Of Conferences and Consequences
Eric alerted me to United Poultry Concerns’ conference next March on "Cage Free, Animal Friendly, Go Vegan–What’s the Problem?"
After reading some of the many debates, that usually boil down to abolition versus welfare, and commenting on a couple, I’m not sure anyone’s mind is going to change as a result of the conference. Now, some people who aren’t aware of the controversy might be convinced either way. I don’t know one vegan whom I did NOT meet online, who has any idea that there’s an issue. They merely go about their vegan lives, as examples, raising their kids, trying not to get arrested because they refuse to vaccinate the kids, dealing with mainstream society’s various problems with them, rescuing animals, and all while working and trying to make a difference in their communities. They may or may not give to HSUS or PeTA, wouldn’t buy cage-free eggs because they’re vegans. They’ve managed to be untouched by this largely-Internet debate.
I suppose the trick would be to get the people who don’t know about the debate to attend the conference so they can be exposed to the abolition vs. welfare debate and decide where they stand. Otherwise, I’m not sure I’d want to spend the time and energy going. I think I’ve heard enough.
Although I would never again say,"If you must eat eggs, buy cage-free/If you must eat beef, buy grass-fed," it is undeniable that the grass fed cow suffers less than the factory-farmed cow. That’s why I don’t like to focus on suffering. The consequence of doing so leads straight to welfare reforms that you’d sound like a monster not to accept. The fact is, no one "must" eat animals, and reminding someone of that is simply being honest. Reminding someone that using sentient beings for our own gains isn’t right, isn’t just, is called "extreme," but there’s nothing extreme about it. What’s extreme about wanting justice and not wanting to live a violent life or consume violence and suffering? Nonhuman animals have lives of their own that they have a right to live, whether our legal system has said so or not. That is what I believe, and I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t align my actions with that belief. Apparently, extreme has come to mean: the desire to not be a hypocrite. Extreme equals honest in thought and deed.
It’s true that we all have a limited amount of time, energy and money and don’t want to spend them in the service of a principle we don’t believe in, but I always come back to intellectual honesty as my motivation. My personal integrity is on the line when I recommend something or give my money to an organization. And I cannot live with myself if I recommend or campaign for animal products. The consequence of me campaigning for larger cages is that I have just sacrificed something I wouldn’t be me without: my principles.
I had an unconventional higher education, with a handful of schools including a Catholic college I was able to attend without cost because my mother was teaching there (I studied theology, art history and music history, just for fun). On the graduate level, I was able to take classes I shouldn’t have been taking, and as a grad student of British and American Literature I also studied psychology and sociology.
I recall a class in feminist theory. The students were women my age as well as women a generation older. I recall being aligned with the older women on all topics. The women my age appeared to be having a difficult time as they didn’t understand what all the fuss was about when we spoke about pornography. They somehow got the message when they were growing up that pornography was empowering for women, and that’s not a message ever transmitted to me.
We spoke about production companies that were being started by women to make them more comfortable while making the films. We met a woman who started such a company as well as a porn actress. Both were adamant that what they were doing was an expression of independence and power and control, and that if we believed women should be allowed to demonstrate such qualities, we should support their films. If we were real feminists, we would support pornography (their pornography).
I was speechless. How did we go from pornography as vehicle of exploitation to pornography as vehicle of liberation? Yes, the way these new companies went about their business did seem to be much better for women than the companies run by men. But that doesn’t make the end product any better in principle or in consequence. And for heaven’s sake it doesn’t make me anti-women’s lib if I don’t endorse women-made porn.
Here I am, nearly two decades later, in a similar situation. Do I support women-made pornography, because supply and demand tells me that’s better for women in the long run, or do I continue to boycott pornography, because I believe it is wrong, no matter who is behind the camera?
I continue my boycott. And I continue to tell people that there’s no way to use sentient beings for food, clothing and entertainment, in a way that doesn’t take away their freedom, their independence, and their control over their bodies and their lives.
"Apparently, extreme has come to mean: the desire to not be a hypocrite. Extreme equals honest in thought and deed."
I love this, you're so right! Being ethically consistent should be viewed as a good thing, not as crazy.
However, I want to speak up for porn. I'm a woman, and a feminist, and I dig it. Not all of it – there are a lot of problems with the porn industry. But I don't believe there is anything at all morally wrong with making or giving folks access to erotic works. Creating erotica can be a powerful drive, as can the need to view/read/see it – and since it's usually something folks use privately, for a personal release, that seems a healthy outlet. The alternative is repression, isn't it? Is that healthy?
Maybe the real issue with porn isn't its existence, but that it's dominated by people in power trying to make a profit off of those with less power – which can and often does lead to exploitation.
Given the question, how balanced is this panal?
Karen Davis, President of United Poultry Concerns
Harold Brown, Former Outreach Coordinator for Farm Sanctuary
Bruce Friedrich, Vice President of PETA
Patty Mark, President of Animal Liberation Victoria in Australia.
Christine Morrissey, Director of East Bay Animal Advocates (California)
Roberta Schiff, President of Mid-Hudson Vegetarian Society (New York)
Paul Shapiro, Senior Director of HSUS’s Factory Farming Campaign
Roger,
I thought Patty Mark (who started open rescues) really is an abolitionist. Here's an interview in abolitionist online (http://www.abolitionist-online.com/_06pattymark.html) where she says:
"It would be as wrong for an animal activist to encourage people to eat free range eggs instead of battery eggs as it would be for a human rights activist to endorse salaries for immigrants of one dollar for a 10 hour workday, or for a feminist to turn a blind eye if a rapist wears condoms, because let’s face it, ‘we’ll never stop rape’. It is the job of the animal rights movement to clearly state what happens to animals when people persist in finding ‘other/alternative’ ways to keep using and killing them. Why would we want to point people in the direction of still causing pain and suffering when they don’t have to?
For instance drinking cow’s milk means baby calves have their heads smashed in with a hammer and their throats slit. Their mothers suffer even more and for a much longer time. Baby after baby is taken away from mother cows so someone can have a slice of cheese on a meat patty that was probably made out of the mother cow’s mother. Dairy cows are slaughtered when only five years old when their economic productivity declines, they are totally exhausted and many are sick with mastitis. Dairy is the crème de la crème of cruelty, there is no doubt that having cow’s milk in your coffee or cheese on your pizza causes more suffering and pain to animals than eating meat. Not only that, it’s full of fat and it’s environmental dynamite."
She does also thank Gary Francione and mention his influence in her activism (she used to campaign for larger cages).
Now, this is from May of this year, and perhaps things have changed. And I do believe if she is an abolitionist, she is the only one on the panel, so it is hardly balanced. Anyone have any other info?
Hi Mary –
Very interesting post. There is a really interesting book out there on the "pornography" subject matter that you speak. It's called "Female Chauvinist Pigs" by Ariel Levy. Of course, the title is offensive in its promotion of pigs in a negative connotation, however, it is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. All the same, I wish the book had a different title, and I wish we lived in a world where oppressed groups acknowledged and recognized other oppressed groups, rather than exploit and perpetuate the oppression. That aside, it really is an good read.
Today’s is two blog post topics rolled into one. I think someone has been reading Francione’s blog.
The comparison drawing parallels between feminism on issues of pornography, post modern vs. radical, and animal rights on issues of treatment, welfare vs. abolition, where post modern and welfare supposedly share the same ideologies becomes tenuous on the crucial issue of consent. A non-human animal is incapable of ever giving consent to exploitation. This is the abolitionist’s objection with welfare regarding treatment–exploitation.
It is problematic to even assume that a sign language enabled ape can offer valid uninfluenced consent. It is ethically prudent to err on the assumption that intelligent primates are similar in their mentality to human children. It is sensible to deny children and certain mentally impaired humans the legal ability to consent to certain things like work and sex in order to protect them against unfair exploitation.
In sharp contrast, an adult human female can consent because she is capable. This is the postmodern feminism objection to radical feminism regarding pornography–exploitation, but it is not necessarily always unfair exploitation, (most all of us consent to fair exploitation every day to make a living).
Even factoring cultural influence and societal pressure, at some point society must acknowledge an intelligent–or even unintelligent–woman’s consent to do whatever she wants to do with her body, even if society feels that it is not in society’s best interest. If we cannot accept that a woman of sound mind is capable of rational, intelligent, moral autonomy over her own person in a patriarchal society that has long assumed and maintained a woman’s incapacity for critical decision making, then that is sexism and that is oppression.
If society cannot have confidence that a woman is able to decide what is right for her and her own body, what other of her choices is society obligated to question and ultimately decide for her?
It is women’s right to choose, “In a way that doesn't take away their freedom, their independence, and their control over their bodies and their lives.”
One doesn’t have to be for pro-abortion to be pro-choice and one doesn’t have to be pro-pornography to be pro-choice.
Holy coincidence!
First, regarding two blogs in one, I need some clarification. Late night at Sublime last night and I'm a bit foggy at 5:30 am on a saturday.
Next, Porphyry, I had no idea what you were talking about until I went to Gary's site. He hadn't written in a while and I sort of stopped checking. (November 10, I believe, was the most recent entry).
Apparently you think I took the idea from him, but alas, here's the story, which I find it odd that I'm telling. It was Colleen at Sentient Souls who got me thinking about women, feminism and exploitation (again) for the last month or two (she wrote about Carol Adams, then I re-read Carol Adams). In addition, I FINALLY finished Diane Beers, whose For the Prevention of Cruelty, can be read as a conversation about abolition versus welfare. Then there's the re-reading of Carol Gilligan after all the talk of moral development and Kolhberg (and every feminist knows why Kohlberg is irksome). THEN Eric, the previous day, sent the UPC link in the comments. And the universe of my mind made some connections and spit out a blog topic, as happens several times a week when there isn't some news item that warrants immediate attention.
So all is not as it may appear regarding the origin of my ideas and my blog post(s).
Heaven knows I always give Gary thanks for anything I get directly from him and for his overall influence in turning me from a welfarist into an abolitionist, but I have long had my own thoughts, many of which are very different from his and in fact conflict with his. And as we all know, "There are no new ideas. There are only new ways of making them felt." It's no surprise that in a tiny field such as ours, people often write about the same topics.
Finally, I'm all for women deciding to participate in pornography and for the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. But my decision to be a consumer of an industry that exploits women is a different matter. That's a choice I'M making in order to align my actions with MY beliefs.