Acknowledgments
This anthology has benefited considerably from the active involvement of Susanne Kappeler over the years that it was being assembled. She played an important role in commenting on the essays, and thus in the shaping of the anthology as it exists. We thank her for her ongoing commitment to this project and for the personal support she offered. We are grateful to Patricia Lamb Feuerstein and Marti Kheel for the use of the Feminists for Animal Rights bibliography, which we built upon in compiling the bibliography of feminist approaches to animal issues. We also wish to express our thanks to Marilyn Emerick, Batya Bauman, Joan Dunayer, and the Animals ’ Agenda for their help in preparing the bibliography. We would like to acknowledge Bruce Buchanan, Greta Gaard, Steve Kellman, Stanley Fish, Jane Tompkins, Rachel Toor, and Katherine Malin for their contributions to the production of this book. The editors would also like to express their appreciation to one another for making the process of collaboration such an enriching and stimulating experience.
The historical and cultural ascription of masculinity to the (American) wilderness or to the natural world also needs to be examined further. Why is it, for example, that so many wildlife documentaries turn into a nearly pornographic parade of carnivorous violence? Such representations give a warped view of the natural world, where the vast majority of creatures are not carnivorous — do not kill and eat one another — and where caring, cooperation, and symbiosis are more prevalent than the “ red in tooth and claw ” behavior repeatedly served up in the media. We suggest that such messages work to reinscribe male-supremacist ideologies, both in promoting a view of nature as dominated by aggressive and violent males, and in sanctioning human male behavior that follows this model. It is designed, we believe, to arouse fear in women and to promote their sense of needing men ’ s protection. As Lynda Birke observes, such narratives are “ politics by other means ” (borrowing a phrase from Donna Haraway). Here again further feminist research and theorizing about media narratives ’ construction of women and animals are needed.
We also noticed some specific theoretical gaps. More thinking needs to be done about the intersections of race, nation, class, and species, which Susanne Kappeler explores in her essay in this volume. More anthropological explorations would be useful. Is there a primary, prehistoric connection between the domestication and commodification of animals and what Friedrich Engels called “ the world historical defeat of the female sex ” ? And much more historical work is required. For example, we need more archival research on the historical connections between women and vegetarianism. There are interesting historical ties between the nineteenth-century antivivisection/anticruelty movements and the temperance movement — undoubtedly because of the linkage between women and animals as objects of human male domestic violence, a nexus that continues today, as Carol Adams ’ s article indicates.
In the meantime, we conclude the introduction to this pioneering volume by reasserting our underlying philosophy. We support the radical feminist thesis that the male pattern of female subordination and degradation, which is nearly universal in human societies, is prototypical for many other forms of abuse, although we also wonder whether that original pattern of domination was not itself preceded by and modeled upon the domination of animals by humans. In any event, we believe that women, as themselves victims of objectification and exploitation, must not abandon other victims of such treatment in their rush to be accepted as “ persons ” entitled to equal rights. Women must not deny their historical linkage with animals but rather remain faithful to them, bonded as we are not just by centuries of similar abuse but also by the knowledge that they — like us, often objectified as Other — are subjects worthy of the care, the respect, even the reverence, that the sacredness of consciousness deserves. Such an assertion of subjectivity is necessarily subversive of domination in all its forms.
It is clear that one of the main sources of the continuing atrocious abuse of animals by humans is an attitude that allows their reification or objectification. That ontology conveniently allows their commodification for mass-produced slaughter and their mechanization for laboratory experimentation. In fact, the reduction of animals to “ its ” is at the root of most animal abuse. The attribution of deadness to what is alive, conscious, and sensitive involves a psychology of denial that conveniently facilitates the interests of the powerful. Such denial unquestionably has allowed the great human atrocities of the century to occur, and such denial continues to allow unspeakable animal suffering to proceed as a commonplace norm.
For feminists to engage in this kind of denial, to support and participate in the oppression of the less powerful, is not only hypocritical; it is, we believe, a profound betrayal of our deepest commitments.
Josephine Donovan
Carol J. Adams
Note
Because readers are still uncomfortable with substitute terms, we use the term animal in this introduction to refer to animals other than humans. Many contributors do likewise.
1
Joan Dunayer
Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots
Through massive and sustained exploitation, humans inflict enormous suffering on other animals. Humans generally justify their exploitation of other species by categorizing “ animals ” as inferior and therefore rightfully subjugated while categorizing humans as superior and naturally entitled to dominate. So inveterate and universal is the false dichotomy of animal vs. human — and so powerfully evocative — that symbolically associating women with “ animal ” assists in their oppression. Applying images of denigrated nonhuman species to women labels women inferior and available for abuse; attaching images of the aggrandized human species to men designates them superior and entitled to exploit. Language is a powerful agent in assigning the imagery of animal vs. human. Feminists have long objected to “ animal ” pejoratives for women and the pseudogenerics man and mankind . These linguistic habits are rooted in speciesism, the assumption that other animals are inferior to humans and do not warrant equal consideration and respect. 1
Nonhuman-animal pejoratives frequently target women: catty, shrew, dumb bunny, cow, bitch, old crow, queen bee, sow . In An Intelligent Woman ’ s Guide to Dirty Words , Ruth Todasco (1973) identifies “ Woman as Animal ” as a major category of “ patriarchal epithets ” (27). What attitudes and practices have prompted these epithets?
Viewed through speciesism, a nonhuman animal acquires a negative image. When metaphor then imposes that image on women, they share its negativity. Terming a woman a “ dog ” carries the sexist implication that women have a special obligation to be attractive, since the label refers to physical appearance only when applied to females. And so, using dog against any woman indirectly insults all women. The affront to all dogs, however, is direct. Denied individual identities, they merge into Ugly. Without this disdainful view of dogs, dog would not offend. Similarly social butterfly, being female specific, assigns gender to fickleness and frivolity. The phrase would confer very different traits if the butterfly ’ s flight from flower to flower were perceived as life-sustaining rather than trivial. Reserved for women, dumb bunny links femaleness to mindlessness. But the expression rests on the speciesist assumption that rabbits are stupid.
In addition to speciesist attitudes, speciesist practices underlie nonhuman-animal metaphors that disparage women. Most such metaphors, philosopher Robert Baker (1975) notes, refer to domesticated animals like the chicken, cow, and dog — those bred for service to humans. 2
Comparison to chickens, linguist Alleen Pace Nilsen (1977) observes, spans a woman ’ s life: “ a young girl is a chick . When she gets old enough she marries and soon begins feeling cooped up . To relieve the boredom she goes to hen parties and cackles with her friends. Eventually she has her brood, begins to henpeck her husband, and finally turns into an old biddy ” (29). Nilsen ’ s analysis, however, does not delve beneath the metaphors ’ sexist use, to their origins in hens ’ exploitation. Comparing women to hens communicates scor
n because hens are exploited as mere bodies — for their egg-laying capacity or flesh. In viewing the actual chick, the egg or “ poultry ” producer anticipates her exploitation as hen. Analogously the sexist male desires to exploit the human “ chick ” as a female body, for sexual pleasure. The hen ’ s exploiter values only her physical service, dismissing her experiential world as unimportant or nonexistent. Hen party empties women ’ s experiences of all substance or significance;like hens, women have no worth apart from their function within the exploiter ’ s world. The hen ( “ biddy ” ) who offers neither desirable flesh nor continued profitable egg production is regarded as “ spent ” — and discarded. No longer sexually attractive or able to reproduce, the human “ old biddy ” too has outlived her usefulness. If hens were not held captive and treated as nothing more than bodies, their lives would not supply symbols for the lives of stifled and physically exploited women. 3
References
Donovan, Josephine, and Carol J. Adams. 1996. Beyond Animal Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals . New York: Continuum.
French, Marilyn. 1985. Beyond Power . New York: Summit.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1975. New Heaven/New Earth: Sexist Ideologies and Human Liberation . New York: Seabury.
Spelman, Elizabeth. 1982. Woman as Body: Ancient and Contemporary Views. Feminist Studies 8 (l):109 – 31.
The Goodall quote used as epigraph is from Dale Peterson and Jane Goodall, Visions of Caliban: On Chimpanzees and People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993), 281.
Part 1
Sexism/Speciesism: Interlocking Oppressions
Hens ’ current oppression far outstrips the oppression from which the metaphors arose. Over 99 percent of U.S. chickens spend their lives in crowded confinement (see Appleby, Hughes, and Elson 1992, 31 – 33; Bell 1992; Coats 1989, 81 – 82; North and Bell 1990, 456). The laying hen is crammed, usually with three to five other birds, into a wire cage so small that she cannot spread her wings (see Appleby, Hughes, and Elson 1992, 30; Coats 1989, 90 – 92; Johnson 1991, 26 – 27, 122). 4 “ Broiler ” chickens (bred for their flesh) are crowded, by the tens of thousands, onto the floor of a confinement unit. By slaughter time they barely have room to move (see Acker and Cunningham 1991, 635 – 36; Coats 1989, 87; North and Bell 1990, 456 – 58). 5 Laying hens rarely live beyond two years, “ broilers ” two months (see Appleby, Hughes, and Elson 1992, 30 – 31; Austic and Nesheim 1990, 287 – 88; North and Bell 1990, 453, 475). 6 The imprisoned hen cannot develop social bonds, raise a brood, or become an “ old biddy. ” The hen ’ s defaced image derives from her victimization.
As a term for a woman, cow is, in anthropologist John Halverson ’ s words, “ thoroughly derogatory ” (1976, 515), characterizing the woman as fat and dull. Why does metaphorical reference to the cow connote these traits while reference to the bull does not? Exploitation of the cow for her milk has created a gender-specific image. Kept perpetually pregnant and/or lactating, with swollen belly or swollen udder, the “ dairy cow ” is seen as fat. Confined to a stall, denied the active role of nurturing and protecting a calf — so that milking becomes something done to her rather than by her — she is seen as passive and dull. The cow then becomes emblematic of these traits, which metaphor can attach to women. Like the laying hen, the dairy cow is exploited as female body . Since the cow ’ s exploitation focuses on her uniquely female capacities to produce milk and “ replacement ” offspring, it readily evokes thoughts of femaleness more generally. Bearing with it a context of exploitation, the cow ’ s image easily transfers to women.
Approximately eight months of each year, today ’ s dairy cow is both pregnant and lactating. During each ten-month lactation period, machines drain her of ten times the milk her calf would suckle (see Acker and Cunningham 1991, 111; Coats 1989, 51; Mason and Singer 1990, 11). In the U.S. the largest feedlot dairy operations each hold thousands of cows, year round, in crowded dirt lots. Fed from troughs, these cows never see pasture (see Bath et al. 1985, 303; Coats 1989, 52; Herrick 1990). 7 Free-stall systems confine cows — frequently, throughout the year — to a crowded barn and adjacent dirt or concrete yard (see Bath et al. 1985, 365 – 66; Coats 1989, 52 – 53; Fox 1984, 106, 108). 8 Tie-stall operations keep each cow chained by the neck in a narrow stall, often for months at a time (see Bath et al. 1985, 361 – 65; Mason and Singer 1990, 12). When a cow ’ s milk yield permanently declines, she is slaughtered. Cow verbally abuses women by identifying them with the abused cow. 9
In the language of dog breeders, bitch denotes a female dog able to produce a litter. As pejorative, the term has remained female specific. But why should calling a woman a “ bitch ” impute malice and selfishness? Given that most dogs are loving and eager to please, the metaphor ’ s sharp contempt seems puzzling. Breeders, however, have always treated the female dog with contempt — as a means to a useful, profitable, or prestigious litter.
Among recommended methods for breeding bulldogs, the American Kennel Club ’ s official magazine includes “ holding the bitch in the proper position ” — “ by her legs ” or “ by straps ” — and “ assist[ing] ” the male in “ penetration ” (Schor 1989, 140). Breeders subject the bulldog bitch to this ordeal because, through inbreeding, they have afflicted her breed with characteristics that preclude natural mating: a low front and high rear (see Schor 1989). Also bred to be brachycephalic (flat-faced) (see American Kennel Club 1992, 486 – 88), 10 bulldogs suffer chronic breathing difficulty from pathologically short and twisted air passages. Often an overlong soft palate further obstructs breathing (see Fox 1965, 62). Recently a veterinary newsletter reported on a bulldog “ placed on her back ” for artificial insemination even though her breathing was especially labored. “ Her breathing continued to be labored. When the bitch began to struggle, ” she was restrained (New Claims 1991, 1). Her breathing worsened. Still the forced insemination continued. Struggling to breathe, she died. Familiarity with the numerous ways in which breeders have disabled dogs through inbreeding and treated them like commodities dispels any mystery as to why bitch carries contempt (see Dunayer and Dunayer 1990; Wolfensohn 1981 ). 11
The exploitation of domesticated animals, such as chickens, also leads to negative images of other animals — predators who threaten that exploitation, like the fox. A woman termed a “ vixen ” is resented, and somewhat feared, as scolding, malicious, or domineering, especially toward a man. She threatens a man ’ s self-esteem and sense of security, intruding into his perceived domain. In the days when “ poultry ” were kept in coops or yards, the actual vixen was much resented, and feared, as an intruder. Being a predator, she often crossed human-drawn boundaries to kill chickens or other fowl whom humans consider their property. Quick-witted and fleet, she frequently evaded capture, repeatedly “ outfoxing ” the human oppressor. Having no male-specific equivalent, the pejorative vixen expresses sexist resentment toward the contentious woman, but it derives from speciesist resentment toward the predatory fox.
The vixen as prey conjures a very different image, which forms the basis for foxy lady . In this case the expression ’ s origins lie in humans ’ exploitation and abuse of foxes themselves. Hunters and trappers view the fox as an object of pursuit — a future trophy or pelt. To the extent that the vixen eludes capture, she piques their desire to possess her and arouses their admiration. Even as she frustrates their goal, she prolongs their “ sport ” and proves “ worthy ” of pursuit. Hence, the ambivalence of foxy lady . A man who labels a woman “ foxy ” admires her as stylish and attractive yet sees her largely as a sex object worth possessing. Overwhelmingly, hunters and trappers are male (see Novak et al. 1987, 60; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, 36). Their skin-deep view of those they pursue easily extends from nonhuman animals to women. “ The major connection between man and fox is that of predator and prey ” Baker (1975) reasons. “ If women are conceived of as foxes, then they are conceived of as prey that it is fun to hunt ” (53). Although Baker condemns the concepti
on of women as foxes and the resulting conception of women as prey, he fails to condemn the necessary link between the two — the conception of foxes as prey. The speciesist practices of hunting and trapping enable the sexist equation woman = prey: if woman = fox and fox = prey, then woman = prey.
In the U.S., fur “ farming ” and trapping abuse more foxes than any other practices — killing hundreds of thousands each year (see Clifton 1991; Novak et al. 1987, 1018). “ Farmed ” foxes live confined to small wire cages and usually die from anal electrocution (see Clifton 1991; de Kok 1989). Most foxes trapped in the wild are caught in the excruciating steel-jaw leghold trap (see Close-Up Report 1992; Gerstell 1985, 37 – 40). Any woman who wears a fox coat wraps herself in the remains of some eleven to eighteen foxes who suffered intensely (see Fur Is Dead 1990; The Shame of Fur 1988). She also invites continued sexist comparisons between women and nonhuman victims. In Rape of the Wild (1989), ecofeminists Andr é e Collard and Joyce Contrucci remark that women who wear fur unwittingly adopt the “ identity of prey ” and so participate in their own degradation (55, n. 34).
Likening women to nonhuman animals undermines respect for women because nonhuman animals generally receive even less respect — far less. In most (if not all) contemporary human societies, the status of nonhuman animals is much lower than women ’ s. In the U.S., for example, an overall absence of legal protection for nonhuman animals permits their massive institutionalized exploitation and abuse (see Francione 1994; Galvin 1985). They are bred for show, for sale, for servitude. They are imprisoned in aquariums and zoos, forced to perform in nightclubs and circuses, terrorized and injured at rodeos and fairs. Each year, by the millions they are vivisected (see Singer 1990, 36 – 37; U.S. Congress 1986, 49 – 66), killed for their fur (see Fox 1990, 116; Novak et al. 1987, 1092), murdered for “ sport ” (see Satchell 1990; Van Voorhees et al. 1992, 10); by the billions they go from intensive confinement to slaughter (see Catfish Production 1995, 8, 10; Livestock Slaughter 1995, 1; Poultry Slaughter 1995, 15 – 16).
Animals and Women Feminist The Page 2
