Of feminism and animal welfare

That there are many schools of thoughts within feminism, and that we sometimes disagree on feminism’s direction is not something new to any of us. In fact, it’s been demonstrated time and again in our conversations, as well as our greater plans of where we wish feminism to head within the next decade. Recent discussions on feministing, as well as other feminist venues, have proven this again.

In the interest of openly talking about our differences, what follows is my attempt to voice my discomfort (in fact, it gets me raging mad) with including animal rights within feminism. While we may not all agree, and while talking about our differences might not change anything at all, I believe it’s important because it gives us a better understanding of where we each come from, thus giving us a perspective on others. I invite you to contribute and disagree.

My discomfort doesn’t stem from the fact I do not think animal welfare is an important issue, but rather, that to including animal welfare within feminism violates the very idea of feminsm, in that it introduces an issue of social justice that lacks the deconstructions of gender.

While it may be true that feminist ethics require of us to take into account power and other privileges, it above all asks us to take into account gender, and how we each are socialized based on our sex. This is something, I perceive, the animal rights movement lacks.

By including animal welfare into feminist discourse, rather than enhancing women’s lives, we simply take away from women’s rights. While other groups that come to feminism most certainly benefit from its actions and discourse, feminism’s goal is not to enhance any of their lives. The focus of feminism, in a gendered society, is to elevate women’s status and rid society of sex-based biases.

While an examination of intersectionalities, to include color, status, sexual orientation and education level as well as abilities and disabilities are important, such examinations have to include gender. When animal rights advocates make claims of certain actions they deem unjust toward animals, yet do not take into account factors of gender, the issue is no longer feministic, but rather, social justice. Just because an issue deals with social justice does not mean that it’s a feminist issue.

Just as we must remember that it’s inappropriate to say “What about the men?” in our feminist discussions, it is also to apply the same question to animals. This is not because animals have privilege over women, but rather, because the challenges animals face and those women face are completely different. Their lives do not intertwine, nor do they have any common social plights.

Are there times and place in which to enhance the lives of men and animals? Absolutely. But any enhancement of their lives within feminism is and should be a byproduct, and not the overarching goal. Until gender equality is accomplished, feminism’s overall goal is for equality for women.

Further, it seems the claims of feminists – and by feminism’s demographics, women as a default, should focus on animal welfare, we continue to feed into the belief that women are nurturing – that women are responsible for not only themselves, but are also the caretakers of others, in this case, animals.

This suggests, then, that women that women have a responsibility toward others, and not just for themselves – that their choice of what makes them happy simply isn’t enough, but the choice also has to enhance others’ lives. This, then, is not much of a choice, if it is required of women to make choices that benefit others, and not just themselves. Whatever happened to honoring women’s choices? Isn’t that what feminism is all about?

Yet, another reason I find it troublesome to include animal welfare with feminism is that by suggesting they are equals, we give misogynistic organizations like the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals a pass in their advertising. After all, if women and animals are treated with the same priorities, then we also say that, indeed, women do have some privilege over animals, and thus actions that disadvantage them to further the rights of animals are justifiable. This is the same kind of logic PETA uses for its misogynistic campaign.

Finally, suggestions of animals having the same rights as women – or that feminism ought to include animal rights, fails at the examination of certain types of economic privileges – the very intersectionalities some pro-animal feminists have suggested. That is – while some may have the economic autonomies to be vegetarians and vegans, others may not. While some may find the tasks of being vegans and vegetarians easy because of better economical access, there are those who can only afford to eat what’s cheapest – namely meat and other products.

In the end, it is important to question the injustices of the world. But unless the issues we take on include questions of gender and power, they are not feminist issues. If pro-animal welfare feminists want to talk about vegetarianism’s benefits toward women of the Global South, and how the consumption of meat leads to deforestation, which in turn makes the lives of women on the Global South much harder, then it’s feministic. But by simply claiming that we “rape” the earth just as much as we rape women, we not only trivialize sexual assaults, we also fail to take into account gender and the challenges women face.

Feminists come in the forms of meat eaters and vegetarians, and those in between, and we each have a place in feminism – but just because we are feminists does not mean that all the issues we choose to take on are feministic in nature, or that feminism requires that we take them on. What feminism does require of us, however, is being keenly aware of gender biases, and how they impact women’s (and men’s) lives. Animal rights activism has its place within the progressive lifestyle, but within feminism, it neither belongs nor contributes to the eradication of sexism and enhancement of women’s lives.