Intersectionality and Animal Advocacy

This is part 2 of Kelly's two-parter. Please see yesterday's post, Intersectionality 101: Sexism, Racism, Speciesism, and More, as well. -S. Ernst

There are a number of reasons why animal advocates should - indeed, must - strive to incorporate the concept of intersectionality into their activism.

The most obvious reason, of course, is that intersectionality is part and parcel of animal exploitation. That is, individual animals may be discriminated against because of their species membership, yes - but in addition to speciesism (and perhaps one day absent it), they may also suffer sex-, age-, look-, and religion- (humans', that is) based oppression. In order to truly liberate them, we must understand and dismantle all the forces of domination.

On a more practical level, animal advocates should appreciate, recognize and avoid - if not actively work against - sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, religious discrimination, sizeism, ageism, colonialism, nationalism, xenophobia and the like because, to be crass, it's good for the bottom line. When an activist (for any cause) engages in an "ism" - whether it's sexism, ageism or xenophobia - she's disempowering fellow activists who belong to this marginalized group.

Take, for example, a favorite feminist target: PETA. "Good" vegan feminists can and do disagree whether PETA's nude campaigns are de facto sexist - so that's a whole ball of yarn I'd rather not unwind. So let's examine their "fur hag" campaign instead. As I demonstrated elsewhere, the term "fur hag" is inherently sexist, as its power derives from conventional images of femininity and attractiveness - or rather, the "fur hag's" inability to conform to these standards:

Dictionary.com defines “hag” as:

1. an ugly old woman, esp. a vicious or malicious one.
2. a witch or sorceress.
3. a hagfish.

The first definition is obviously problematic: a hag is “an ugly old woman, esp. a vicious or malicious one.” While I have no qualms about calling people (women and men) who wear fur “vicious” or “malicious,” the term “hag” also attacks the fur wearer’s physical appearance and gender - a “hag” is “an ugly old woman.” In fact, the primary aspect of this definition involves appearance and gender - a “hag” is “an ugly old woman,” especially [but not necessarily] “a vicious or malicious one.” “Vicious” and “malicious” are somewhat extraneous to this definition; a “hag,” then, is chiefly “an ugly old woman.”

Which begs the question - why should one’s gender and physical appearance be used as insults? A person’s outward physical appearance has nothing to do with her moral and ethical character, or her value and worth as an individual.

PETA's enthusiastic adoption of the "fur hag" slang, then, undermines the self-esteem (and thus effectiveness) of a large segment of their supporters - women in general, and specifically women who do not conform (or don't feel as though they adequately conform) to traditional Western images of beauty.

The same is true of slurs (thoughts, actions, etc.) based on race, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical appearance, religious membership, ethnicity, age, etc.

Similarly, when animal advocates engage in any manner of "isms," we alienate potential allies, which also has the unintended effect of harming our cause. Avoiding "isms" is a nice start; integrating issues of intersectionality into animal activism goes a step further, allowing us the opportunity to frame animal rights issues in ways that are relevant to individuals who might not otherwise consider themselves animal advocates.

All of these justifications, however, are self-interested and secondary to the following.

More importantly - most importantly - we should all concern ourselves with intersectionality, dominance and discrimination throughout the whole of the animal kingdom (and possibly beyond) because it's the right thing to do. Speciesism, sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, colonialism, ageism, sizeism, ableism, lookism, etc., etc., etc., or any combination thereof: no one form of oppression is any more or any less important than another. All are are equally abhorrent.

"But there's only so much time in the day!" protests the exhausted and overworked activist.

Look. I'm not suggesting that you stop volunteering at the local animal sanctuary and spend your weekends at Habitat for Humanity instead. Time and money are in short supply; compassion, however, is not. Whether your area of focus is reproductive rights or anti-whaling, we all have to make choices, prioritizing those issues most important to us, and applying our energies where we think they'll have the greatest impact. I'm not asking anyone to shift their efforts to human rights issues. What I am saying is that we should all have a working knowledge of "isms" other than speciesism, try our best to avoid oppressing other marginalized groups in our struggle for animal liberation, and be willing to recognize, apologize and learn from our mistakes.

Remember: No one is free while others are oppressed.