists toward Science.” Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal 3(1): 1–16. Tolman, D. 1994. “Doing Desire: Adolescent Girls’ Struggles for/with Sexuality.” Gender and Society 8(3): 324–342. Trankina, M. L. 1993. “Gender Differences in Attitudes toward Science.” Psychological Reports 73:123–130. Vegans of Color. 2010. Web site. http://www.vegansofcolor.wordpress.com. Retrieved May 27, 2010.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

Wendell, S. 1990. “Oppression and Victimization; Choice and Responsibility.” Hypatia 5(3): 15–32. Wesely, J. K. 2002. “Growing Up Sexualized: Issues of Power and Violence in the Childhood and Adult Lives of Female Exotic Dancers.” Violence against Women 8:1182–1207. Zatz, M. S., and E. L. Portillos. 2000. “Voices from the Barrio: Chicano/a Gangs, Families, and Communities.” Criminology 38(2): 369–401.

INDEX

Adams, Carol, ix, x, 2, 4–5, 15, 36, 44, 50, 52–53, 112–113, 117, 128, 150–151, 161n2 (chap. 1), 163n1 (chap. 3), 164n4 (chap. 4), 164n5 (chap. 5) Aftershock (jones), 101, 165n6 (chap. 6) age: differences among activists, 52–53; interviewee demographics, 15, 157–160 American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), 9 American Humane Society (AHS), 87, 158 American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), 8 Amnesty International, 26, 36 Anderson, Pamela Lee, 117, 119, 123 animal experimentation: action against, 89–90; antivivisection societies, 7–10, 161n4 (chap. 1); as cause of division in early humane organizations, 9, 87; connection to abuse of women, 7–8, 10, 45; connection to working class, 8, 45 Animal Legal Defense Fund, 88 Animal Liberation (Singer), 111, 174 Animal Liberation Front, 68, 100, 164n3 (chap. 5) animal rights: as distinct from animal welfare, 14, 90–95, 114, 162n9 (chap. 1); defined, 14, 161n1 (chap. 1). See also rights-care debate Animal Rights Conference (2003), 17, 95, 128, 134, 137 animal rights movement: contemporary, 11–13; history of, 8–14; post-citizenship movement, 16; stereotypes of, 47, 88, 90–91, 106, 116; women’s predominance in, 41–60. See also single-issue movement animal welfare: as distinct from animal rights, 14, 90–95, 114; gender divisions, 92–94, 114; views on, 14, 16, 91–93, 114; women’s involvement in, 89–94 animals as entertainment, 16, 89

antiglobalization movement, 131, 141, 165n7 (chap. 6) antiwar movement: as pathway to activism, 23–24, 36; women’s experiences in, 144–145 Arthur, Bea, 119, 164n1 (chap. 6) Bari, Judi, 94 Beers, Diane, 10–11 Bergh, Henry, 8 biology: feminist critique of, 4, 45–46, 59–60; as theory of gender and animal rights participation, 11, 45–46, 52–55, 57–60, 149–150. See also sociobiology Birke, Linda, 4, 10, 161n7 (chap. 1) Buettinger, Craig, 9–10, 87, 161nn6,7 (chap. 1) Burghardt, Gordon, 11, 46 Byrne, Bridget, 47 career: changes in, 30–33, 56, 62, 77, 80–81, 85–86; effect on, 27–30, 150 Carson, Rachel, 11 Case for Animal Rights, The (Regan), 111 childhood influences on activism: families modeling compassion, 21, 35, 38–40; witnessing animal abuse, 21–24, 39–40, 69. See also pathways to activism circuses. See animals as entertainment civil disobedience, 25, 48, 70, 76, 89, 98–99, 113–114 class: background of animal rights activists, 16, 46–47, 137; working class connection to animal rights, 8, 45, 140, 161n5 (chap. 1). See also crossmovement alliances coalition building, 13, 95, 133, 139–140, 145–147, 154. See also cross-movement alliances Cobbe, Francis Power, 7–9, 45 Coleman, Sydney, 8–10 177

178

INDEX

companion animals: abuse of, 34, 92–93; attachment to, 55, 82; and domestic violence, 132, 165n8 (chap. 6); spay/ neuter campaigns, 89–90 connection between oppression of animals and oppression of women, 2–7, 36–59, 121–123, 135–136, 139–154. See also empathy coping strategies, 66–71, 85. See also traumatic knowledge Coronado, Rod, 71 cross-movement alliances: antiglobalization, 131–133, 141–142; antiwar, 23–24, 36–37, 144–145; environmentalism, 10, 36, 39, 131, 140; feminism, 2–6, 36, 124–125, 131–132, 142, 145, 154–155; racial justice, 2, 36, 139–142, 165n9 (chap. 6); working class, 8, 45, 129, 140, 161n5 (chap. 1) cruelty-free products, 65 cultural accounts of sex and gender, 12, 41–42, 47–60, 149 cultural representations of animals, 6, 52, 162n3 (chap. 1) Cuomo, Chris, 45, 55 Curtin, Deane, 113, 164n4 (chap. 5) Davis, Karen, 15, 22 de Beauvoir, Simone, 4 de Rose, Chris, 28 Diamond, Irene, 12, 45 diet. See veganism/vegetarianism Diet for a New America (Robbins), 25 direct action, 42, 89, 97–99, 102, 114, 152, 163n1 (chap. 5) diversifying the movement, 136–142, 165n9 (chap. 6) domestic violence, 36, 59, 101–102, 132, 165n8 (chap. 6) Donovan, Josephine, 4–6, 44–45, 112, 115, 161n2 (chap. 1), 163n1 (chap. 3), 164nn4,5 (chap. 5) Earth First!, 94 ecofeminism: definition, 5–6; early works, 45; engagement with animal rights, 4–6, 44; as framework of women interviewees’ activism, 6, 50, 58, 131, 145; U.S. Green Party, 6, 144; vegetarian ecofeminism, 6 economics, as theory of gender and animal rights participation, 42–43. See also class education: activist self-education, 20, 26–27; early humane, 8–9; as form of animal activism, 75–76; interviewee demographics, 16; on sexual harassment and assault within activist organizations, 101–102

Einwohner, Rachel, 6, 46–47, 97, 106, 109, 115–116 Elston, Mary Ann, 7–8 emotion: gender stereotypes, 2, 8, 10–11, 43, 46–47, 52, 57, 88, 104, 106–107, 153; use in the movement, 8, 46–47, 88, 104, 107–113, 115–116. See also rightscare debate empathy: as moral foundation for animal rights, 1, 55, 58, 116, 153; as theory of gender and animal rights participation, 45, 48–51, 54–55, 58, 148–149 empowerment, 23–24, 58, 84 environmentalism. See under crossmovement alliances essentialism, 44–46, 60, 150. See also biology; sociobiology ethic of care, 11, 55, 112–113, 115, 151. See also rights-care debate Evans, Sara, 144–145 experimentation. See animal experimentation factory farming, 33–34, 54–55, 63–64, 67, 89, 93–94 family: influence on activism, 20–24, 38–40, 148; reactions to activism, 35, 76–79, 85 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 68–69, 85 feminism: contemporary involvement in animal rights, 3, 13, 45, 53, 117, 131, 142, 154, 161n2 (chap. 1), 164nn3,4 (chap. 5); cross-cultural feminist ethics, 64; cultural/spiritual, 11–12; early involvement in animal rights, 7–11, 161n7 (chap. 1); interviewees’ views on, 12–22, 124–126, 131–135, 145; rejection of animal rights, 3–6; theory of animal defense, 6, 112, 115, 163n1 (chap. 3). See also ecofeminism; see under cross-movement alliances Feminists for Animal Rights (FAR), 88, 132, 165n8 (chap. 6) Ferguson, Moira, 7–8, 45 Fine, Michelle, 18 Food Not Bombs, 26, 89, 163n3 (chap. 2) Francione, Gary, 143 Freedom of Information Act, 31 free-range meat, 64, 163n1 (chap. 4) frustration. See coping strategies fur: campaigns against, 89, 98, 105; PETA advertisements, 13, 117–119, 127 Gaard, Greta, x, 4–6, 144, 161n2 (chap. 1) gender: agency, 164n3 (chap. 6); cultural accounts of, 12, 41–42, 47–60, 149; division of labor, 2, 11–12, 87–88, 94–99,

INDEX

102–103, 114; division of leadership, 2, 8–13, 87, 94–96, 102, 105, 107, 114, 138, 144, 152; economics, 16, 42–43, 123; emotional stereotypes, 2, 8, 10–11, 43, 46–47, 52, 57, 88, 104, 106–107, 153; essentialism, 44–46, 60, 150; and participation in animal rights, 1–2, 6–13, 41–60; socialization, 43–44, 51–53, 57; and social movements, 94–95, 144–145. See also masculinity; sexism in the animal rights movement; women George, Kathryn Paxton, 4, 161n2 (chap. 1) Gilligan, Carol, 44, 97 Ginsberg, Caryn, 16, 39 Goode, Edith, 10, 161n7 (chap. 1) Goodman, Justin, 42 Grauerholz, Liz, 5–6, 161n3 (chap. 1) Green Party, U.S., 6, 144 Groves, Julian, 19, 47, 67, 85, 92, 104, 106–107 Gruen, Lori, 45, 55, 161n2 (chap. 1) Harper, A. Breeze, 140, 154 Healing the Wounds (Diamond and Orenstein), 12, 45 health care. See medicine Hefner, Kimberly, 118–119 Herman, Judith, 151n1 (chap.7) heroic ideals, 88, 97–99, 163n1 (chap. 5) Herzog, Harold, 11, 33, 46–47, 62–63, 71, 73, 79, 85, 95, 106, 114, 177, 161n8 (chap. 1) history of women’s involvement in animal rights, 7–11 Hochschild, Arlie, 66 home demonstrations (home demos), 89, 97–98 hooks, bell, 59–60, 144, 150 humane groups, early. See American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA); Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA), Women’s Branch; Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Humane Society of the United States, 88 In Defense of Animals, 88 intersecting oppressions, 5, 48–51, 121, 129, 140, 145, 148, 154 jail support, 76, 99, 163n2 (chap. 5) Jamison, Wesley, 11, 15–16, 65, 71, 79, 150 Jasper, James, 11–13, 16, 20, 29, 37–39, 42, 44, 85, 129, 145–146 jones, pattrice, 100–102, 140, 154, 165n6 (chap. 6) Journal of Zoophily, 9

179

Kendrick, Richard, 66 Kheel, Marti, x, 15, 112, 132, 163n1 (chap.5), 164nn3,4 (chap. 5) Kruse, Corwin, 11, 43–44 Kuumba, M. Bahati, 94–95, 144 labor, division of. See under gender language: describing animal activism, 14, 90–94, 113–114, 161n1 (chap. 1); emotional, 106, 111–112 Lansbury, Carol, 45, 161n5 (chap. 1) Last Chance for Animals, 28, 88 lawbreaking: attitudes about, 98–99, 128, 152; involvement in, 48, 70, 89, 98–99, 113 leadership, division of. See under gender Lovell, Mary, 8–9 Lowe, Brian, 16, 39 Luke, Brian, 43, 116, 143–144, 150, 153, 164n4 (chap. 5), 164n4 (chap. 6) Lyman, Stanford, 41 Maggard, Sally Ward, 84 Manterola, Patricia, 119 masculinity: and emotion, 46–47, 107; and media, 143–144; social construction of, 153; as theory of gender and animal rights participation, 43, 51–55, 57–58. See also gender; sexism in the animal rights movement maternal thinking, 44, 46, 54–55 McDonald, Barbara, 20, 34, 39 media: and gender, 105, 132, 152; and men, 143–144; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaigns, 13, 117–128, 143, 164n4 (chap. 6); representation of animals, 6, 52, 163n3 (chap. 1) medicine: connection between vivisection and abuse of women and the working class, 7–8, 10, 45, 48–49; defense of vivisection, 8, 10, 164n5 (chap. 5); living cruelty-free, 65; membership in early animal societies, 9. See also animal experimentation men. See gender; masculinity; sexism in the animal rights movement Michel, Suzanne, 55 moral shocks. See under pathways to activism Munroe, Lyle, 12–13 National Institutes of Health (NIH), 31 Nelkin, Dorothy, 12–13, 16, 37, 42, 44, 62, 85, 129, 145–146 No Compromise, 88 nurturing, 42, 44, 52–54, 58, 115. See also biology

180

INDEX

oppression. See intersecting oppressions Orenstein, Gloria Feman, 12, 45 Parker, James, 65, 71, 79, 150 pathways to activism: becoming vegetarian/vegan, 33–35; childhood influences and family, 21–25; early attitude of caring, 19–20; empathy based on shared inequities, 21, 24–25, 48–51; involvement in other social justice issues, 35–37; learning about animal issues, 20, 29, 39, 54, 115; midlife shifts in thinking, 27–33; moral shocks, 12, 38–39; young activists, 25–27 Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA), Women’s Branch, 8–9 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): campaigns, 13, 17, 57, 117–120, 164n4 (chap. 6); debates over, 117–128, 133, 135, 143–144, 154–155 pets. See companion animals Pipher, Mary, 48 Plant, Judith, 12, 45 political thinkers, women as, 12, 42, 44, 54–55, 57–60, 88, 150 politics of care, 55, 93, 98, 111–113, 151. See also rights-care debate Poulsen, Jane, 11–12, 16, 20, 29, 37–39, 44 pound seizure, 28–29, 83, 90 race: antiracist organizing, 36, 140–142, 164n9 (chap. 6); comparisons to animals, 5; inclusion in animal rights movement, 37, 113, 121, 129, 137–140, 145–146, 153–154; interviewee demographics, 15. See also intersecting oppressions; racism in the animal rights movement racial justice. See under cross-movement alliances racism in the animal rights movement, 13, 136–143. See also race; single-issue movement rape, 7–8, 24–25, 38, 48, 101, 126, 151, 163n5 (chap. 2) Regan, Tom, 14, 111–112, 115, 163n1 (chap. 3), 164n5 (chap. 5) relationships, activism’s impact on: co-workers, 70–76; intimate, 79–80; family, 76–79; friends, 70–76 religion, 65 Reviving Ophelia (Pipher), 48 rewards of activism, 81–86 Reweaving the World (Plant), 12, 45

rights-care debate, 111–113, 163n1 (chap. 3), 164nn4,5 (chap. 5) “rights” language. See animal rights; language Robbins, John, 25 rodeos. See animals as entertainment Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), 7–8 Ruddick, Sara, 44 science, 10, 49, 109–110. See also animal experimentation; medicine Scott, Marvin B., 41 security culture, 74, 100 sex. See cultural accounts of sex and gender sexism in the animal rights movement, 13, 100–104, 120–123, 126, 132–145, 152–153. See also single-issue movement sexual assault. See rape sexual harassment, 101–102 sexual orientation: association with animal rights activists, 72, 107; disparagement in animal rights movement, 135–136 Sexual Politics of Meat, The (Adams), 2–3, 5, 52 Shapiro, Kenneth, 19, 67, 70–71, 74 shock campaigns, 57, 117, 123. See also People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Silent Spring (Carson), 11 Silverstein, Helena, 90, 161n1 (chap. 1) Singer, Peter, 56, 108, 111–112, 115, 141, 164n5 (chap. 5) single-issue movement, 6, 13, 37, 129–147, 153–154. See also cross-movement alliances Sistah Vegan (Harper), 140, 154 Slicer, Deborah, 4, 164n4 (chap. 5) social learning, 43, 51–53, 57, 149 social movements, women’s experiences in, 6, 66, 84, 94–95, 107, 144–145, 152 social networks: as theory of animal rights participation, 12, 37–39, 43; informal, 95; progressive activist, 52–53, 74. See also cross-movement alliances sociobiology, 46. See also biology; essentialism socioeconomic class. See class spay/neuter campaigns. See under companion animals Sperling, Susan, 36, 62, 64, 85 Starr, Amory, 165nn7,9 (chap. 6)

INDEX

181

Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC), 69, 88 straight edge movement, 26, 99, 111, 163n4 (chap. 2) stress. See coping strategies Students for a Democratic Society, 144–145 Sturgeon, Noel, 6, 144 suffrage movement, women’s, 10 surveillance of activists, 66–69, 85

vegetarian ecofeminism. See under ecofeminism veterinary: clinics, 43; school, 16, 25, 61–62 violence, connection between abuse of women and animals, 24, 35, 40, 48, 59, 148–151, 165n8 (chap. 6). See also domestic violence; rape; sexual harassment vivisection. See animal experimentation

testosterone, cultural accounts of, 52–54, 99 trauma, 128, 101–102, 151, 165n6 (chap. 6), 165n1 (chap. 7). See also traumatic knowledge traumatic knowledge, 128, 143, 156, 164n5 (chap. 6)

Wenk, Caspar, 65, 71, 79, 150 Western philosophy, 5, 112, 115 White, Caroline, 8–9, 15, 161n6 (chap.1) White, Richard, 8 white privilege, 115, 136. See also racism in animal rights movement Wollenstonecraft, Mary, 4 women: early participation in animal rights; predominance in animal rights, 161n8 (chap. 1). See also under gender; sexism in the animal rights movement World Trade Organization (WTO), 131, 141, 165n7 (chap. 6) Wright, Alice Morgan, 10, 161n7 (chap. 1)

United Poultry Concerns, 22, 32, 88 utilitarianism, 106, 111–112, 164nn4,5 (chap. 5) veganism/vegetarianism: contextual, 64; definition, 162n1 (chap. 2); family sabotage of diet, 35; feminist debates about, 4, 161n2 (chap. 1); and masculinity, 51–52; outreach work, 89, 99; and people of color, 140, 154; struggle to maintain diet, 63. See also under pathways to activism

zines, 26, 162n2 (chap. 2) zoos, 3, 16, 59, 89, 96

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

EMILY GAARDER is an assistant professor in the Department of

Sociology/Anthropology at the University of Minnesota–Duluth. Her work focuses on gender and animal advocacy, restorative justice, and the experiences of girls and women in the criminal justice system.