Women, Cows, Speed Bags, and Steaks: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others
The Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence wants you to know that "it's not acceptable to treat a woman like [a piece of meat]."
Look! They've even devised an ad campaign to spread the word!
The ad depicts a large chunk of "meat" - a cow (or pig?) thigh, suspended in the air, hanging upside-down by a hook thrust violently through the limb. The "meat" slab is dressed in a mini-skirt and halter top in order to denote its female gender.
What possible issue could I, a vegan feminist, take with this message?
While I agree wholeheartedly that woman are not "pieces of meat," neither are non-human animals. Put another way, if non-human animals are "pieces of meat," then so are we. We're all made of the same basic organic matter: we're all a mess of blood, muscles, fat, organs, water, oxygen and carbon. We're all potential "meat" to someone else. The only real difference between "us" and "them" is that we posses human DNA.
In explicitly condemning violence against women (wherein violence is equated with treating women "like meat") but remaining silent on the suffering of non-human animals who are regarded as (and ultimately processed into) "meat," RICADV implicitly condones violence against non-human animals. According to the RICADV, women are not pieces of "meat" - but non-human animals are.
By omitting non-human animals from the discussion, RICADV renders them invisible; their suffering matters only inasmuch as it can be appropriated to illustrate the suffering of another marginalized group (in this case, women). Vegan feminist Carol Adams (she of The Sexual Politics of Meat and The Pornography of Meat fame) calls this the "absent referent." Simply put, the absent referent is a point of reference (in this case, non-human animals) which is referred to but ultimately remains absent from the discussion, whether as an active participant or a subject of concern.
Adams explains,
The "absent referent" is that which separates the meat eater from the animal and the animal from the end product. The function of the absent referent is to keep our "meat" separated from any idea that she or he was once an animal, to keep something from being seen as having been someone.
The cow (pig?) depicted above is only shown as a dead and dismembered corpse; though he once was alive, had a family and friends, experienced subjective thoughts and emotions, etc., RICADV doesn't care about all that. Animals are "meat" and women are not - as though a drumstick simply sprouts out of the ground that way, already dead, bled, dismembered and skinned, akin to a cantaloupe or tomato.
Also problematic is RICADV's casual appropriation - "the borrowing, or theft, of an element of cultural expression of one group by another." In this case, one group's collective suffering ("food" animals) is being appropriated in order to bring attention to the suffering of another group (battered women). In theory, I'm okay with drawing parallels between various forms of suffering and oppression, as long as it's done in an informed and sensitive manner. But.
While humans are quick to appropriate the suffering of non-human animals - e.g., "They herded us like cattle," "We were treated like animals," "He beat me like a dog" - it's not exactly a two-way street. Animal advocates who attempt to compare the oppression of non-human animals to that of marginalized groups of humans are frequently eviscerated by members and allies of the referent (human) group. Sometimes, "we" (by which I mean the individual or organization in question) deserve it: PETA, for example, isn't exactly known for its tact, depth of analysis or nuance (or its cultural diversity), so when their spokespeople compare the Holocaust or American slavery to animal exploitation, the attempt frequently comes off as self-serving and callous. (Much like the RICADV ad above.)
That said, there are valid comparisons to be made. As I've written previously, the state (or kyriarchy, if you prefer) has a vested interest in controlling the reproductive systems of females, human and non. Yet mainstream feminists commonly scoff at vegan feminists who make a connection between speciesism and misogyny - all while approvingly quoting the work of Carol Adams whenever women are depicted as "meat." (Feministing, I'm looking at you!)
Interestingly, there's a second ad in this series. This one I actually like, as the RICADV manages to draw attention to violence against women - without doing so on the backs of another oppressed group.
Punching bags, unlike non-human animals, are objects; they aren't sentient. So go ahead and hit, kick, punch and beat them to your heart's content. Just leave the women and animals alone.
COMMENTS (12)