Many ecofeminists like Greta Gaard see animals and humans very similarly, for instance “from an ecofeminist perspective, speciesism is a form of oppression that parallels and reinforces other forms of oppression. These multiple systems of racism, classism, sexism, speciesism are not merely linked, mutually reinforcing systems of oppression: they are different faces of the same system” (Gaard, 20). We have studied and learned about how women are harmed at large under various forms of oppression and elements of hyper capitalism, now when we examine non-human animals we can start to understand that they also can experience the same levels of oppression.
I think it’s important to note that oppression was given a very reliable and clear definition this week… From Gaard’s article, “Ecofeminism on the Wing” another feminist writer, Marion Young describes oppression as a “condition in groups” and with groups there are different types of oppression, Young breaks them down to, “ exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence” (Gaard page 20). When it comes to an ecofeminist perspective on non-human animals, key elements that ecofeminists address is that speciesism is just as relative as any of the widely known “isms” and within that non-human animals are still susceptible to the conditions that oppression brings that Young described.
Power: There is a large population of this country that eats non-human animals. Around the time of me visiting the Animal Kill Clock there had been roughly 8.1 billion non human animal deaths this year. As a meat eater who knows that the food and agriculture industry could be safer and more ethical. This number was alarming to me because we are only just now at the end of February. Non-human animals do sit at the bottom of our social hierarchies. I say this somberly but with more awareness moving forward. In Gaard reading, power dynamics were at play greatly. The writers brought home this idea that non-human animals don’t necessarily consent to the treatments and experiences that go through to be food in our food system and for human consumption because, “transfer of energies from one group to another to produce unequal distributions and surely the labor of wild and domestic nonhuman animals. their reproduction and their bodies as well have been exploited by humans” (Gaard page 20). And like Curtin addresses under perspectives of moral vegetarianism, “I cannot refer to an absolute moral rule that prohibits meat eating under all circumstances” (Curtin Page 1). Curtin perceives non-human animals in their analysis of vegetarianism and the importance of when it would morally be okay to exhibit any oppression to non-human animals. What’s more is that Curtin elaborates on the effects of speciesism when “ethics of care” are considered for non-human animals as it relates to the cultural imperialism element of oppression that is bound to happen between human and non- human animals in this food system. Like in Japanese culture there is , “Shinto ceremony that pays respect to the insects that are killed during rice planting” ( Curtin page 2). The ceremonies are an amazing example of the idea that ultimately while trying to keep humans fed in Japanese society smaller less powerful creatures are killed, this awareness and homage from the dominant group will go a long way for the oppression and ethics of care for non-human animals.
Gendered Eating:
Example 1: Man and woman are out at dinner, women order a salad, man orders a steak.
Explained: Men are seen as needing to be more masculine and strong. So when it comes to eating and especially in an intimate setting like a date with a woman he will socialize to present and order something heavy and strong like red meat. Women are seen as feminine and dainty so they would be conditioned to order something light and subtle like a salad.
Example 2: Women wash dishes after a long day, men watch t.v. after dinner and unwinds.
Explained: Women are seen in domestic roles under patriarchy. So for a woman to be taking care of the dishes and the home as a form of unpaid labor, this would be the norm.
Image: At first glance I assumed the image above was of pillsbury dough boy, a mascot for a bakery company. After further examination I see the small white figure cutting through meat with two knives. I think this image was chosen for this week because we were all discussing how deep vegetarianism and ecofeminism runs. In my opinion if the white figure in suppose to represent pillsbury dough boy, a baking goods company, then replacement of dough with meat symbolizes the treatment of non human animals in this society.
Hey Jillian!
I really enjoyed reading your blog post this week. I thought that you did a really good job about breaking down Gaard and Curtin’s readings and examining each of their perspectives regarding the oppression that non-human animals face as well as the oppression woman face in today’s patriarchal society.
When you were discussing in the Gaard reading the exploitation of animals by humans and their inability to consent to the treatment and experiences they go through, I thought of all the documentaries I’ve seen about the mistreatment of these poor non-human animals who go through horrific ordeals. It made me think about my own chickens and how they would view their life. Although my families chickens have a big backyard to run around in, a cleaned chicken coop with fresh hay and water everyday, and plenty of feed, I can’t help but feel as though I am still doing them a disservice by containing them to a specific place. However we would never take one of our chickens lives, they are females and we only use them for the eggs and for the joy they bring to our everyday lives. When you discussed the Shinto ceremony in Japanese culture it reminded me of what Curtin states in Contextual Moral Vegetarianism that “vegetarianism has been defended as a moral obligation that results from rights that nonhuman animals have in virtue of being sentient beings.” Going back to thinking about my chickens, I believe that statement. They each have their own personalities, the way they run, the way that they will come and nestle down next to you if you were to sit outside, the specific noises they make. I decided to look at the animal kill clock again which you mentioned at the beginning of your post. When you wrote the post it was at 8.1 billion however when I just looked it was now at 8.9 billion which was quite mind blowing.
Jillian,
The “Animal Kill Clock” was certainly sent a powerful message. The fact that there had been roughly 8.1 billion non-human animal deaths this year was significantly higher than I anticipated. With meat prices rising significantly, I am curious if the percent of “forced” vegetarianism due to budgetary constraints has increased. If so, perhaps an adjustment to eating more non-meat foods may continue.
While reading your comments from Gaard on the following: “transfer of energies from one group to another to produce unequal distributions and surely the labor of wild and domestic nonhuman animals. their reproduction and their bodies as well have been exploited by humans”. The definition of “bullying” came to mind. Normally reserved for human interpretation and relevance. “Bullying is the use of force, coercion, hurtful teasing or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception of an imbalance of physical or social power. This imbalance distinguishes bullying from conflict. Bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by hostile intent, imbalance of power and repetition over a period of time. Bullying is the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another individual, physically, mentally or emotionally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
Hi Jillian!
I liked how you gave examples of gendered eating. It was laid out well, and got straight to the point!
It actually made me think about how when I see men and women out to dinner, that it’s men who have the beer, and women who have the martini. I will raise my hand and say that I am not immune to this mold when eating out with my boyfriend. However it’s not just the food when we gender males and females, It’s drinks, it’s cars, it’s houses, it’s makeup, it’s clothing and so on.
I am actually curious how professor Gardner obtained the photo or if she photoshopped it herself. Because if that’s the case, then I am impressed! We all kind of assume that it’s the Pillsbury dough boy, but there isn’t a face, or clothing. No ‘gendered’ features or accessories except for the hat. I think that if this character did have more defining angles, and body parts, the conversation about it, might change regardless of the meat. What if he was smiling? What if he was angry? What if he was laughing? These things matter when it comes to how we make up what we think, but since we are left with so little to go by it’s been interesting to read people’s opinions. For me, the meat represented women to a degree, but the figure didn’t make too much of a difference for me.
HI Alina,
I was also interested in the origins of Professor Garner’s image. I found that image and other interesting ones by the same photographer on Pixabay.