This collection of articles has been compiled by Animal Rights Advocates Inc. (ARA) to provide a guide for activists interested in the links between animal rights and other social justice movements and challenging their own oppressive behaviour.

1. Coalition
Building
Creating Alliances
Against Oppression
an activist reader

2. Contents
Present Realities and the Moral Status of Animals
– Dan Cudahy 1
Linking Feminist, Queer, and Animal Liberation Movements
- Pattrice Jones 7
Their Bodies, Our Selves: Moving Beyond Sexism and Speciesism
- Pattrice Jones 19
Reproductive Autonomy: Crossing the Species Border
- Helen Matthews 26
Is Heterosexism Different?
- Gary L. Francione 32
Anti-Racist Strategies for White Student Radicals
- Chris Dixon 35
Anti-Oppression Organizing Tools
- Los Angeles Direct Action Network 41
Toward an Interspecies Alliance Politics
- Steven Best 44
Further Information 59
Guiding Principles of Animal Rights 60
About this reader
This collection of articles has been compiled by Animal Rights
Advocates Inc. (ARA) to provide a guide for activists interested in the
links between animal rights and other social justice movements and
challenging their own oppressive behaviour. Feel free to photocopy
and distribute as long as you maintain the original attributions.

3. Present Realities and the
Moral Status of Animals
– Dan Cudahy
Blind Tradition: The Historical Moral Status of So-Called “Brutes”
From pre-history until the 20th century, it was believed by almost
everyone that humans needed to use and eat animals to thrive and
even to survive. This was especially true prior to the 19th century; and
philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries, such as Rene Descartes,
John Locke, and Immanuel Kant had grossly distorted visions of the
nature of nonhuman animals which fit well with the idea that God
“put” animals in our world for our use, and that we had no moral
obligations to animals whatsoever. Descartes viewed animals as
insentient automata or “God’s machines”. For Descartes, one of the
founders of modern vivisection, the intense squeals of dogs being
beaten or tortured were merely the sounds of a broken machine,
not cries of extreme pain. John Locke viewed animals as natural
resources, like land and trees, which we may acquire as property and
have “natural rights” to that property. For Immanuel Kant, animals
were literally “things”: “...Beings whose existence depends…on nature
have, nevertheless, if they are not rational beings, only a relative
value as means and are therefore called things.” (Kant, 1785) The old,
traditional distorted view of animals is still in our language today as
most of us refer to an animal as “it” even when we know the sex of an
individual animal and therefore his or her proper gender.
Given the prevailing view and circumstances of the 17th and 18th
-1-

4. centuries that animals needed to be raised, used, and killed for basic
human needs, is not surprising that thoughtful philosophers such
as Descartes, Locke, and Kant sought to avoid thinking and writing
seriously about the similarities between humans and nonhumans and
how those similarities might have serious moral implications. Instead,
to protect the perceived need of animal use, they emphasized a
morally irrelevant difference between nonhumans and most, but
certainly not all humans: rationality. Another, more intellectually
honest approach would have been for these thinkers to admit that
there were morally relevant similarities, and that these imposed
a direct duty to animals to reduce suffering as much as possible,
but that ultimately, moral consideration would have to yield to the
perceived survival needs of humans. But we have to remember that
these were times when women did not count as full persons, and
humans owned other humans as chattel property and were often as
cruel to human slaves as to nonhuman slaves. We can see how even
careful thinkers as Locke and Kant may have been lost in the fog of
their culture’s deeply-held prejudices.
“Food” Animals and Human Brutes
The torture endured by farmed animals from birth to slaughter in our
industrialized and mechanized processing systems is unimaginably
horrible, and there is no significant difference between free-range,
cage-free, and “certified humane” versus the traditional industrial
methods, despite the misleading claims of large welfare organizations
(incorrectly referred to by the media and themselves as “animal
rights” organizations). If you are born a chicken in the most “humane”
environment, the best thing that might happen to you is that you
are gassed or tossed alive into a wood-chipper as a baby chick, so
you don’t have to experience a life of hell as a cage-free or “certified
humane” egg chicken (a “layer”) or flesh chicken (a “broiler”). Make
no mistake; both the old methods and the new, so-called “humane”
methods rely on intensive confinement with filthy conditions,
-2-

5. diseases, no individual attention, and no veterinary care to speak of.
One thing is obvious: It is literally impossible to raise and slaughter
hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of nonhumans without
industrial methods. What is less obvious, but nevertheless true, is
that “humane” labels are little more than a marketing ploy to ease
the growing public sensitivity to the (unavoidable) reality of animal
agriculture’s cruelty. Further, transportation and slaughter itself is
extremely cruel, with slaughterhouse workers intentionally torturing
animals, especially chickens, and animals often inadvertently being
boiled or ripped apart alive (such cruelty is common knowledge
among welfare advocates and has been documented in the
Washington Post [‘They die piece by piece’] and in various films
and documentaries of slaughterhouse conditions). When we do
these things to a dog or cat, we are charged with a felony; when we
do these while marketing unnecessary food preferences, we get
paid a wage for it. Even if it were possible (and it’s not possible) to
heavily police transportation and slaughter so that the cruelty was
significantly reduced, it is still wrong to treat sentient beings with a
crucial interest in their life and its quality as a means to an end. We
need not wonder who the brutes are; a mirror will tell us.
Animal agriculture, on its modern scale of production, is an
environmental disaster, with “cattle” and hog waste polluting
groundwater, rivers, and streams and killing millions of fish
throughout the country; and flatulence contributing significant
quantities of carbon and other pollutants into the air. “Food” animals,
particularly “cattle” and pigs, are reverse protein factories, consuming
up to 10 times more protein in their short lives than they provide
after they are slaughtered for food. A vast majority of the land used
for growing plant food is to feed animals who will use up to 90%
of that protein in their daily living, returning relatively very little
after slaughter. The only way to achieve more pollution and greater
inefficiency in food production is to breed and raise more nonhumans
for food.
-3-

6. The Solution to Animal Agriculture
Now, early in the 21st century, more and more mainstream dieticians
and health professionals are telling us that balanced vegan diets are
optimal for our health. (For information about vegan nutrition, see the
link on this blog.) There are now vegan alternatives to most animal-
based ingredients and expanded vegan options, making gourmet
vegan entrees and desserts as delightful to the palate as non-vegan
versions ever were, and much healthier too (see the vegan menus
links in this blog). Dieticians are also telling us that traditional animal-
based diets, especially in the quantities we consume them, are literally
killing us with heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity, strokes, and
cancer. For clothing, there are now synthetic materials, such as nylon,
synthetic fleece, faux “leather”, faux “suede”, and faux “fur”, which easily
replace, and are better than, the animal alternatives. The solution is to
go vegan.
Animal Experimentation: Archaic, Brutal, and Dangerous
The things we do to sentient nonhumans in labs, 90% of the time
for trivial reasons and never for crucial reasons, are beyond salvage.
Again, if we are unspeakably cruel to a dog or cat in the street, we
get hit with felony cruelty charges (as we should); if we do the same
thing in a lab under a thin veneer of respectability backed up by the
law (laws heavily influenced politically by the vivisection industry),
however, we get paid a wage.
Fortunately, there is a growing body of well-researched literature
showing that modern alternatives to animal testing and training on
animals, such as computer modeling and simulation, human tissue
research, clinical observation and research, epidemiology, pathology,
genetics, prevention, autopsies, and post-marketing drug surveillance
are making animal testing archaic, obsolete, and even dangerous
to humans. Indeed, it is blind tradition, powerful business interests,
and wealthy lobbying which supports a vast majority of current
-4-

7. animal research. Jean Swingle Greek, DMV, and C.Ray Greek, MD, have
contributed volumes of valuable research, ranging from non-technical
research appealing to the lay reader to highly technical research
appealing to scientists and health professionals on the lack of need
for animal use in modern medicine. The Physician’s Committee for
Responsible Medicine is also playing a valuable role in educating
scientists and health professionals about responsible alternatives to
animal testing.
Moral Reflection and Conclusions: The Personhood of Animals
We are clearly no longer in need of any animal use which would
preserve the meaning of the word “need”, and in fact, if there
is a need, it is a need to avoid animal use for our health and
environmental sustainability. This has profound implications for
our behavior toward nonhumans. Nonhumans have always had
morally crucial and important interests in not being intentionally
harmed or killed. The psychological and emotional interests of
sentient nonhumans are too similar to and overlapping with our
own to continue to ignore those interests, especially at a time
when ignoring those interests is so unnecessary and destructive in
so many ways. Rationality is a nice tool to use for good or evil, but
it has no moral relevance when it comes to crucial basic interests
such as the avoidance of serious physical or psychological harm or
death. It is arbitrary to look to rationality as defining moral or legal
personhood. Also, to do so is to necessarily exclude many humans
from personhood, such as infants, the senile, and the mentally
disabled or mentally ill. Sentience, the ability to have experiences
(including pleasure and pain), is certainly sufficient for moral and legal
personhood, and any being who has sentience to the high degree
that cows, pigs, chickens, geese, deer, goats, sheep, elk, marine
mammals, and many fish do, clearly has crucial interests and profound
corresponding moral claims on our behavior. There may well be other
criteria which would also suffice for personhood, such as the likely
-5-

8. future acquisition of sentience. Such a criterion as a high probability
for future sentience would be appropriate for considering the
moral and legal personhood of comatose normal human adults and
fetuses. Criteria other than sentience for moral and legal personhood,
however, are beyond the scope of this essay. Suffice it to say that
sentience itself is sufficient.
It has been clear empirically, even from the 18th century, that there
is no non-arbitrary way to distinguish morally relevant characteristics
of humans from nonhumans. In other words, there is no morally
relevant characteristic which all humans and only humans have
which would give humans special moral consideration. As such,
attempts to distinguish between humans and nonhumans on species
membership alone, without some morally relevant characteristic that
all and only humans have, is plainly arbitrary, and therefore, is plainly
speciesist. Such speciesism is every bit as morally unacceptable as
racism and sexism. There may have been a weak excuse for such
speciesism back in Locke and Kant’s day, considering the perceived
need to use animals and the cultural racism and sexism of the time (all
of which itself was wrong, even then), but with the knowledge and
alternatives available today, there are no more excuses, not even half-
baked excuses. A speciesist is a racist is a sexist: it is all the same moral
wrong. If we do not consider ourselves racist or sexist, and if we are
to avoid hypocrisy and maintain consistency, we must eliminate our
speciesism by going vegan.
This article can be accessed in its original form at:
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2007/09/present-realities-
and-moral-status-of.html
-6-

9. Of Brides and Bridges: Linking Feminist,
Queer, and Animal Liberation Movements
- Pattrice Jones
The raiders captured more than a hundred females. Chased and
forced to give up all but 30 of their captives, they chose carefully,
keeping the purpose of breeding in mind and retained those with the
lightest skin and strongest muscles.
The raiders were agents of the Lord’s Resistance Army of Uganda.
The captives, not cows but school girls, were distributed as “wives”
to senior officers, who took care to rape them whenever they were
fertile. Any girl who refused sex to her assigned “husband” was
branded twice and whipped 200 times.
This particular raid happened in 1996 but similar forays continue
to this day. Both boys and girls are impressed into service as child
soldiers. Girls judged fit for reproduction become sex slaves to adult
soldiers, forced to bear and raise children and to do heavy labor
whenever not servicing their designated husbands.
The taking of both women and animals as spoils of war is a tradition
that dates back to the earliest days of pastoralism and continues
to this day. The same tactics have been and continue to be used to
“domesticate” (i.e., break the will and control the reproduction of )
both women and animals. It’s not an accident that “bride” and “bridle”
sound the same, that “grooms” take the reins of both horses and
wives, or that we speak of animal “husbandry.”
-7-

10. Animal liberationists know a lot about the exploitation of nonhuman
animals but often are woefully uninformed about the injuries and
injustices suffered by human females. Similarly, while any animal
liberationist can list a litany of abuses perpetrated by humans
upon nonhumans, many shy away from explicitly listing the crimes
committed by human males.
Like the exploitation of dairy cows to satisfy human desire for milk
and of hens to satisfy human desire for eggs, the exploitation of
women and children to satisfy male desire for sexual pleasure is big
business. According to the United Nations, one million children are
enslaved by the sex tourism industry in Asia alone. Some villages
specialize in procurement of children for pedophile tourists.
Destinations in South America and the Caribbean also are known to
be havens for men who want to rape or buy local girls and boys.
Meanwhile, teenaged and adult women are held in bondage in
brothels all over the world. Rather than declining, the trafficking
of girls and women for the sex industry has been increasing in
recent years. A quick search of recent news stories turns up reports
of Lithuanian women sold into sex slavery in Britain; thousands of
women from South Asia, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe trafficked
into sex slavery in Australia every year; smuggling of sex slaves into
the U.S. via Canada; and the closure of a brothel in Vermont in which
the purported prostitutes were, in fact, debt servitors from Korea.
In most instances, these kinds of slavery are technically illegal but
persist because they bring pleasure to the powerful. Like cock
fighting and trafficking in endangered species, the trade in sex
slaves continues to thrive despite alleged efforts of male-dominated
governments to end it. Similarly, legal discrimination against women
continues because men have chosen to retain rather than divest
themselves of the illegitimate authority they hold over women. The
male-controlled governments of 41 countries have refused to sign
the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women; six countries (including the U.S.) have
-8-

11. signed but not ratified the treaty; another 43 have ratified the treaty
but stipulated that they will not abide by certain elements of it.
In many places, women lack the legal standing of adult males and are
therefore virtually the property of their fathers, brothers or husbands.
In addition to being denied an education or the right to vote, adult
women in many countries are legally minors who may not travel,
go to a doctor, take a job, or make other life decisions without the
consent of whichever male relative is in charge of them.
Forced marriages are still legal and common in many countries.
Sexual and physical assaults within marriages are common within all
countries. One in five women in the U.S. is assaulted by an intimate
partner and, in several states, a man may not be prosecuted for raping
his wife, since he has the legal right to enter her body whenever he
likes. Two-thirds of married women in Chile, Mexico, and Korea have
been battered by their husbands. More than half of all murders of
females in Bangladesh, Brazil, Kenya, and Thailand are committed by
current or former intimate partners.
Abuse of females begins in childhood. One out of three women in
the U.S., Barbados, and New Zealand was sexually abused as a child
or adolescent. The everyday nature of sexual abuse of girl children
by adult males gives a clue as to the political purpose of what seem
like purely private traumas. How do you “break” an animal? Rob her
of the feeling that she controls her own body. How do you ensure
that you can control an animal’s reproduction? Assert your right to do
whatever you want to her genitals as early as possible.
The most extreme form of the ongoing domestication and
reproductive control of human females is female genital mutilation,
in which various strategies (cutting off the clitoris, sewing shut the
vagina, etc.) are utilized to ensure that females cannot enjoy sex and
therefore will be unlikely to stray from their assigned sexual partners.
The UN Development Program estimates that about 100 million girls
suffer genital mutilation every year. In Sierra Leone this year, the
-9-

12. Minister of Social Welfare, Gender and Women’s Affairs threatened to
“sew up the mouths” of anyone speaking against the mutilation of the
bodies of adolescent girls.
At the same time, all over the world, cows, sows, and hens are
exploited specifically for the fruits of their reproductive organs. It’s
time for feminists and animal liberationists to come together to
struggle for freedom and self-determination for all female animals.
Common Cause
How can animal liberationists make common cause with feminists? All
the usual rules about building and maintaining coalitions apply:
1. Do your homework
Before approaching potential allies, make sure you know who they
are. Make it your business to learn about the history and current
status of their social movement, how they analyze and respond to the
problems they seek to solve, and what words they use to talk about
the world as they see it.
2. Make friends
Coalitions are relationships. Building and maintaining a coalition is as
easy—and as difficult—as building and maintaining a friendship. All
of the same skills are needed: communication (which means listening
as well as talking), empathy, reliability, genuineness, and a willingness
to share both burdens and blessings.
3. Start small
The easiest way to initiate a coalition is to show up to support the
efforts of your potential partner on some issue about which you agree
(whether or not this issue is directly relevant to animals or veganism).
That way, you’re not a stranger when you initiate a coalition. So, for
example, members of a local vegetarian society might make contact
- 10 -

13. with a local anti-racist organization by showing up for a rally against
police brutality or helping to stuff envelopes or put up posters for
Black History Month activities. One great way for animal advocacy
organizations to make friends quickly and easily is to supply vegan
food for community activities. Food Not Bombs chapters in several
cities routinely provide food at progressive events. Farm Animal
Reform Movement (FARM) staff members have brought stacks of
sandwiches to peace rallies in Washington, DC; hungry marchers are
always happy to take a brochure along with a free sandwich.
4. Work together
The next step is proposing shared work on some issue about which
you and your potential coalition partner already agree. While you
are working together on something that is not a source of conflict,
trust grows and cross-fertilization of ideas naturally occurs. Then (and
only then) you can begin to talk about the things about which you
disagree. In so doing, you must be as open to what they want you to
learn as you hope they will be about what you want them to learn.
Returning to the example of the local vegetarian society and the
anti-racist organization, after a time of getting to know one another,
members of the vegetarian group might propose a joint project to
get soy milk into the school lunch program, since the majority of
children of color are lactose intolerant and may have their afternoon
learning inhibited by discomfort associated with milk consumption.
Such a project would be worthwhile in itself. Furthermore, as they
progress, the activists from the two groups would get to know and
trust one another. Then, the members of the anti-racist group will be
more open to information about the animal abuse and health hazards
associated with meat—but only if the vegetarian group is willing to
be just as open to what their coalition partners want them to hear
about race.
5. Be the bridge
Everybody talks about building bridges between movements but I
- 11 -

14. think we have to go further than that. Those of us who want to span
the gap between the animal liberation movement and other peace,
justice, and liberation movements must be willing to be the bridges
we envision. Bridges must extend themselves and be able to bear
weight. We, too, must be willing to stretch and to tolerate some
discomfort.
Forging Feminist Friendships
Let’s apply those rules to the project of forging working relationships
between feminists and animal liberationists. We can do some
homework by applying the insights of feminism to the project of
animal liberation. Feminists understand and distinguish between
sex (male, female) and gender (masculine, feminine) and understand
gender to be what sociologists call a social construct. Social
constructs are cultural ideas that seem natural because almost
everybody agrees with them. Our social constructs about gender
are so powerful that parents of virtually identical one-day old infants
perceive the males as bigger, stronger, and more hardy than their
female peers. Those perceptions can influence the ways the infants
are treated, thereby becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. An infant
who is perceived as a big strong boy is likely to get more stimulation,
exercise, and freedom than an infant who is perceived as a small weak
girl.
If we look more closely at the social construction of gender, we can
see that animals figure prominently. We project our ideas about
gender onto animals and then allow our gendered perceptions of
them to convince us that our ideas about gender are reflections of the
natural world. Often, we treat the animals within our control in ways
that will make it more likely that their behavior will conform to our
gender stereotypes. Caged hens and crated sows have little option
but to become embodiments of passive “femininity.” Meanwhile,
tethered fighting roosters and tortured rodeo bulls are goaded by
- 12 -

15. frustration into acting out our ideas about aggressive “masculinity.”
We can talk about such ideas with feminists, making friends along
the way. We can offer to bring vegan food to feminist events in our
communities in order to continue the conversations. We then can
move on to proposing joint projects. Milk is my number one choice
for working together with feminists, because it’s a product that begins
with the exploitation of the mammary glands of the dairy cow and
ends up increasing the incidence of breast cancer in women. Battery
cages and gestation crates are two other examples of gendered
exploitation of animals in agriculture. Bull riding and cock fighting are
examples of gendered exploitation of animals for entertainment.
Some organizations have made some headway on other issues of
joint concern. Aware of the connection between domestic violence
and animal abuse, Feminists for Animal Rights has worked on the
problem of women who stay in dangerous households because
domestic violence shelters don’t accept animals and they are afraid
of what their batterer will do to their animal companions if they
leave. The Women’s Health and Ethics Coalition has worked on the
problem of Premarin, which is a dangerous drug made from the urine
of pregnant mares and prescribed to women as if menopause were a
disease rather than a natural phase in the female life cycle.
The FAR and WHEC campaigns are good examples of feminists
within the animal liberation community taking the initiative to start
campaigns and then invite feminists from outside the movement
to join them. I’d like to see a coalition of feminist individuals and
organizations within the movement agree to focus on one of the
gendered aspects of animal exploitation for a year, coming at the
problem from many different directions and actively promoting
feminist analysis of and activism against animal exploitation along the
way.
I’ve been talking to feminists about animal liberation for long enough
to share a few tips. Talking about the social construction of gender by
- 13 -

16. means of animals really does seem to spark good conversations.
If that sounds too abstract for you, then you’ll be glad to know that
I’ve also had some success talking about milk in very blunt terms.
I share my own empathy with the cows and my own consequent
revulsion with milk, expressing my own feelings and trusting that my
feminist friends will draw their own conclusions about the right thing
to do in the context of such senseless suffering.
Now I’m going to share my most valuable tool. It’s a sentence. Here it
is: “Eating meat is something you do to someone else’s body without
their consent.” Milk or eggs can be substituted for meat but, no matter
what, this sentence must be said in a calm, level, matter-of-fact
tone so that it can slide past the defensiveness long enough to sink
in. Feminists are very committed to bodily self determination and,
unless this sentence is said, can perceive demands for diet change as
efforts to control what they do with their own bodies. It’s imperative
that they hear and understand that consuming animal products is
doing something to someone else’s body without the consent of
that individual. Any good feminist will recoil at the idea. She may not
change her diet immediately but, if this sentence sinks in, she will
never be as comfortable consuming animal products again.
While we’re on the subject of asking people to change, we should
remember that feminists aren’t the only ones who will have to change
for this alliance to work. Women in the movement are going to have
to start thinking of themselves as the animals that we all are and
embrace their own animal rights. Men in the movement are going
to have to realize that it’s just as wrong to mock, insult, denigrate,
or assault women as it is to mock, insult, denigrate, or assault other
animals.
The good news is that feminists are already used to thinking about
connections. For the past several years, feminist scholars and activists
have challenged themselves to think about and act upon the links
between sexism and racism, sexism and class exploitation, sexism
- 14 -

17. and environmental degradation, etc. I think feminists are ready to
start thinking about the link between speciesism and sexism if animal
liberationists are ready to talk about it and prepared to structure our
organizations and our actions in a feminist manner.
Queering Animal Liberation
Many feminists see homophobia as what Suzanne Pharr called
a “weapon of sexism.” Gender relations are policed by means of
discrimination and violence against gay men, lesbians, and others
considered queer. Girls who don’t pay enough deferential attention to
boys risk being labeled lesbian while boys who refuse to assume their
assigned dominant role may find themselves on the wrong side of a
gay bashing.
Seeing the springtime behavior of the ducks at the sanctuary, we
didn’t need to read Bruce Bagemihl’s book Biological Exuberance:
Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity to know that nonhuman
animals are not exclusively heterosexual. As that very comprehensive
book demonstrates, sexuality among nonhuman animals
encompasses every permutation we’ve ever attempted and many
that are well beyond our rather limited physical capabilities.
Nonhuman animals do lots of different things with themselves
and each other for sheer sensual pleasure. Characterizations of
homosexuality as “unnatural” hurts animals as well as gay and lesbian
people. By denying that animals have sex for pleasure or form
pair bonds that aren’t about reproduction, it’s easier to claim that
animals are automatons who don’t have feelings and are not sentient
individuals.
That being the case, animal liberation and gay liberation are
necessarily bound up with one another. Again, an alliance is long
overdue. The usual rules apply, and success is more likely if certain
things are kept in mind.
- 15 -

18. The most important thing to remember is that queer activists
have been both central and marginalized in almost every social
movement—including the animal liberation movement. There are
gay and lesbian movement leaders who do not come out because
they know they would lose credibility in some circles by doing so.
Some of the best work in this movement has been and is being done
by people who you may never know are not heterosexual.
While those people may be comfortable with their choices, the fact
remains that most queer activists these days are no longer willing
to put up with being pushed to the side or asked to subdivide
themselves. This is particularly true of lesbian feminists, many of
whom remember the bad old days when some straight feminists did
everything they could to distance themselves from the lesbians who
were staffing the rape crises centers, starting the domestic violence
shelters, and otherwise doing the hard work of protecting straight
women from straight men. These lesbian feminists, who had selflessly
devoted themselves to helping other women to cope with and heal
from the damage done to them by the men in their lives, were called
selfish whenever they insisted that lesbian issues be included in the
feminist agenda. Lesbians and gay men of color have faced similar
charges within the anti-racist organizations they have helped to build.
Most people don’t like being called selfish. Because of this history of
marginalization, which is ongoing, queer activists may be particularly
likely to recoil if asked to give up their own rights in the service of
a supposedly larger goal. Those of us who know for sure that all
forms of oppression are related are particularly unlikely to tolerate
nonsensical demands that we accept being oppressed in order to end
oppression.
Dos & Don’ts
In conclusion, here are a few guidelines to keep in mind when being
the bridge between the animal liberation and feminist or queer
- 16 -

19. liberation movements:
• Do make yourself useful so that you will eventually be regarded as
a trusted ally.
• Don’t try to introduce your agenda to an organization until you
have won that trust.
• Do refer to your own veganism as an expression of your
commitment to peace and freedom for everyone.
• Don’t expect people to immediately see the connection and
change their diets overnight.
• Do refer to your veganism as a reflection of your own feminism, if
that is true.
• Don’t pretend to be a feminist if you’re not.
• Do become a feminist if you’re not.
• Don’t be simplistic when making analogies.
• Do talk about reproductive freedom for everyone.
• Don’t use loaded words like “rape” unless you really know what
you’re doing.
• Do attend to the sex, race, class, ability and sexual orientation of
speakers at events and other people in positions of power.
• Don’t tokenize people by putting them forward inappropriately or
asking them to represent their race, class, sex, orientation, or ability.
• Do remember how much work you needed to do to unlearn the
things you were taught about animals.
• Don’t forget that you will need to do at least as much work to
unlearn the things you’ve been taught about sex, gender, race, and
sexual orientation.
• Do understand that working in coalition means you will not agree
- 17 -

20. on every point.
• Don’t even try to do this if you are currently so angry at human
hubris that you cannot work harmoniously with people who have
not (yet) embraced animal liberation as a goal.
• Do remember that change is a process and that other animal
advocates are with you in spirit even when you feel very alone.
• Do what you can and trust that others are doing the same.
Pattrice Jones is coordinator of the Eastern Shore Sanctuary and
Education Center. To learn more, see www.bravebirds.org.
This article can be accessed in its original form at:
http://www.satyamag.com/jun05/jones_bridges.html
- 18 -

21. Their Bodies, Our Selves:
Moving Beyond Sexism and Speciesism
- Pattrice Jones
In the lounge of a fancy hotel, participants in an animal rights
conference gather to socialize and blow off steam after a hard day of
education and debate. A dog called “Babe” by her human companions
sits in the midst of it all. Like most of us, Babe doesn’t much like
being touched by strangers. Like many of us, Babe has had some
life experiences that led her to be shy and a little bit nervous among
people she doesn’t know.
Babe becomes visibly uncomfortable as person after person touches,
grabs, and strokes her without first getting her permission or
even considering her wishes. Babe’s body language expresses her
preferences quite clearly. She pulls away, ducks her head, and moves
closer to her human companion for protection. Again and again,
her human companion says things like, “Babe is nervous around
strangers” and “Babe doesn’t seem to want to be touched right now.”
Certain that they are somehow special or simply so wrapped up in
their own desires that they don’t notice hers, the people continue
to touch Babe anyhow. Eventually, Babe and her human companion
have to leave the area so that she can have some peace.
Fast forward a year. Same conference, different hotel, same need for
solace after a long day of confronting unspeakable sorrow. Drunk to
the point where you say what you really mean because all of your
inhibitions are gone, an activist who has been chastised for grabbing
- 19 -

22. women’s asses explains that he has the right to touch any woman
he wants to touch. He laughs at the idea that he ought to obtain
permission first, seeming to find that idea as absurd as many people
find the idea of animal self-determination to be. Rebuffed by one
group of women, he staggers over to Babe’s human companion and
asks her if she has any lesbian proclivities.
Why are people eating more meat than ever, despite decades of
vegetarian activism? Why do so many men beat their girlfriends
and wives, despite decades of feminist activism? Why do so many
parents feel insulted when their children announce themselves to
be vegetarian or homosexual? Why do so many women choose to
become wives, when doing so often means giving up the legal right
to say whether and when your body will be penetrated? Why does
anyone choose to eat meat, anyway?
Believe it or not, these questions all have the same answer.
Unfortunately, we just don’t have a word for it.
Big Brother Versus Mother Earth
While we don’t have a word for the problem, we know it when we
see it. It’s the fault line running underneath all of the social and
environmental disruptions that plague us and the planet. You can
read all about it in Genesis or the platform of the Republican Party:
Men have the right and the duty to subdue the earth, the animals,
their own families, and the men of other faiths.
We tend to think about speciesism and sexism as separate albeit
overlapping problems. In truth, they are just different aspects of
our nameless violation. Women and animals, along with land and
children, have historically been seen as the property of male heads
of households, who then compete with other men for more power
and property. Patriarchy (male control of political and family life)
and pastoralism (animal herding as a way of life) appeared on the
- 20 -

23. historical stage together and cannot be separated, because they
are justified and perpetuated by the same ideologies and practices.
Those ways of thinking and acting are evident everywhere from
the detention camps at Guantanamo Bay to the dead zone in the
Chesapeake Bay.
At the heart of the problem is alienation, separation, and dissociation.
Estrangement is both cause and consequence of the problem. We
are cut off from the earth, other animals, each other, and ourselves.
Those disconnections allow us to do terrible things to the earth,
other animals, each other, and ourselves. Doing those terrible things
increases the estrangement. And the cycle of violation and separation
continues.
In the process, we are cut off from our bodies in two ways. First, many
of us embrace philosophies or religious faiths that urge us to view
our bodies, our very selves, as profane objects to be transcended. We
come to see our bodies as something other than ourselves. From that
division flows the subdivision of the body into a collection of body
parts. Experiencing ourselves in such a fragmented manner, is it any
wonder that men reduce women to their body parts in pornography
or that the everyday butchery of animals into their body parts seems
so natural?
Whose Bodies? Whose Selves?
Once bodies are seen as objects to be controlled, the question
becomes: Who will control them? In many U.S. states and a number
of other countries, husbands may not be prosecuted for raping their
wives. The “right” of a man to have sex with his wife whether or not
she consents is conceivable only in the context of a worldview in
which bodies are things rather than selves. Once the daughter has
been sold or “given away” by her father, the right to control her body
passes to the husband.
- 21 -

24. “Social construction” is the term sociologists use to describe the
process by which people collectively create categories, like gender or
species, and then come to perceive those categories as natural. The
idea that animals are objects and thus need not be consulted before
breaking their bodies is a social construct that dates back to the
days when all daughters were the property of their fathers. Because
our ideas about daughters and dairy cows evolved when both
were property of husbands, the characteristics we ascribe to female
humans and domesticated animals refer to and reinforce one another.
Understanding this, we can begin to understand why so many
fathers are outraged when their daughters choose vegetarianism.
Men who have never before paid any attention to food shopping,
meal planning, or cooking become instant experts on nutrition when
their daughters give up meat. While they may pretend that their
concern is purely nutritional, the escalating emotion of the mealtime
conversations tells anyone willing to listen that these angry fathers
are motivated by something other than dispassionate concern for
their daughters’ health.
This is evidence that we all understand, at some deep unspoken level,
the link between subjugation of animals and subjugation of women.
The girl who gives up meat is also, to some degree, giving up her
deference to patriarchal authority. And at some level, both she and
her father know it. The mother is generally ambivalent, siding with the
daughter as a fellow female but with the father as a fellow parent. The
arguments can go on and on for years, ruining every holiday meal,
because the real roots of the conflict are never brought to light. This
is the sexism-speciesism problem in microcosm: neither can be truly
understood or resolved until their tangled roots are unearthed.
In the U.S., at least one out of every hundred girls is raped by her
biological father and the percentages are much higher for step-
fathers and mothers’ boyfriends. One out of every four girls is sexually
assaulted before the age of 18, with the perpetrators most often
being family members or friends of the family. Meat and the male
- 22 -

25. organ are very closely related in the popular mindset. Some even call
masturbation “beating the meat.” Furthermore, meat is the result of a
process of violation. At every stage of the process, from impregnation
to slaughter, animals’ bodies are manipulated without their consent.
So, when a daughter refuses the meat, she’s saying “no” to more than
a menu.
Ecofeminism in Action
A young woman finds a chicken by the side of the road and delivers
the bird to our sanctuary. She looks like the girl next door but has
a subversive secret. Squinting into the morning sun, she recalls the
exact moment she became a vegan: “Seventh grade. At the dinner
table. My father was waving a forkful of steak and saying ‘moo.’ And
that was it.”
I’m at the University of New Orleans, talking to a women’s studies class
about the links between feminism and animal liberation. A number of
faculty members are sitting in and apparently enjoying my theories
about the social construction of gender and species. Suddenly
setting aside theoretical speculations, I start to talk about milk. “Can
you imagine,” I ask, “having a baby and then having someone take
it away from you...just so that someone else can have your milk?”
Several women unconsciously mimic my own instinctive reaction to
that thought, reflexively crossing their arms protectively across their
breasts. Since we’re in Dixie, I remind us that enslaved women were,
in fact, forced to suckle someone else’s children. We are quiet for a
moment, protecting our breasts, thinking about that. “That’s it,” says
one of the faculty members as she walks past me after the class, “I’m
giving up dairy.”
An alliance between feminists and animal liberation activists is
long overdue. Animal advocates must make explicit and purposeful
coalitions with individuals and organizations working for the
liberation of women.
- 23 -

26. Milk is the most promising potential joint project. Cows are forcibly
and repeatedly impregnated so that their bodies will produce milk
for their calves. People then steal both the milk and the calves in
order to produce profits for the dairy and veal industries. The cows
suffer painful physical ailments, such as mastitis, as well as the
emotional distress of having their children and their own freedom
torn away from them. Meanwhile, milk products are responsible for
an unhealthy acceleration in the onset of menses in girls and are also
correlated with breast cancer in women. Thus the mammary glands
of cows are exploited in order to produce a product that harms the
mammary glands of women.
Eggs are another option. Here again, female animals suffer
unspeakable torments so that elements of their reproductive systems
can be exploited for profit. And, again, the products end up hurting
the equivalent part of women’s bodies. Recent research links egg
consumption to ovarian cancer.
Whatever topic we choose, we must make sure that our efforts
are real rather than hypothetical. Theoretical ecofeminism is a
contradiction in terms. If we want to heal the ruptures that separate
us from the earth, other animals, and ourselves, then we’ve got to do
it with our whole selves.
Earlier this year, here at the Eastern Shore Sanctuary, a young female
Muscovy duck called “Seagull” waded into the fray when a newly
arrived rooster, who had been trained by people to be aggressive,
started picking on one of the elderly roosters in the front yard.
Marching into the middle of the altercation, Seagull said something
to each of the roosters in turn and then used her body to walk the
aggressor away from the victim, talking to him in a scolding tone
the whole time. Our challenge is to be at least as courageous and
compassionate in our efforts to repair the damage that our own
species has done. If little Seagull is willing to put her body on the line,
the least we can do is to follow her lead.
- 24 -

27. Pattrice Jones is coordinator of the Eastern Shore Sanctuary and
Education Center. Her chapter “Mothers with Monkeywrenches: Feminist
Imperatives and the Animal Liberation Front” appears in Terrorists or
Freedom Fighters? Critical Reflections on the Liberation of Animals
published by Lantern Books.
This article can be accessed in its original form at:
http://www.satyamag.com/jan05/jones.html
- 25 -

28. Reproductive Autonomy:
Crossing the Species Border
- Helen Matthews
If we are serious about animal liberation, then we must work for the
liberation of all animals, human and nonhuman. If we are serious
about feminism, then we must shun speciesism just as we shun sexism.
No one is free while others are oppressed. And, if we work together,
understanding how seemingly different struggles are related to one
another, then someday we will all be free.—Pattrice Jones
The first chilling moment of awareness I had about the connection
between feminism and animal liberation occurred back when I was
15, sitting on the porch with my family about to eat dinner. My dad
had barbecued a chicken and it was sitting in the middle of the table.
I was looking at it and thinking about the colors, the dark brown and
the black. I was thinking it looked burnt, just like burnt skin. I realized
that it actually was burnt skin, it wasn’t just resemblance, it was a
burnt body. That was when I said, “I’m not eating any dinner, I’m not
eating that. I’m gonna be a vegetarian.”
That bird, I thought, was conscious once—was once animated with
life. Now it was just the centerpiece of a meal. Parts of this once-living
bird would even wind up in the trash. In that moment, this collapse—
this reduction—became so vivid to me.
I think the reduction of “someone to something,” as Carol Adams
- 26 -

29. puts it, is at the core of most violence against other animals. To
reduce other animals to things usually means treating their bodies as
resources for something you need, manipulating them while they’re
alive and/or killing them. I think the way humans are constantly
interfering with the bodily autonomy of other animals closely
resembles the way males often subordinate females—controlling
the body, which is our physical home in the world, our place, and (in
a lot of ways) our sense of self. (I guess this is because both forms
of domination happen under the umbrella of human-centered
“white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy,” to use bell hooks’ analysis.)
Control over the bodies of animals and human females is carried out
through specific systems of domination such as sexual objectification
in popular imagery, abuse in homes, labor exploitation, linguistic
stereotyping, and reproductive control.
The High-heel Dichotomy
But who are “women,” anyway? This question seems to be the—or
one of the—primary issues of feminist theory. Definitions that I’m
familiar with refer to a set of character and anatomical traits, political
conditions, and fashion statements. But popular definitions of who
women are don’t allow for much transformation out of, into, or within
“womanhood,” so they can feel as painfully restrictive as a pair of high-
heels or a tiny skirt that you desperately try to fit into. Not wanting
to perpetuate a reductive definition of “women,” I’m just speaking of
people with uteruses and ovaries and the various reproductive organs
of the female sex.
For human females, reproductive control comes in the form
of anti-abortion legislation, the financial inaccessibility of
contraceptives through health care plans, the scarcity of abortion
providers (particularly affordable ones), the illegalization of many
contraceptives, “right-to-know” laws, and intimidation from anti-
abortionists. According to the Abortion Access Project, 87 percent of
- 27 -

30. all U.S. counties have no abortion provider. Between 1982 and 2003,
they report that the number of abortion providers decreased by 37
percent. The majority of U.S. states have parental involvement laws.
And over half of all abortion providers were harassed in 2000, and
countless more women are intimidated by protesters just for entering
a clinic, even for a regular check-up.
In the face of all of this, the media, our schools, our families, churches,
workplaces and communities instruct females in various contradictory
ways about our sexuality, ranging from the mandate to be celibate
to the injunction to be accessible sexual objects for males. So many
demands: we’re supposed to be sexually available (even objects of
rape) but also chaste, we’re denied adequate contraception from
our health care plans and yet are supposed to remain unfertilized.
These messages vary according to race and class and physical ability
and many other factors of identity. I’m a white, financially stable,
20-something female from the South. Still, from what I’ve seen in
my life, I’d bet that these contradictory, confusing messages (which
feminists often call the “virgin/whore dichotomy”) are familiar (on
some level) to most females in this country.
African American women seem to be especially frequent subjects
of public debate about reproductive control. The debates around
welfare reform, for instance, particularly during the time of the
1996 Welfare Reform Act, called up this hostility toward women’s
reproduction, especially toward African American pregnancies,
which became the imagined national problem in need of a solution.
Problematizing African American women’s sexuality is an old
patriarchal construct: the hypersexual “black female savage” is out of
control and must be restrained, as feminist writers like bell hooks have
explained. But history exposes the irony of the stereotype: white male
slave owners used enslaved women as “breeders” to produce more
slaves. Quoted in an interview, one formerly enslaved woman said she
“brought in chillun ev’y twelve mont’s jes lak a cow bringing in a calf.”
- 28 -

31. The Reproduction Farm
A few years ago I went to a big conference on reproductive control
at Hampshire College. One of the opening speakers, Mina Trudeau,
boldly challenged the audience to think about how reproductive
control affects other species. For so many cows, chickens, dogs, minks,
and other nonhuman animals, the lack of reproductive autonomy is a
guaranteed part of existence.
Consider farmed pigs. As David Wolfson writes in Beyond the Law:
Agribusiness and the Systematic Abuse of Animals Raised for Food
Production, “gestating (pregnant) sows and farrowing (birthing) sows
are housed in stalls where they are unable to turn around (gestation
crates or farrowing crates). Such intensive farming practices result in
health problems, including lameness or high death losses” Gestation
crates apparently prevent sows from accidentally rolling or stepping
on their piglets and make their teats available during lactation.
Cows’ reproductive systems are the foundation of the milk industry.
Gene Bauston, the founder of a large sanctuary for farmed animals,
says:
“All cows, whether they live on dry-lot dairy factories in the Southwest
or small traditional dairies in the Midwest or Northeast, must give
birth in order to begin producing milk. Today, dairy cows are forced to
have a calf every year because such a schedule results in maximized
milk production and profit. Like human beings, the cow’s gestation
period is nine months long, so giving birth every 12 months is
physically taxing. The cows’ bodies are further taxed as they are forced
to give milk during seven months of their nine-month gestation…it is
not uncommon for dairy cows to produce 100 pounds of milk a day—
ten times more than they would produce in nature.”
According to Bauston, producing so much milk can cause several
common physical ailments. One is mastitis, inflammation of the
udder. In 1996, about half of dairy cows in the U.S. suffered from
mastitis. Dairy cows also develop ketosis, a metabolic disorder, and
- 29 -

32. laminitis, which leads to lameness. Also common are Bovine Leukemia
Virus, Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus, and Johne’s disease.
Chicken bodies are also captive resources of industrial agriculture.
Egg laying hens are subjected to forced molting in factory farming
complexes, meaning that light, food and water are withheld for up
to 14 days in order to control egg output. This serves to “shock their
bodies into another egg-laying cycle,” as Bauston says.
Other domesticated animals, like dogs, are also reproductively
manipulated. Joan Dunayer in her book Animal Equality points to an
article in the American Kennel Club’s magazine that “recommends
‘holding the bitch in the proper position,’ with straps or by her legs,
and ‘assist[ing]’ the male in ‘penetration.’”
Like farmed and companion animals, lab animals also are bred for
mass production. The degradation of these sentient creatures is most
evident in lab animal industry catalogues where they are often sold
for a price per “unit.”
Horses are used to produce the estrogen replacement drug Premarin
(named after its source, PREgnant MARes’ urINe). Manufacturing
Premarin involves taking the urine from pregnant horses and the
mares are routinely impregnated for this purpose. The animal
advocacy group United Animal Nations says, “Premarin mares
are confined to small stalls for months on end while their urine is
collected and…their foals are herded off to slaughter every year to
be sold to European meat markets.” Thousands of mares are basically
immobilized in these stalls, and in the winter, as one concerned
activist explains, “you see ice on the walls [of the barns], and they
have to lay down on cold, ice-cold concrete floors.” Constant forced
impregnation of these horses is necessary for the production of
Premarin. Ironically, Premarin manufacturers exploit the reproductive
systems of horses to market their product to menopausal women.
- 30 -

33. The Worn and Weary
When reproductive exhaustion has finally worn their bodies down,
many animals are killed, especially those in agribusiness. No longer
able to produce milk, dairy cows, for example, are killed for meat.
Farmers send them to slaughter after they’ve lived only a small
fraction of their lives. Sometimes they literally become trash, since
their meat is usually “low grade” and used in junk food that often
winds up half-eaten in a dumpster.
The fight for liberation from reproductive domination isn’t just a
human struggle, although many feminists construe it this way.
Similarly, if animal liberationists really want to end the oppression
of other animals, we’ll have to understand how that oppression is
mirrored in the daily experiences of human females. Reproductive
autonomy is a need that cuts across species barriers. It is a solid and
heavy example of the overall lack of bodily integrity that both human
females and other animals endure.
Helen Matthews, a.k.a. Homefries, has been working on connecting social
justice and animal liberation issues for five years. She has worked with
Boston Ecofeminist Action, and facilitates workshops on feminism and
animal liberation at conferences, community centers and universities
around the country.
This article can be accessed in its original form at:
http://www.satyamag.com/jan05/matthews.html
- 31 -

34. Is Heterosexism Different?
- Gary L. Francione
Since we have launched the new site, I have been receiving dozens
of questions every day. Unfortunately, I am not able to answer all of
them personally, but I do appreciate your interest in the abolitionist
approach.
There are, however, some questions that I feel compelled to respond
to because they go so directly to the philosophy that I am trying to
promote.
Last week, someone wrote the following:
I understand that speciesism is problematic because it is like racism
and sexism because it attaches a negative value to species in the same
way that racism attaches a negative value to race or sexism attaches
a negative value to the status of being a woman. But you also often
liken speciesism to heterosexism and I think that there is a difference
here because unlike race or sex, which have no inherent moral value,
sexual relations between members of the same sex may be considered
as immoral because such conduct is not natural.
This is not the first time that I have heard this position expressed and
I want to address it and explain why I think that heterosexism cannot
be distinguished from racism or sexism.
First, those who defend racism or sexism do maintain that there are
“natural” differences between whites and people of color, or between
- 32 -

35. men and women, that justify differential and discriminatory treatment
and that make equality between the races or sexes “unnatural.”
That is, racists and sexists do not regard their views as arbitrary; rather,
they see their views as preserving a “natural” order, based on the
supposedly empirical superiority of whites or the superiority of men.
Second, heterosexism is similar to racism and sexism in that it
excludes gays and lesbians from full membership in the moral
community based on sexual orientation that is considered as
“unnatural” by heterosexuals, who see heterosexuality as representing
a superior orientation.
There are some who claim that being gay or lesbian is “unnatural”
because such relationships cannot result in the production of
children. There are many ways for gay or lesbian couples to become
parents. Similarly there are many heterosexual couples who use
reproductive technologies, adoption or surrogacy to become parents.
Moreover, there are many heterosexuals who cannot have children or
choose not to have children. Is there anything “unnatural” about their
having relationships despite this limitation or choice?
Remarkably, even today, we hear that old “recruitment” chestnut
being argued—the claim that gays and lesbians are more inclined to
impose their orientation on others, particularly children. This claim
is without any empirical foundation; indeed the opposite is true. As
a high school student, I cannot recall ever hearing of an instance of
a gay or lesbian teacher “hitting on” a student, but I recall plenty of
instances in which straight male teachers engaged in thoroughly
unacceptable conduct with female students. In many ways, the
argument that gays and lesbians will “recruit” young people is on a
par with the argument, advanced in the not-too-distant past, that
men of color really “covet” white women and will take them all if we
do not enforce segregation.
Finally, there are those who see the gay/lesbian orientation as
“unnatural” for religious reasons. The problem with this view is that
- 33 -

36. slavery, the oppression of women, and just about every other form
of discrimination, is supported by various religious doctrines or, at
least, particular interpretations of those doctrines. Remember, that
the Bible was used as a primary source for the justification of human
slavery.
Therefore, I stand by my view that species discrimination is no
different from racism, sexism, or heterosexism, but I am reminded
just how much work remains to be done to dismantle the pervasive
structures of prejudice in our society.
This article can be accessed in its original form at:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=91
- 34 -

37. Ten Things to Remember: Anti-Racist
Strategies for White Student Radicals
- Chris Dixon
After many years as a white student radical (in high school and then
college), I’m reconsidering my experience. I made a lot of mistakes
and was blind in many ways, particularly as a white person. What
follows are some lessons that I am learning, some strategies for
reflecting on, interrogating, and disrupting racism in our lives.
1. Transforming the world means challenging and changing
institutions and ourselves.
Systems of oppression are ingrained in both and, accordingly, must
be confronted in both. More than once an activist of color or an
actively anti-racist white person has confronted me: “Why are you
always rushing off to do solidarity actions with people in other parts
of the world when you don’t even make time to deal with your own
shit?” They’re right. As white student activists, we are in fact notorious
for protesting injustices across the globe, yet neglecting to confront
systems of oppression on our campuses, in our communities, and in
ourselves. Being an effective student activist means making priorities,
and at times we must prioritize slower-paced, not-so-flashy work over
dramatic actions that offer immediate gratification. Being an effective
white student activist means prioritizing daily dismantlement of white
privilege--creating and participating in forums for whites to grapple
with racism, allying with struggles that people of color are engaged
- 35 -

38. in, constantly remaining open to our own mistakes and feedback from
others.
2. Predominantly white activist organizations are built within
society as it is and, as a result, are plagued by racism and other
forms of oppression.
We can minimize or deny this reality (“we’re all radicals here, not
racists”) or we can work to confront it head-on. Confronting it requires
not only openly challenging the dynamics of privilege in our groups,
but also creating structures and forums for addressing oppression. For
instance, two experienced activists I know often point out that, sadly,
Kinko’s [Ed. American version of Office Works] has a better sexual
harassment policy than most activist groups. Workers are accountable
for their actions and victims have some means of redress. With all
of our imaginative alternatives to capitalist and hierarchical social
arrangements, I have no doubt that we can construct even more
egalitarian and comprehensive ways of dealing with sexism, racism,
and other oppressive forces in our organizations. And we must start
now.
3. We absolutely should not be “getting” people of color to join
“our” organizations.
This is not just superficial; it’s tokenistic, insulting, and
counterproductive. Yet this is the band-aid that white activists are
often quick to apply when accused of racist organizing. Mobilizing
for the WTO protests, for example, I had one white organizer reassure
me that we didn’t need to concern ourselves with racism, but with
“better outreach.” In his view, the dynamics, priorities, leadership,
and organizing style, among other important features of our group,
were obviously beyond critical scrutiny. But they shouldn’t be. We
must always look at our organizations and ourselves first. Whose
voices are heard? Whose priorities are adopted? Whose knowledge
is valued? The answers to these questions define a group more than
- 36 -

39. how comprehensive its outreach is. Consequently, instead of looking
to “recruit” in order to simply increase diversity, we, as white activists,
need to turn inward, working to make truly anti-racist, anti-oppressive
organizations.
4. We have much to learn from the leadership of activists of color.
As student organizers Amanda Klonsky and Daraka Larimore-
Hall write, “Only through accepting the leadership of those who
experience racism in their daily lives, can white students identify
their role in building an anti-racist movement.” Following the lead of
people of color is also one active step toward toppling conventional
racial hierarchies; and it challenges us, as white folks (particularly
men), to step back from aggressively directing everything with an
overwhelming sense of entitlement. Too often white students covet
and grasp leadership positions in large campus activist groups and
coalitions. As in every other sector of our society, myths of “merit”
cloak these racial dynamics, but in reality existing student leaders
aren’t necessarily the “best” leaders; rather, they’re frequently people
who have enjoyed lifelong access to leadership skills and positions--
largely white, middle-class men. We need to strengthen the practice
of following the lead of activists of color. We’ll be rewarded with,
among other things, good training working as authentic allies rather
than patronizing “friends”; for being an ally means giving assistance
when and as asked.
5. As white activists, we need to shut up and listen to people of
color, especially when they offer criticism.
We have to override initial defensive impulses and keep our mouths
tightly shut, except perhaps to ask clarifying questions. No matter
how well-intentioned and conscientious we are, notice how much
space we (specifically white men) occupy with our daily, self-
- 37 -

40. important jabber. Notice how we assume that we’re entitled to it.
When people of color intervene in that space to offer something,
particularly something about how we can be better activists and
better people, that is a very special gift. Indeed, we need to recognize
such moments for what they are: precious opportunities for us to
become more effective anti-racists. Remember to graciously listen
and apply lessons learned.
6. White guilt always gets in the way.
Anarcha-feminist Carol Ehrlich explains, “Guilt leads to inaction. Only
action, to re-invent the everyday and make it something else, will
change social relations.” In other words, guilt doesn’t help anyone, and
it frequently just inspires navel-gazing. The people who experience
the brunt of white supremacy could care less whether we, as white
activists, feel guilty. Guilt doesn’t change police brutality and
occupation, nor does it alter a history of colonialism, genocide, and
slavery. No, what we really have to offer is our daily commitment and
actions to resist racism. And action isn’t just protesting. It includes any
number of ways that we challenge the world and ourselves. Pushing
each other to seriously consider racism is action, as are grappling with
privilege and acting as allies. Only through action, and the mistakes
we make and the lessons we learn, can we find ways to work in true
solidarity.
7. “Radical” doesn’t necessarily mean getting arrested, engaging
in police confrontations, or taking to the streets.
These kinds of actions are important, but they’re not the be-all and
end-all of effective activism. Indeed, exclusively focusing on them
ignores crucial questions of privilege and overlooks the diverse,
radical ways that people resist oppression every day. In the wake
of the WTO protests, for instance, many white activists are heavily
- 38 -

41. focused on direct action. Yet in the words of anti-capitalist organizer
Helen Luu, “the emphasis on this method alone often works to
exclude people of colour because what is not being taken into
account is the relationship between the racist (in)justice system
and people of colour.” Moreover, this emphasis can exclude the
very radical demands, tactics, and kinds of organizing used by
communities of color--struggling for police accountability, occupying
ancestral lands, and challenging multinational polluters, among
many others. All too frequently “radicalism” is defined almost solely by
white, middle-class men. We can do better, though; and I mean we in
the sense of all of us who struggle in diverse ways to go to the root--
to dismantle power and privilege, and fundamentally transform our
society.
8. Radical rhetoric, whether it’s Marxist, anarchist, Situationist, or
some dialect of activistspeak, can be profoundly alienating and
can uphold white privilege.
More than once, I’ve seen white radicals (myself included) take
refuge in our own ostensibly libratory rhetorical and analytical tools:
Marxists ignoring “divisive” issues of cultural identity and autonomy;
anarchists assuming that, since their groups have “no hierarchy,”
they don’t need to worry about insuring space for the voices of folks
who are traditionally marginalized; Situationist-inspired militants
collapsing diverse systems of privilege and oppression into obscure
generalizations; radical animal rights activists claiming that they
obviously know better than communities of color. And this is
unfortunately nothing new. While all of these analytical tools have
value, like most tools, they can be used to uphold oppression even as
they profess to resist it. Stay wary.
9. We simply cannot limit our anti-oppression work to the
struggle against white supremacy.
- 39 -

42. Systems of oppression and privilege intertwine and operate in
extremely complex ways throughout our society. Racism, patriarchy,
classism, heterosexism, able-ism, ageism, and others compound
and extend into all spheres of our lives. Our activism often takes
the form of focusing on one outgrowth at a time--combating
prison construction, opposing corporate exploitation of low-wage
workers, challenging devastating US foreign policies. Yet we have to
continually integrate a holistic understanding of oppression and how
it operates--in these instances, how state repression, capitalism, and
imperialism rest on oppression and privilege. Otherwise, despite all
of our so-called radicalism, we risk becoming dangerously myopic
single-issue activists. “Watch these mono-issue people,” warns veteran
activist Bernice Johnson Reagon. “They ain’t gonna do you no good.”
Whatever our chosen focuses as activists, we must work both to
recognize diverse forms of oppression and to challenge them--in our
society, our organizations, and ourselves.
10. We need to do all of this anti-racist, anti-oppressive work out
of respect for ourselves as well as others.
White supremacy is our problem as white people. We benefit from it
and are therefore obligated to challenge it. This is no simplistic politics
of guilt, though. People of color undeniably suffer the most from
racism, but we are desensitized and scarred in the process. Struggling
to become authentically anti-racist radicals and to fundamentally
change our racist society, then, means reclaiming our essential
humanity while forging transformative bonds of solidarity. In the end,
we’ll be freer for it.
This article can be accessed in its original form at:
http://colours.mahost.org/org/whitestudents.html
- 40 -

43. Anti-Oppression Organizing Tools
- Los Angeles Direct Action Network
Principles of Anti-Oppression
1. Power and privilege play out in our group dynamics and we must
continually struggle with how we challenge power and privilege in
our practice.
2. We can only identify how power and privilege play out when
we are conscious and committed to understanding how racism,
sexism, homophobia, and all other forms of oppression affect each
one of us.
3. Until we are clearly committed to anti-oppression practice all forms
of oppression will continue to divide our movements and weaken
our power.
4. Developing an anti-oppression practice is life long work and
requires a life long commitment. No single workshop is sufficient
for learning to change one’s behaviors. We are all vulnerable to
being oppressive and we need to continuously struggle with these
issues.
5. Dialogue and discussion are necessary and we need to learn how
to listen non defensively and communicate respectfully if we are
going to have effective anti-oppression practice. Challenge yourself
to be honest and open and take risks to address oppression head
on.
- 41 -

44. Anti-Oppression Practice
These practices are based on a series on conversations on the
issue of racism. We recognize that there are many other forms of
oppression that must be addressed. We have taken these practices
and attempted to generalize them to other forms of oppression. This
list is a beginning and it needs to be expanded upon. In the future we
will continue discussions on all forms of oppression.
• When witnessing or experiencing racism, sexism, etc interrupt the
behavior and address it on the spot or later; either one on one, or
with a few allies.
• Give people the benefit of the doubt. Think about ways to address
behavior that will encourage change and try to encourage
dialogue, not debate.
• Keep space open for anti-oppression discussions; try focusing on
one form of oppression at a time - sexism, racism, classism, etc.
• Respect different styles of leadership and communication.
• White people need to take responsibility for holding other white
people accountable.
• Try not to call people out because they are not speaking.
• Be conscious of how much space you take up or how much you
speak.
• Be conscious of how your language may perpetuate oppression.
• Don’t push people to do things just because of their race and
gender, base it on their word and experience and skills.
• Promote anti-oppression in everything you do, in and outside of
activist space.
• Avoid generalizing feelings, thoughts, behaviors etc. to a whole
group
- 42 -

45. • Set anti-oppression goals and continually evaluate whether or not
you are meeting them.
• Don’t feel guilty, feel motivated. Realizing that you are part of the
problem doesn’t mean you can’t be an active part of the solution!
This article can be accessed in its original form at:
http://colours.mahost.org/org/ladan.html
- 43 -

46. Common Natures, Shared Fates:
Toward an Interspecies Alliance Politics
- Steven Best
The eyes of the world were transfixed on the fiery ruins of the World
Trade Center collapsing into rubble, as thousands of people were
dead or dying. Meanwhile, in an average slaughterhouse, far more
pigs, chickens, turkeys, or cattle were killed that same moment in
other terrorist acts. One act of terrorism was extraordinary, illegal, and
immoral while the other was routine, legal, and perfectly acceptable
to the minds of most people. 9-11 was a tragedy of the first order,
and received nonstop media coverage, but every second is a 9-11
attack on the animals, an assault that transpires under the cover of
indifference and unfolds in a far more prolonged, torturous, and
barbaric manner. Dare one make a comparison between human and
animal suffering? Few things raise the hackles of some people more
than drawing analogies between factory farms with concentration
camps.
In a letter to Vegan Voice, Karen Davis, President of United Poultry
Concerns, compared the human and animal holocausts of 9-11. She
was immediately tarred and feathered, and her infamy even earned
her an interview on the Howard Stern show. With Karen Davis and
others, I am who dares to say suffering of human and nonhuman
species is comparable in terms of the attention and response it
should merit. We stand in good company for, as documented in
Charles Patterson’s powerful book, Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment
of Animals and the Holocaust, many survivors of the holocaust and
- 44 -

47. people of Jewish descent see common roots in the mass killing of
animals and Nazi genocide. As Theodor Adorno says, “Auschwitz
begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks:
they’re only animals.”
A Multiperspectival Theory of Power
It is important to grasp the similarities and differences among various
modes of oppression for both theoretical and political reasons. This
understanding is the basis of a multiperspectival theory of power and
a politics of alliance. A diverse and comprehensive theory of power
is necessary for a politics of liberation, for alliances cannot be formed
without understanding how different modes of power overlap and
converge, affecting and implicating more than one group.
Power systems often invoke multiple ideologies to oppress any one
group, as capitalism has used racism and sexism as tools to divide
and conquer the working class. Indeed, an abstract term like “the
working class” masks the heterogeneity of people that comprise it
and the various modes of power they suffer and resist. Consequently,
domination and injustice need to be resisted from numerous angles
simultaneously. Power is diverse, complex, and interlocking, and it
cannot be adequately illuminated from the standpoint of any one
group or concern. Similarly, no single group can achieve liberation on
its own or, certainly, emancipate other oppressed communities.
The mindset and institutions of power, violence, exploitation,
domination, and discrimination spring from numerous phenomena
such as the emergence and elaboration of hierarchical systems, the
bureaucratic needs of the state, aversion to difference and otherness
(the basis of racism and xenophobia), and the wanton sacrifice of
all living beings to the alter of profit. Power and domination are not
only political and economic phenomena, since they also have an
important psychological component. A distinct human pathology, for
instance, is contempt for nature (what Jim Mason coins “misothery”
- 45 -

48. in his superb book, An Unnatural Order: Why We Are Destroying
the Planet and Each Other), including the earth, animals, and our
own bodies, the object of much fear and loathing. Moreover, power
systems require legitimating ideologies, as capitalism thrives on the
belief that human beings are inherently competitive. Similarly, current
carnivorous practices are sustained by the mythologies that human
beings are flesh-eaters by nature, that God intended us to eat animals,
and that all life forms quite naturally kill other life forms.
The origins of domination and oppression are shrouded in prehistory,
but many theorists have attempted to bring them to light. This
is certainly a risky, speculative, and controversial enterprise. For
example, did the domination of nature lead to the domination of
human beings, as many Marxists argue, or did the domination of
human beings lead to the domination of nature, as claimed by social
ecologist Murray Bookchin? Some theorists attempt to reduce all
modes of oppression to one, such as gender, race, or class, which
they privilege as the font of power from which all others spring.
Most notoriously, classical Marxists subsumed all struggles to class.
Other social concerns such as patriarchy and racism were reduced
to “questions,” dismissed as divisive, and to be postponed to post-
revolutionary society where allegedly they would be moot anyway.
The resurfacing of bureaucracies, nationalism, sexism, and racism
in “existing socialist societies” refuted this Procrustean outlook.
Marxist feminists and race theorists, for instance, observed that the
hierarchical class logic of capitalism only needs an empty space to
exploit laborers, but that the logic of patriarchy and racism dictates
who will fill the lowest slots. But some feminists and race theorists
privilege their mode of oppression as primordial. Radical feminists
claim that patriarchy is the fundamental hierarchy in history, and
some ecofeminists invert the patriarchal hierarchy to champion
women by nature as superior to men.
I think the best approach is to advance a multiperspectival approach
that sees both what is similar among various modes of oppression
- 46 -

49. and what is specific to each. There are a plurality of modes and
mechanisms of power that have evolved throughout history, and
different accounts provide different insights into the workings of
power and domination. According to feminist standpoint theory,
each oppressed group has an important perspective or insight into
the nature of society. People of color, for instance, can illuminate
colonialism and the pathology of racism, while women can reveal the
logic of patriarchy that has buttressed so many different modes of
social power throughout history. While animals cannot speak about
their sufferings, it is only from the standpoint of animal exploitation
that we can grasp the nature of speciesism, glean key facets of the
pathology of human violence, and illuminate important aspects of
misothery and the social and environmental crisis society now faces.
Understanding the intimate relationship between human and animal
oppression blocks the tired objection voiced to those who express
concern for animals, “But what about human suffering?” Whether
they realize it or not, activists who promote veganism and animal
rights are ipso facto engaging a vast complex of problems in the
human world. For when human beings are violent to animals, they
are violent toward one another; when they instrumentalize animals
as mere resources for their own consumption, they stunt their own
psychological growth and capacities for compassion; when they
destroy the habitat of animals, they impair the ecological systems
they too require; and when they slaughter animals for food, they
exacerbate the problem of world hunger, they compound the
environmental crisis in a myriad of ways, and they devastate their own
health and drain human resource budgets.
In her compelling book The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal
Slavery, Marjorie Spiegel shows that the exploitation of animals
provided a model, metaphors, and technologies and practices for
the dehumanization and enslavement of blacks. From castration and
chaining to branding and ear cropping, whites drew on a long history
of subjugating animals to oppress blacks. Once perceived as beasts,
- 47 -

50. blacks were treated accordingly. In addition, by denigrating people
of color as “beasts of burden,” an animal metaphor and exploitative
tradition facilitated and legitimated the institution of slavery. The
denigration of any people as a type of animal is a prelude to violence
and genocide. Many anthropologists believe that the cruel forms
of domesticating animals at the dawn of agricultural society ten
thousand years ago created the conceptual model for hierarchy,
statism, and the exploitation treatment of other human beings, as
they implanted violence into the heart of human culture. From this
perspective, slavery and the sexual subjugation of women is but the
extension of animal domestication to humans. Patterson, Mason, and
numerous other writers concur that the exploitation of animals is
central to understanding the cause and solution to the crisis haunting
the human community and its troubled relationship to the natural
world.
The Logic of Discrimination and Moral Evolution
When we compare speciesism to classism, racism, sexism,
homophobia, and other modes of discrimination, we see they share
a similar logic. In each case, there is a rigid dualism established
between different groups (e.g., whites vs. people of color, men vs.
women, humans vs. animals) that denies their commonality. But
these dualisms are not innocent, and the distinctions are arranged in
a hierarchy that privileges one group as superior and denigrates the
other as inferior. As every power system has a justification, dualistic
hierarchies are the theory for the practice of the domination and
exploitation of marginalized groups. Every power system involves
the category of the Other to posit violations to the norms that are
privileged and protected. But, in every case of oppression, the alibi
of power is arbitrary and rooted in bias and prejudice rather than a
defensible rational standpoint.
In classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and speciesism, we
- 48 -

51. therefore find the same ploys of power involving the logic and
structures of exclusion. No matter what group it targets, prejudice is
prejudice and needs to be extirpated by an enlightened society. Just
as no democracy worth its name can work only for the economic elite,
whites, men, or heterosexuals, it is equally true that the great “world
house” envisioned by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. cannot consistently
contain speciesism and the vast industries of killing animals for food,
sport, experimentation, or entertainment.
The great moral learning process of human evolution involves
ever more people understanding that while differences between
humans and among species certainly exist, the similarities are more
morally significant. Factual differences, in other words, have no moral
relevance in assigning which group has rights and which group does
not. Alleged human traits of intellectual and linguistic superiority over
animals are no more relevant than appeals to gender, skin color, or
sexual preference within the human community.
The commonalities of oppression help us to narrativize the history
of human moral consciousness, and to map the emergence of moral
progress in our culture. This trajectory can be traced through the
gradual universalization of rights. By grasping the similarities of
experience and oppression, we gain insight into the nature of power,
we discern the expansive boundaries of the moral community, and
we acquire a new vision of progress and civilization, one based upon
ecological and non-speciesist principles and universal justice.
Rethinking Community
Enlightened thinkers such as Dr. Albert Schweitzer and ecologist
Aldo Leopold have worked to broaden the notion of community
to include animals and the land. If we consider the meaning of
“community,” we see that it entails mutual interdependence of living
beings in a context of shared norms and expectations, held together
by values of reciprocity and respect. Schweitzer and Leopold expand
- 49 -

52. the definition of community to encompass animals, and some deep
ecologists include the earth in all its aspects, such that it becomes
evident our true community is not our town, our city, our state,
our nation, or even the globe, but rather the entire planet. Our real
community, in a word, is the biocommunity, the community of all
living beings and the nonliving things that sustain life.
One may wonder how animals and the earth itself -- every rock, river,
tree, and grain of sand -- can count as a valid definitional aspect of
“community.” One need not resort to mysticism to grasp this vast
systemic interdependence, as the answer lies squarely within the
domain of the science of ecology. No one truly is independent; rather
we are all dependent on one another for the benefits we enjoy in
society. Not only are we dependent on fellow human beings for
our lives, we are also, quite obviously, dependent on the earth as it
provides the air, water, sunshine, and food that sustain us.
In his theory of Gaia (the Greek word for “earth”), NASA scientist
James Lovelock described the planet as a self-regulating and self-
organizing superorganism in which every element exists in a vast
feedback loop of interaction with everything else. Animals, insects,
and microorganisms too are an essential aspect of Gaia, as the
earthworms vitalize the soil; the birds, bees, and other pollinators
spread the seeds of life; insects maintain the ground and growth of
the rainforests; and animals help sustain the habitats in which they
live.
If our true community is the biocommunity, the question is begging
to be asked: are we good citizens in this community? Cleary not:
we are colonizers, plunderers, murderers, and thieves who steal
from other life forms and from future generations of human
beings. Although dependent on everything else on the earth, we
fancy ourselves supremely aloof and independent in our floating
technological castles.
- 50 -

53. The Hypocrisy of the Political Left
From the perspective of ecology and animal rights, Marxists and other
social “radicals” have been extremely reactionary forces. It is taxing
to sit at a table full of critical theorists, feminists, postcolonialists, and
other social justice advocates, all excoriating capitalist exploitation
while they devour bloody steaks and smear pig ribs and chicken
grease across their overfed faces. In works such as his 1844 Economic
and Philosophic Manuscripts, Karl Marx advanced a naturalistic theory
of human life, but like the dominant Western tradition he posited a
sharp dualism between human and nonhuman animals, arguing that
only human beings have consciousness and a complex social world.
Nonhuman animals, he claims, are mere creatures of instinct and
exist as part of the natural world for human beings to “humanize,” as
humanity evolves in and through its technological transformation
of the natural world. While there is lively debate over whether or
not Marx had an environmental consciousness, there is no question
he was a speciesist and the product of an obsolete paradigm that
continues to mar progressive social theory.
Consider the case of Michael Albert, a prolific author and co-founder
of Z Magazine and Z Net, noted Left publishing forums. In a recent
interview with the animal rights and environmental magazine Satya,
he states: “when I talk about social movements to make the world
better, animal rights does not come into my mind. I honestly don’t
see animal rights in anything like the way I see women’s movements,
Latino movements, youth movements, and so on... a large-scale
discussion of animal rights and ensuing action is probably more than
needed... but it just honestly doesn’t strike me as being remotely as
urgent as preventing war in Iraq or winning a 30-hour work week.”
While I do not expect a blatant anthropocentrist like Albert to see
animal and human suffering as even roughly comparable, I cannot
fathom privileging a work reduction for humans who live relatively
comfortable lives to ameliorating the obscene suffering of tens of
billion of animals who are confined, tortured, and killed each year.
- 51 -

54. Moreover, Albert lacks the holistic vision to grasp the profound
connections between animal abuse and human suffering.
The problem with such myopic Leftism stems not only from Karl Marx
himself, but the traditions that spawned him -- modern humanism
and the Enlightenment. To be sure, the move from a God-centered
to a human-centered world, from the crusades of a bloodthirsty
Christianity to the critical thinking and autonomy ethos of the
Enlightenment, were massive historical gains, and animal rights
builds on them. But modern social theory and science perpetuated
one of worst aspects of Christianity (in the standard interpretation
that understands dominion as domination), namely the view that
animals are mere resources for human use. Indeed, the situation for
animals worsened considerably under the impact of modern sciences
and technologies that brought us vivisection, genetic engineering,
cloning, factory farms, and slaughterhouses.
In short, the modern “radical” tradition stands in continuity with
the entire Western heritage of anthropocentrism, and in no way
can be seen as a liberating philosophy from the standpoint of the
environment and other species on this planet. A truly revolutionary
social theory and movement must incorporate a new ethics of nature,
as it maintains a commitment to Enlightenment norms, human
justice, and anti-capitalism.
In the last two decades in Europe and the U.S., Green parties have
emphasized progressive social concerns in conjunction with
environmental values. But Greens typically have not endorsed animal
rights and vegetarianism, and often they are as speciesist as any
Leftist or politically “progressive” group. The Green Party USA upholds
“ten key values” that promote respect, solidarity, justice, nonviolence,
and sustainability, but they fail to say a word about the holocaust of
animal destruction and its impact on peoples and the earth. In section
III K 12 of their Platform 2000, however, entitled “Biological Diversity,”
we read this promising note: “Finally, as Greens, we must add that the
mark of a humane and civilized society truly lies in how we treat the
- 52 -

55. least protected among us. To extend rights to other sentient, living
beings is our responsibility and a mark of our place among all of
creation. We find cruelty to animals to be repugnant and criminal. We
call for an intelligent, compassionate approach to the treatment of
animals.” This is a leap in awareness for a human rights/environmental
Party, and holds some promise that strong alliances among the
vegan, animal rights, Green, and social justice communities can be
forged. [Ed. The Australian Greens are more vocal in their support of
vegetarianism and animal rights issues and have specific animal policies,
which encourage vegetarian education and its benefits for animals,
human heath and the environment.]
Interspecies Solidarity
The need for justice is universal. In his “Letter From Birmingham Jail,”
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality,
tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly
affects all indirectly.” Racism and sexism, for instance, have divided the
working community and prevented them from achieving the power
of a united front against corporate exploiters. Human beings must
see that this “inescapable network of mutuality” includes nonhuman
animals and that their plight is our plight, even if one cares only about
human problems. In so many ways, what we do to the animals, we
do to ourselves. Any form of hierarchical consciousness can feed into
and reinforce another; and thus we must continually attack dualistic,
discriminatory, and hierarchical frameworks until the hydra-headed
monster of prejudice and oppression is slayed entirely.
The exploitation of farmed animals provides a vivid illustration
of the centrality of animal concerns to human issues and the vast
interconnected effects of exploiting any single group. After World
War II, as animals became ever more intensively produced as food
commodities, family farms were increasingly replaced by factory
- 53 -

56. farms. This monumental shift meant not only that animals would be
raised indoors within intensive conditions of confinement, creating
unprecedented levels of suffering, but also that huge corporations
were gaining control of small scale farms and driving out families
who cared for their land for generations. To work inside the filthy and
dangerous factory farms and slaughterhouses, corporations exploited
immigrant labor and other destitute and desperate workers. To
control diseases and maximize growth, agribusiness pumped massive
doses of antibiotics into the animals, helping to create widespread
resistance to important drugs. To make animals grow as large and fast
as possible, they injected them with growth hormones and eventually
began to genetically engineer and clone them. Besides high doses of
saturated fat and cholesterol and protein, the public was consuming
a plethora of dangerous chemicals. Factory farms also generate huge
amounts of chemicals and waste which foul the air, poison waterways,
and destroy communities.
Thus, because of its far-reaching consequences, injury to farmed
animals brought immense harm to farmers, workers, consumers, and
the environment. Far from being irrelevant to social movements,
animal rights can form the basis for a broad coalition of social groups
and drive changes that strike at the heart of capitalist exploitation of
animals, people, and the earth. One stellar example of a great social
activist who grasped the whole picture was Cesar Chavez, noted not
only for being a vegetarian but also for opposing spectacles of animal
cruelty such as the rodeo.
There are limits to what animal rights activists can support, however,
as they would never endorse better wages for underpaid poultry
workers. Instead, they would advance the abolition of animal food
industries and reemployment of workers in humane and ethically
acceptable occupations. Similarly, the animal rights community
cannot join consumer groups to advocate “organic” meat or
embrace the “slow foods” movement which although a critique
of fast food culture and the corporate takeover of agriculture,
- 54 -