Recent comments

Hi Jenna:

There's a couple points in this paragraph from your comment that I think need to be clarified:

I would also encourage readers to consider that many sex workers would offer a much different testimony to their experiences than Ross does. This is really just an extension of my previous comments, but as atrocious as it is for advocates to assume that all prostituted women and men think of themselves as "pieces of meat," it is also problematic for everyone to think that the lives and experiences of some sex workers are not dangerous or that some sex workers wouldn't choose different circumstances for themselves.

I'm concerned that this comment frames an unwarranted opposition that undermines rather than supports Ross' justice advocacy work by claiming "many sex workers would offer a much different testimony to their experiences than Ross does." Of course there are no universally shared experiences. As such, it's not that sex workers have different experiences that is a problem, but the way these differences are used to frame Ross' experience as being at odds with that the needs and interests of other sex workers.

Ross doesn't deny that sex work is dangerous work – quite the opposite in fact. As an active participant in the international movement for prostitutes' rights, a major focus of Ross' work in this movement is addressing the myriad dangers that sex workers experience. So it's important to remember that these dangers are found at the intersections of capitalism, classism, sexism, racism, xenophobic-nationalism, cissexism, homophobia, ableism, and so on, as opposed to being inherent to sex work itself. Since Ross is merely speaking on behalf of sex workers' collective needs for safety, dignity, and respect, I don't see how her position or advocacy is in opposition with that of other sex workers, and I'm troubled by how the oppositional framing suggests that it is.

Additionally, I think it is inappropriate to speculate as to whether Ross or any other sex worker would "choose different circumstances." As Emi Koyama points out in her call to "Support Prostitutes' Rights Now!":

Like many other workers in a capitalist society, our options are limited by many factors, including poverty, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. But to the degree many workers choose their occupation, many prostitutes do choose ours. To the degree many workers are forced into an occupation that they do not want to enter, many prostitutes are forced into prostitution. One of the goals of the prostitutes' rights movement is to empower everybody who works in the sex industry regardless of how we entered this field, creating many options for ourselves, both inside and outside of the industry.

Hence the approach used by the Sex Worker Project in New York: "Using a harm reduction and human rights model, we protect the rights and safety of sex workers who by choice, circumstance, or coercion remain in the industry." That one might choose other circumstances doesn't mean that Ross' position is problematic. Regardless of whether one chooses to be a sex worker or not, the dangers perpetrated by those feminists and others advocating anti-prostitution policies and positions – to which Ross is speaking out against – systematically harm all who are or are profiled as sex workers as a group of people. So again, it is worrisome to see it suggested that Ross is at odds with other sex workers on these points.

Not unlike other workers' movements, Ross and others in the sex workers' movement are organizing against imposed dangers and limitations – although the dangers and limitations sex workers' face obviously come in different forms and from different sources. For a more in depth analysis, I highly recommend reading Koyama's "Instigations from the Whore Revolution: A Third Wave Response to the Sex Work 'Controversy'" (available by PDF preview and purchase).

Respectfully yours,
Ida

Nothing in the original post represents any "trend towards excusing a cruelty." That said, there definitely is a trend among White/Western nonhuman animal advocates perpetuating racism and imperialism and operating from a colonialist mentality. The I.D.A. petition is a clear example of this sort of racism, for all the reasons listed in the original post above.

As I point out in the post, other options exist for challenging the oppression of nonhuman animals while refusing to play into racism and imperialism. So it is important to understand how an endorsement of the I.D.A. petition is in reality an endorsement of the racism and imperialism it represents.

There are certainly serious problem with White/Westerner nonhuman animal activists targeting Asian and African countries, as well as shopkeepers of African or Asian decent. This is because White/Westerner people in general have an ongoing legacy of dominating and oppressing nonwestern/people of color. Brigitte Bardot's well-publicized racism under the guise of concern for other animals is only the most obvious example of a problem that is all too common.

Even the best meaning White/Western nonhuman animal activists can easily perpetuate this legacy of racism and imperialism under "post-racial" racism. That is, the racism is hidden behind a cover of nonracial concern for the welfare of other animals. Oftentimes White/Western nonhuman animal activists don't even realize they are being racist. Yet if we read the majority of comments on the I.D.A. petition, we can see that you don't have to look very far to see the racist undertones.

We don't see these same sort of campaigns directed at White/Western nations. For instance, I.D.A. isn't calling for the complete boycott of New Zealand, although that country is systematically working to eliminate the brushtail possums. To this end, eighty percent of the deadly poison Compound 1080 produced worldwide goes to New Zealand. And all this is being done to protect the country's $8 billion beef and dairy industry. Furthermore, the entire extermination program is being promoted under a banner of nationalism.

The point of the original post (please reread it!) is that we can oppose the oppression of other animals without perpetuating racism and imperialism. However, when we treat nonhuman animal advocacy as a "post-racial" issue we inevitably end up perpetuating racism and imperialism while operating from a colonialist mindset. This is why White/Westerner nonhuman animal advocates need to constantly and consistently be consciously and actively antiracist if we want to avoid operating from and perpetuating systems of racist oppression, especially when doing cross-racial campaigns that involve nonwesterners/people of color.

I really enjoyed this post. You articulated the problem of multiple oppressions and white privilege in veganism very well, and I just wanted to let you know that I added your website to my blogroll on Animal Visions. Thanks for contributions, once again. Keep up the awesome work!

followed a facebook link and read your article. while it's sad that transphobia still persists in certain areas of femminism, i am so glad to read the article and especially the link to emi koyama's essay

Louise,

Thanks for your comment. I can see how that sentence may have been confusing as originally written. I certainly didn't intend to make an statement that spoke for all sex workers.

There is a difference between what I'm trying to say and what Carol Adams says about sex workers. Adams certainly is making a sort of broad categorical imperative type statement about all sex workers. That is, under Adams rhetoric and discourse anyone who trades sex for something they need or desire is a sexual slave who is "prostituted" or "pornographed." This is the a priori thesis from which Adams basis her work, which leave no room for considering sex workers' own experiences or lived realities.

Admittedly, I'm talking about sex workers as a group, but only to the extent of communicating that as a whole sex workers most certainly do not refer to themselves as "prostituted" or "pornographed." In fact, many sex workers are vehemently opposed to this sort of rhetoric and discourse, and have eloquently described how harmful and objectifying these terms can be. Yes, some individual sex workers might refer to themselves as "prostituted" and/or "pornographed." It wasn't my intention to say that no sex workers ever have or ever will refer to themselves in those terms. Rather, I simply wish to point out that these are inappropriate term for referring to sex workers categorically and as a whole, as Adams and other anti-sex worker theorists do.

That is, my intention is to dispute Adams' troubling and problematic unconditional categorization of sex worker in ways that erases and silences most of sex workers as a group. I certainly wasn't attempting to create another unconditional categorization to replace Adams' own objectifying categorization of sex workers. In hopes of making thing a little clearer I've changed the sentence to better reflect what it is I'm trying to say.

Ida,

I saw this post a long time ago and have been thinking about it ever since. Admittedly a late comment but better late than never.

I had never heard of the troubled history of eco-feminism or its links to transphobia before, but what you are saying checks out. Bloodroot's home page has references to J. Raymond's book The Transsexual Empire - with no apologies. And I read through Lagusta's essay with sadness. It's heartbreaking. There are many misconceptions that could be addressed - such as the idea that transsexualism suddenly appeared out of postmodernism! I think of Leslie Feinberg's book, 'Transgender Warriors: Making History from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman'. Transsexuality has always been with us and it's a part of human expression as much as anything else.

Your tone is often harsh but I appreciate the work you are doing.

In solidarity,

J.

I appreciate how this post does an excellent job of making these connections clear. The next time someone wants to know why I do not endorse Adams' work, I will add this post to the list (along with your other cogent posts on the topic).

Let's not pretend that what theorists like Adams say about sex work doesn't have real implications for people in the world. There is nothing theoretical about how earlier this month, Dana "Chanel" Larkin, a Black trans woman who was engaging in sex work was murdered by one of her customers. Transgender woman murdered on Milwaukee street.

As you have pointed out to me, anti-sex worker sentiment is integral to the ideas put forth in Adams' The Pornography of Meat. I think seeing your full analysis of the anti-sex worker foundations of that book would be enlightening.

I did not mean to say that she specifically recommends "meat is murder." She does use the word "murder" a lot, though, and recommends it generally. Has the use of the term "murder" promoted more reflection, in your experience, than "killing"?

Where does Joan Dunayer recommend the phrase "meat is murder" in Animal Equality? Dunayer actually advises against using the term "meat" at all, noting that this term obscures what it really is - the flesh of a dead animal.

In regards to this topic of this post, I think it's fine to use the term "murder." As sociologist David Nibert writes in Animal Rights/Human Rights, "[t]he use of the term murder for the killing of other animals in many settings, for example, is more likely to promote reflective thought than such terms as culling, taking, or even hunting" (pg. xv). Tabooing strong moralistic language when applied to nonhuman animals helps maintain speciesist ideology and exploitation.

I see the path ahead as one we build ourselves based on creating a trail of nonexploitation leading in the direction of an oppression-free world. Yes, this is a long, hard journey, but I think it is worth it. I don't expect to reach a oppression-free world over night, but I do believe that we're walking in the right direction when can being to make the road by modeling everyday ways of living the principle of nonexploitation. That's why the motto of this site is "Modeling Practical Ideas for an Oppression-Free World."

Yes, corporations are a vehicle. But corporations are a vehicle that travels a well worn path that is paved with the exploitation of others. That is, corporations like Altria Group, Inc./Philip Morris USA/Kraft Foods exploit workers, consumers, nonhuman animals, the Earth's life-sustaining systems and resources for the benefit of its shareholders. So as a vehicle the road corporations travel goes in a different direction from that of the vegan ideal.

In Kenya, the Green Belt Movement talks about the "wrong bus syndrome." That is, if you get on the wrong bus you'll end up going in the wrong direction. There are a lot of reason why we might get on the wrong bus. For instance, the wrong bus might have a sign on it claiming to take us to our destination. I think consumer products labeled "vegan" are exactly that, they are misleading us into thinking we are on the right bus. Another might be because someone we believe knows the way tells us to get on the wrong bus. I believe this is what PETA and others do when they tell us we have an obligation to support exploitative corporations.

Let's think critically about where we want to go and how to get there, and not just jump on the first flash vehicle that comes along promising us a free ride to Vegantown. Admittedly, walking in the right direction takes more work than hoping on a bus going in the wrong direction. But even if it is slow and rough, I'd rather be actively walking in the right direction rather than passively hitching a ride in the wrong direction.

First of all, I do not talk about "ecofeminism as an entirety," I'm talking about vegetarian-ecofeminism, which is a very specific and highly homogeneous faction of ecofeminism. In the interview, I specifically talk about why the cissexist context of the emergence of a vegetarian-ecofeminist ideology is relevant and needs to be taken into consideration. This is because cis supremacy is built into the the ideological foundation of vegetarian-ecofeminism, which I believe is unfortunately illustrated in this anonymous comment.

In the interview I talk about how vegetarian-ecofeminism erases, invalidates, and makes invisible the existence and oppression experienced by trans people. This anonymous comment doesn't contradict anything I say in the interview about vegetarian-ecofeminism ignoring and being complicit with systematic cissexism. In fact, it only confirms what I have said by further ignoring and being complicit with cissexism.

Cisness, or the cissexual (non-trans) experience and perspective, is privileged and given supremacy through the dismissal of what has already been said — calling it a "massive exaggeration" and "only one version of events" — and demanding still more proof. Yet while I provide specific references and citation throughout this website for those interested, I believe this anonymous comment — as well as another comment I received last week demanding that I cite specific examples of transphobia in Carol J. Adams' Sexual Politics of Meat — perpetuates the structure of cis supremacy by defining transphobia as an individualized, overt act or statements of anti-trans bigotry without regard for how vegetarian-ecofeminism is itself structured from the ground up around the supremacy of cisness over transness.

Again, as a matter of ideology and institution, trans people were never meant to be included in vegetarian-ecofeminism. The lack of recognition by vegetarian-ecofemimism of trans people or how we are targeted by oppression needs to be seen as suspect by itself. For instance, this anonymous comment demands evidence of transphobia, but doesn't provide any positive evidence that vegetarian-ecofeminism is inclusive or attentive to the oppression experienced by trans people. If vegetarian-ecofeminism doesn't actively include trans people, recognize our oppression, and seek to support our liberation, then it is cissexist in its de facto collusion with cis supremacy.

Transphobia is more than mere acts or statements of anti-trans bigotry. I understand transphobia as the oppressive outcomes trans people experience as a result of a pervasive system of discrimination, exclusion and violence that targets people who are transgendered, transsexual, two-spirit, gender nonconforming, and others who are members of sex and gender diverse groups. As such, when trans people are ideologically and systematically marginalized and excluded there is little need for overt bigotry. In the case of vegetarian-ecofeminism, structural cis supremacy and its ideological hegemony perpetuate transphobia on a larger scale than anything that can be specifically cited or referenced as transphobic.

"It argues that individual change is negligible, that yes, we can challenge the system through anti-oppression (i.e. veganism), but that this may take forever."

The same could be said about so many other things: racism, sexism, murder, rape, theft... Any one of us choosing not to engage in those things produces a "negligible" difference in the overall statistics. And we'll probably NEVER see the end of those things. But, thankfully, most people wouldn't say, "Well, I know rape is wrong, but it's not going away in my lifetime and it's not going to make a big difference either way, so I might as well do it."

No, we avoid doing things because we believe they are wrong -- unless we don't actually think something is wrong, or wrong enough to outweigh our selfishness.

The problem with free-range eggs and other "humane" sources of animal products, is that it basically tells people, "You're 'ethical shoppers' and 'good' people for choosing 'humane' eggs and 'happy' meat". In other words, animal exploitation isn't wrong, according to the promoters of these things, but rather only certain kinds of animal exploitation.

This will never lead to abolition because it *promotes* animal exploitation and makes people feel better about their animal exploitation. And, morally, it's somewhat like telling people, "Be an ethical slave holder! Give your slaves plenty of room to walk around in!" instead of saying, "Slavery is wrong. You don't have to enslave other people, so just don't do it."

Moreover, "humane" animal products can be elitist in practice because the more expensive options are portrayed as morally superior and not everyone can afford those options. So, it encourages people with more money feel morally superior to those with fewer choices. (Veganism, for all the claims of elitism, is a lot more accessible than "humane" animal products in most places.)

If cheaper options aren't available, it may eventually lead to fewer animal products being used by the poor, as is common in some parts of the world, but what we see there is that animal products are seen as luxury items -- something people aspire to have, not avoid. There will be plenty of wealthier people engaging in animal exploitation and plenty more people trying to find a way to make it more affordable for those less well off. History repeats itself again and again. So no, this does nothing to change the mindset that animal products are not only acceptable, but good.

The only path to abolition is telling people that animal exploitation is wrong and that they should avoid contributing to it. That's veganism.