Another Heated Debate
Print This Post
There seems to be yet another heated debate between two prominent university professor animal advocates, Gary Francione and Steven Best.
The issue is, ostensibly, violence. But it’s not really. It’s a bunch of other things all lumped together including things like: ego, religion, and in Best’s case, as many GRE words as he can fit into one essay.
I figured I’d chime in myself with a list of my random thoughts on the matters. But before you read my stuff and comment, please try to be fair and read their articles, too (yeah right):
- Animals should not be property. Only immoral laws allow animals to be treated like slaves. (Francione and Best would agree on this point. And well, isn’t this the most important point anyway? Shouldn’t the importance of this singular shared goal outweigh most of the animosity and negativity between them?)
- Francione seems to think that breaking immoral laws is tantamount to violent action. To him, illegal activity is the same as violent activity. I strongly disagree. Some legal activity is violent and some illegal activity is nonviolent.
- Best seems to think that breaking immoral laws is not only ethically justified, but probably obligated. I agree, to a point. I strongly support open rescue. I support any rescue, for that matter. And I strongly support actions that shed light on animal exploiters, showing the general public exactly how cruel they are. But I don’t strongly support some other tactics that Best does support.
- Francione advocates education. And he seems to believe that education alone will solve everything, despite references to other liberation movements that employed tactics far beyond mere education.
- I think Francione mischaracterizes Martin Luther King, Jr. If King’s definition of nonviolence were more similar to Francione’s, then why did King write, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded”???
- I think Francione is misguided when he argues purely in favor of vegan education. He says, “If you destroy ten slaughterhouses today, as long as demand remains, ten more slaughterhouses will be built” but there’s little evidence to support that notion. Factories and warehouses are destroyed all the time (due to weather, taxes, mismanagement, etc.) yet even a strong continued demand for the products won’t always resurrect them.
- I think Best is misguided when he argues against culinary activism and other forms of nonviolent and legal activism. Many a vegan and many a dedicated activist were inspired by practical and tasty nudging.
- A multi-pronged approach to the abolition of animal exploitation is necessary. There is room for all of us.
- From my limited experience, the best reason to eliminate or limit “unpopular” activism (even if it’s effective) is the threat of retaliation and the personal consequences. Animal advocates are out-numbered, out-funded, and often hung-out-to-dry by the rest of the movement, as well as the rest of society.
- “Unpopular” activism isn’t just the stuff that some people call violent, it’s any kind of activism that’s highly controversial within the animal movement. For example, nude activism.
- I think Francione, in his constant view of naked women as sex objects and his demeaning attitude towards and lack of acknowledgment of women activists, is a sexist. He simply does not seem to be capable of seeing women’s bodies as anything other than sexualized. And why, for God’s sake, why does he choose MLK in his bus analogy when Rosa Parks makes so much more sense? Francione wrote, “Would Martin Luther King have campaigned for civil rights, claiming ‘I’d rather go naked than sit in the back of the bus’?” as if deliberately ignoring the major influence that female activists played in the American Civil Rights Movement!
- I think Best misunderstands or mischaracterizes and unreasonably rejects pacifism. Indeed, nonviolent direct action fits within many pacifists’ philosophy. But I do agree with Best’s characterization of Francione as a “pseudo-pacifist.”
- I think Best might intentionally obfuscate his meanings. The content of Best’s writings – already unpopular – are made more unpopular through academic language.
- Best spends too much time arguing against Francione and not enough time arguing in favor of direct action.
- Francione spends too much time arguing against methods he thinks are ineffective and not enough time actually doing what he thinks is most effective: vegan education.
Just my thoughts… 
Francione’s article referenced above: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/on-violence/
Best’s article references above: http://negotiationisover.com/2010/02/14/the-loss-of-a-halo-francione-and-the-mask-of-jainism/
OK, go for it. Let the discussion begin…
It is hard to argue for the abolition of slavery for animals while some human being as still enslaved.
Apologies, that should read:
It is hard to argue for the abolition of animal slavery while some human beings are still enslaved.
Slightly fatigued!
I disagree, Joseph. In fact, I think it’s simpler to argue that all sentient beings should not be enslaved.
Joseph, your statement implies that humans are superior to animals and/or that human needs trump animal needs. That’s the kind of thinking that got us in this mess to begin with.
Also, when humans are enslaved, they are often thought of as “animals,” and not humans. If animals were not enslaved in the first place, maybe humans never would have been enslaved in the second place.
veganprimate´s last blog ..Vegetarians are racist? Gee, whodathunkit?
I want to thank you for your well reasoned reaction to recent debates about the character of the animal rights movement.The inclusive nature to your approach is refreshing, and so too, is your understanding of our two presenters personalities.I find myself in the odd position of writing on the behalf of PETA one hour, only to defend the ALF the next.Too much of this effort must go to persuading our own vegan community of the value of other efforts.So Post often, as we could all use your input.
Perhaps my comment was misleading. Humans are animals.
My argument is that as humans, we first and foremost owe a duty of care to our species. If we solve that problem then we can proceed to solving our other difficulties.
Secondly, I don’t think one can, in black and white terms, state that all animals should be free from slavery.
If one applied that logic in simplistic terms having dogs, cats and numerous other pets would not be on. It would be foolhardy to suggest that people’s relationship with their pets is not mutually beneficial to both animals. This line of reason is best exemplified by cats. Most cats, which are not housebound, are free to leave their owners.
Extending this logic further to the non-human world, many other animal species need to enslave other species to ensure their own survival. This is particularly evident in the insect world.
Circling back towards my original argument. If we don’t get our own house in order first and aspire better treatment of humans one cannot hope to see animal welfare being prioritised.
As an extension of this, if our species, through Global Warming, is extinguished – contrary to humanist self-importance – the world will go on. We just won’t be part of it but the other animals will.
I enjoyed reading your post and the following comments. Excellent stuff.
Joseph Condron´s last blog ..Quotes On Challenging Conventions
Joseph -
1. Human slavery is outlawed all over the world.
If you want to argue that we should “take care of humans first” then that’s exactly what we’ve already been doing. We outlawed human slavery, now it’s time to outlaw nonhuman animal slavery.
2. I think it IS a black and white issue. Custody, guardianship, and other labels for nonslavery-inspired care and control are perfectly adequate to address the needs of particular animals such as shelter cats, dogs, and other domesticated animals. We do not need legally sanctioned slavery in order to care for rescued animals.
3. You wrote: “This line of reason is best exemplified by cats. Most cats, which are not housebound, are free to leave their owners.”
But did you know that 70% of cats in shelters are KILLED? This is a direct result of the view of cats at “pets.” Killing such high numbers of animals cannot be said to be “mutually beneficial”!
4. The fact that some ants seem to enslave other ants is not at all relevant to our discussion. Some animals rape, some animals are incestuous, some animals eat their young… none of those facts matter when we’re talking about how humans should relate to each other and to other species.
5. Caring for animals is directly related to caring for people. They are NOT mutually exclusive and in fact, many animal advocates are fierce human rights advocates as well.
6. If we damage the environment significantly through climate change, we will not be the only victims.
Calling Francione a sexist is like calling a white person racist for opposing the use of “black-face”. Veganism and feminism are undoubtedly linked through the institutionalized oppresion and objectification resulting in the consumption of both women and animals as things. As a man, I am perturbed by the obvious lack of understanding and critical thinking surrounding sexism shown in this article.
Also, MLK’s demand for freedom was NOT – absolutely NOT – a call for or show of support of any type of violence. Demands are not inherently violent, however one can make demands alongside a threat of violence if demands are not met. Non-violence is non-violence is non-violence. No misunderstood quote from Ghandhi or MLK is going to change that. As for the female civil rights activists, does anyone think Rosa Parks would ever have done a strip-tease regardless of her location on the bus? Would Harriet Tubman strip down and ride the choo-choo to freedomtown? C’mon. This is nonsense.
Further, this article shows a transparent misunderstanding of the economy of supply and demand. Anyone who thinks that blowing up the Nintendo factory will ever decrease the overall supply of Wiis to red-thumbed basement-dwellers is severely misguided. If there is a demand, it will be met. Think taint-bleaching.
Finally, it is agreed that immoral laws can and often must be broken. Francione seems to agree with this, as long as the resulting actions do not result in violence or the threat of violence. Property destruction, while not a form of violence directly towards people, is a form of violence – it is destructive, not creative. If you don’t agree with this, consider the famous buildings destroyed on 9/11/01. If the buildings had been empty, and the planes remote controlled, would the act of destroying those buildings not be considered a violent, terrorist act? Put another way, if your spouse punches a hole in the wall right next to you in response to your actions, whatever they may have been, is that not at least a display of the willingness to act violent? The symbol of violence towards inanimate things shows a willingness to be violent and destructive, just as the violence animals are subjected to is corollary to human violence. Crossing arbitrary property lines is completely different than endangering human and animal lives through the use of fire, explosives, or any other destructive force.
The vapidity of the arguments in this article are enough to question the competence of the writer in the area of economics, sexism and feminism, non-violence, and civil disobedience as they pertain to veganism and has proven enough to remove “Vegan Soapbox” from the list of intelligent resources available concerning the issues surrounding animal exploitation.
Please stop supporting sexism, violence, and welfarism. Go vegan. No, really go vegan – that means not supporting the exploitation of any animals, even women, and not supporting violence or threats of violence to animals, even human non-human-animal-oppressors.
For the record, I have a BA in Women’s Studies. And guess what? I have a vagina. That makes me qualified to talk about sexism.
I don’t think it’s fair to draw an imaginary line between ‘education’ and ‘direct action’. Francione consistently encourages “creative, non-violent vegan education”, which I always take to mean anything and everything that promotes veganism to others. This doesn’t just mean writing articles, it includes protests and what I would consider direct actions. Where he draws the line is doing things that harm others, such as destruction of property and violence.
I’m not comfortable sanitizing violence (even if it’s just smashing windows or spray painting walls) by calling it ‘direct action’ as if it’s a perfectly legitimate way to fight for animal rights. It’s not, it’s unacceptable. You can’t argue against violence done to animals by using violence against humans.
Also, the point about supply and demand is indisputable. If I go and blow up my local slaughterhouse, it will not affect the number of steaks being produced or consumed at all. Those animals would just go to another slaughterhouse to be killed. The only way to reduce production is to reduce demand.
But what it will do is make people think animal rights activists are violent and crazy and not to be taken seriously. Violence is what you do when you don’t have the facts on your side. We have the facts, we know we’re right, we just need to educate the rest of society. To be effective messengers we must be credible, and nothing hurts that credibility more than violence.
Andrew, I’d like to see the evidence that Francione encourages “anything and everything that promotes veganism.” From what I’ve read, seen, and heard from him I don’t think that’s true.
For example, a number of people have said that while learning about factory farming during the CA Prop 2 campaign, they went vegan. But Francione mounted a campaign against Prop 2!
Another example, he presents omnivorism/carnism as “morally indestinguishable” from lacto-ovo vegetarianism despite the fact that lacto-ovo vegetarians consume far fewer animal products than do meat-eaters. Most lacto-ovo vegetarians eat vegan at least sometimes where as around a third of meat-eaters eat animals at every single meal!
Another example, he’s against Meatless Mondays despite the fact that many actual Meatless Monday events aren’t just meat-less, they’re also dairy-less and egg-less.
And when was the last time he featured the vegan video ( http://veganvideo.org/ ) on his blog? Or how about Earthlings?
When was the last time he suggested people pass out Vegan Outreach ( http://www.veganoutreach.org/ ) brochures?
Andrew,
I recall hearing Francione talking about some dogs he had seen who were kept in terrible conditions outdoors without proper food and water or proper shelter. He tried to talk to the dogs’ owner and convince him to give the dogs a kinder, healthier environment. But the owner refused. Francione complained that since the dogs were “property” there was nothing he could do for the dogs.
To Francione, cutting a hole in the fence and rescuing the dogs wasn’t an option.
Cutting a hole in the fence and rescuing those dogs is nonviolent direct action.
As for me, I hold no “allegiance” to any particular “camp”… I try to judge each “action” as to how effective it was or wasn’t.
I think AR will be achieved through multi-pronged efforts too. Effecting “demand” would be wonderful if only our system operated in a purely “capitalistic” way… But it doesn’t. Our “vote” with dollars means little when compared to billion dollar *favors* that animal ag “buys” from government and vice versa. They keep each other rich – And their commodity is the animals. Our “money” is no good here. At least not this alone. (imho)
Of course I think efforts have to include education as paramount… And good vegan food… And cultural input through arts, music, plays and films… We must have science back us up too – And demonstrations – And a change in elected leaders – And open rescues – And certain “campaigns”… Everything counts! If it’s done correctly.
I see “Animal Rights” activism like a smorgasbord – I plan on supporting and doing those things I think are effective. You are right Elaine… The “movement” has plenty of positions to be filled. Short of outright harm to life — There’s room for everyone. It might not be “my way” – But I’m certainly not going to dictate to someone else what their activism should or shouldn’t be.
Thanks for letting me have my say.
Bea Elliott´s last blog ..Agriprocessor – The Under Belly of the Meat Industry
Your points are well taken. It’s true I’ve heard him say many times that omnivorism and vegetarianism are morally indistinguishable. Now if you asked him, I’m sure he would agree that vegetarians cause less suffering and death, however, is that morally distinguishable from being an omnivore? If I kill 10 people, does that make me morally superior to the person who killed 15? If I rape someone, am I morally distinguishable from the person who raped 5?
The heart of the argument is that we shouldn’t argue for people to go vegetarian or eat less meat, rather we should be clear that veganism is the only morally defensible position, and that should be the goal. As people become more aware of animal issues they will naturally progress from meat eating to vegetarianism to veganism. When you argue for vegetarianism, you’re arguing for a system where animals are still property, where they are still exploited and murdered.
As for the Prop 2 argument, I believe that’s true that Francione was against Prop 2. Not because he doesn’t want less suffering for animals, but because he believes:
1) Reforms such as Prop 2 don’t really produce a substantial decrease in suffering.
2) These reforms serve to make people feel like animals are being treated well and are therefore more comfortable about exploiting animals.
3) With the limited resources and energy the animal rights movement has, why should we spend it trying to make the current system slightly less terrible? Why not channel those resources towards changing the system as a whole. So instead of arguing that cows should have 10ft stalls instead of 5ft stalls, why not argue that cows shouldn’t be used by us at all? It’s like if you were fighting against human slavery, would you rather put your resources into a campaign to require that all slaves have individual beds to sleep in, or would you rather spend those resources fighting to abolish slavery altogether?
You make an interesting point with the dog scenario, I’m not sure what side I come down on that just yet. But maybe since you feel like Francione is wrong on certain points, you could contact him and propose an open debate on his podcast. I think that kind of debate might be really interesting, and more open dialogue within the movement can only be a good thing.
“For the record, I have a BA in Women’s Studies. And guess what? I have a vagina. That makes me qualified to talk about sexism.”
That is the most sexist thing I’ve heard in a long time. Just because Gary is a male means he lacks qualification “to talk about sexism?” Does your being female make you dominant over males in this matter?
Do you also believe sexism is an inherently feminine issue? As a male, I have to face sexist judgment from society as a result of anything I do which is arbitrarily deemed “feminine.”
I hope some day you can come to view everyone as human beings, as persons, instead of discriminating on the basis of sex.
Adam Kochanowicz´s last blog ..John Colvin Designs
Adam, first, take a chill pill. Relax.
Second, my reference to my degree was in response to Andrew’s decision to “question the competence of the writer in the area of [..] sexism and feminism”
Third, it’s true that women have an understanding of sexism that men cannot easily obtain. Your male privilege makes some things difficult to understand, just as my white privilege (and the fact that I’m cis-gendered, able-bodied, educated, currently moderately wealthy, etc.) makes some things difficult to understand.
For example, I can imagine what it might be like to be a gay black man but I can’t honestly say I can understand it. And for me to speak on such matters with authority would be ludicrous. I can’t.
The same principle holds true for Francione. He is not an authority on sexism.
To suggest that Gary Francione is sexist because of a supposed “demeaning attitude towards and lack of acknowledgment of women activists” is completely groundless defamation at best.
I should hope that in singling yourself as having female sexual organs and a piece of paper saying that you’re all read up on women’s issues, you weren’t suggesting that someone who has neither those organs nor that piece of paper is able to comment on sexism. It would be ludicrous for you to suggest so. To quote Vincent Guihan: “We should all oppose sexism, heterosexism and transphobia, regardless of the sexual organs we have or those with which we were born.”
You write in your original post that Francione doesn’t spend enough time focused on vegan education, then in a subsequent comment, you criticize him for 1) not supporting lacto-ovo vegetarianism, 2) not supporting the non-vegan Meatless Monday campaign, and for not promoting 3) Vegan Outreach educational materials (when Vegan Outreach promotes the non-vegan consumption of honey and Matt Ball recently co-wrote a book with Bruce Friedrich of PETA admonishing vegans who ask too many questions about ingredients in restaurants for making veganism look too hard).
So which is it? Is Francione the devil for not spending enough time on vegan education? Or is he the devil for being consistent in refusing to promote non-vegan campaigns and groups?
Mylène´s last blog ..On Grudges
Uh, for the record I didn’t say the sexism thing, that was someone else’s post.
Wow. What do they TEACH in Women’s Studies classes these days?
First of all, you are just plain wrong when you accuse Gary Francione of sexism. He has been challenging the hetero-patriarchy for years, and is one of the few “high-profile” men in the movement who actually does so openly and consistently. His thorough (and much-needed) critique of PeTA’s disgraceful, misogynistic campaign tactics is unequivocal. Nor does he stop at such obvious examples of sexism (although sadly it seems they are not obvious enough), but delves deeper by challenging popular tactics driven by the worst excesses of machismo – a real problem in the animal rights movement. As a feminist keen on exposing the link between misogyny and animal exploitation, I am thrilled and encouraged to see the issue addressed so seriously. Your accusations are baseless and, quite frankly, ridiculous. You state:
“He simply does not seem to be capable of seeing women’s bodies as anything other than sexualized”
Excuse me? We live in a patriarchal society in which women’s bodies are sexualized on a constant basis. To acknowledge that fact is to be a sexist? You cannot be serious.
Secondly, let’s face it, your argument about needing a vagina to talk with authority on the matter of sexism is just nonsense. On that basis, none of us should even be talking about animal rights, because we have no idea what it’s like to be a non-human animal. You might not fully understand what it’s like to experience life as a black gay man, but that has nothing to do with whether you can articulate your position on the morality of that black gay man’s self-commodification, for instance. Similarly, although you are not a chicken, or a dog, or a sheep, you consider that you have the authority to speak on matters pertaining to the morality of using chickens and dogs and sheep for our own purposes.
Thirdly, it is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst to make gender distinctions in this context. It’s not the 80s anymore and the politics of separatism were left behind quite some time ago. Patriarchal thinking hurts women, but its insidious cultural manifestations affect the lives (and the outlook) of men and women alike. Men are not exempt from the corrosive influence of misogyny and sexism. As Adam pointed out, sexism distorts the way people are taught to think about BOTH gender roles.
The author wrote : “I think Francione, in his constant view of naked women as sex objects and his demeaning attitude towards and lack of acknowledgment of women activists, is a sexist”
What an unfortunate and unfounded statement. You obviously haven’t read any of his work to make such a claim
The author wrote: “For the record, I have a BA in Women’s Studies. And guess what? I have a vagina. That makes me qualified to talk about sexism.”
And this statement is so ridiculous. I would quit while you’re behind. One certainly doesn’t have to be a women to acknowledge that sexism exists or write about it.
Although humans are animals, we do not know what it’s like to be nonhuman in a very speciesist society, but we are able to recognize speciesism and write about it.
LiveVegan´s last blog ..LiveVegan: RT @kerryjwyler: My response to Elaine Vigneault’s blog essay (awaiting moderation):Wow. What do they TEACH in Women’s (cont) http:// …
Sorry Andrew. Didn’t mean to attribute to you what so-called “peaceiscomingforyou” said.
OK, let’s see the evidence against my claim. Let’s see the evidence that Francione does acknowledges women activists. When was the last time he praised or quoted a single female activist? When?
Hi, just want to say that your criteria for evaluating activists/activism that Professor Francione may or may not quote or praises is off. Professor Francione doesn’t base recognition of animal rights activism on the sex of the people doing the activism. If you think that in the slightest then I would say you are misguided.
However, just so you know, he has praised me for my street stall that I am doing, he has promoted and quoted Mylène for her blog and her writings. He has disseminate an incredible essay on rape by a wonderful feminist blogger. These are just some off the top of my head that I know about. But none of us are “famous” enough for you? Maybe because we don’t belong to any huge welfare groups or something? I don’t know. Anyway I think your analysis of the situation lacks coherency and I would be astonished if you thought the PETA striptease campaign was in any way a good thing for women or non humans. If so, I strongly strongly disagree.
Elizabeth Collins´s last blog ..NZ Vegan Podcast Episode 51 – Special Guest Sam Tucker from Food for Thought Radio
I should correct myself saying VE obviously hasn’t read any of Gary Francione’s work. However, the rest of my comment still applies.
LiveVegan´s last blog ..LiveVegan: RT @kerryjwyler: My response to Elaine Vigneault’s blog essay (awaiting moderation):Wow. What do they TEACH in Women’s (cont) http:// …
Are you kidding me? He does it every single day on Twitter.
Mylène´s last blog ..On Grudges
I haven’t been able to decide if the Eccentric Vegan is unware of Francione’s work or just doesn’t understand it. In any event, I would suggest rewording your penultimate paragraph as follows:
Francione spends [considerable] time arguing against methods he [proves] are ineffective and [almost all his other waking hours] time actually doing what he thinks is most effective: vegan education.
Peace.
I also would like to say, upon further thought and with rising indignation, that your unfair and unwarranted characterization of Professor Francione as “sexist” and “demeaning to female activists” is not only patently absurd as well as unfair and unfounded, but is also astonishing when given the basis for this accusation is Professor Francione’s denouncing the unbelievably demeaning to women campaigns done by PETA.
To call sexist the most morally consistent advocate for animal rights that we have (animal being human, male AND female, and nonhuman) is beyond belief and is a totally unwarranted attack on his character.
If anything or anyone is being “demeaning” it is these ridiculous campaigns by PETA such as their recent striptease nonsense, to name just one. They are utterly demeaning to women and to the animal rights movement, and not only that they are actually detrimental! They are detrimental to the women’s rights and to the animal rights movement, and that is unforgivable.
Finally, I cannot comprehend this “Gary Francione doesn’t spend enough time on vegan advocacy”. Professor Francione spends all his time on vegan advocacy. Criticism of PETA et al & insisting that veganism be moral baseline of the animal rights movement and urging “the movement’ to focus on vegan education is just as much vegan education as educating the public about veganism, which is what Professor Francione spends all the rest of his time doing.
Educating animal advocates on the importance of vegan education is just as important as educating the public about veganism, in my opinion. I think that people write these things about well- known advocates in order to get attention for themselves. I wouldn’t bother, except I feel it necessary to come on here and protest your statement about Professor Francione and demand that you retract it, on the basis of honesty and decency.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Collins´s last blog ..NZ Vegan Podcast Episode 51 – Special Guest Sam Tucker from Food for Thought Radio
Being male doesn’t take away a man’s right to defend and write about feminism, but it does make it impossible for him to have the awareness, insight and understanding of feminism and sexism that women have.
It is true that both men and women face sexism. As a man, it is possible for me to be the victim of sexism. But it is absolutely a fact that whatever sexism I have faced, so has a woman. Now, let’s pretend for a moment that it stops there, that for whatever a man has to put up with, so does a woman and it’s equal (it’s not, but I’m making a point here).
Now when a man is facing this sexism, he is doing so in a society and a system that in every way, in everything that we see, read, hear, and in the vast majority of what we experience, is set up to cater to a man’s every whim and desire. And when a woman is experiencing sexism, it is in a society and system that not only is set up to accommodate men in every way, but it is set up to do so by taking away from her. From where does the extra money in your paycheck come in comparison to hers? From her pocket.
If you even think for a minute that this isn’t true, look up rape statistics, read about the poverty to gender ratio, look up the numbers on gender related deaths – how many woman are killed each year specifically for being woman as opposed to men killed only for being men. Look at the gender of our presidential line up. How many signatures on the US constitution belonged to women? Name a country where widowers are or were ever burned on the funeral pyres of their dead wives. Where does honor killing mean that a female family member is killing a male family member to save face? Oh, and the whole time you’re doing that, remember to check over your shoulder because there’s a good chance you’re about to be raped. Oh wait, no, you’re a man, so that’s not true.
As far as I’m concerned, the very first rule of being a good male feminist ally is knowing when to shut up and listen. I know this is hard because all of society says they are really interested in what we have to say, but just shut up and listen. Until we are born women and live our entire lives as women, we are not as qualified as she is to understand sexism. I’m sorry we are just not. Read, study, research, do whatever you can, but that is the most important lesson you can learn about feminism. You are not a woman. So you have no idea.
—
Good post, by the way. I’m glad our discovered you blog through all of this!
I apologize for the derail, by the way. But this just had to be said.
Cody´s last blog ..Morning Time
Just want to address two points after a brief scan of your article and comments thus far.
You say, “Some legal activity is violent and some illegal activity is nonviolent.” Though there are many examples of unjust violent, yet legal activity especially in the area of nonhuman animal exploitation, one thing is quite evident to me – ALL illegal activity, no matter how “nonviolent” brings more violence simply because of its *illegality*. Nonviolent illegal acts give the perpetrators of violent legal activity much more fuel to continue because they can turn around and point the finger at the ‘criminals’ and (especially through the power of corrupt mass media) make them the whipping boys/girls for the ‘legal moral crimes’ they commit. And this is, in fact,
bringing nothing but ill will on our movement in the eyes of the general public whose minds and hearts we must change before ANY exploitation will end.
And on the subject of sexism, in terms of exploitation I have always felt the promotion of nudity to be absolutely disgusting and completely counter-productive. Disgusting, because I think of the billions of nonhumans suffering minute by minute every day who don’t benefit one iota from these campaigns for the leering gazes that result draw ZERO attention their way. It floors me to think there are women who feel they are actually *helping* nonhuman animals by catering to what ultimately amounts to the whims of their male-dominated world! Frankly, as a male who seeks the abolition of nonhuman (and human) exploitation, I find such displays trivializing for the movement and I am outraged and embarrassed for the nonhumans who will continue to suffer by our ignorance as a species!
Jeffrey at Coolwater4animals´s last blog ..Going Vegan in Stages?
I totally agree with you Jeffrey.
I am constantly gobsmacked that there are females who don’t give a damn that they perpetrate women being looked upon as no more than sex objects! It’s obvious to me that the women who parade their naked (or near naked) bodies to apparently draw attention to the plight of animals (or anything else), are completely doing so out of vanity & nothing else… it makes me sick!!!
Serious non-violent Abolitionist Vegan activism/education is the only way forward!
I’ve never even heard of this Best guy, but your very last bullet on Francione is possibly the most spot-on thing in the entire universe!
Recommended reading for anyone who accepts only state-sanctioned tactics and condemns underground activists those who risk their liberty for the lives of other animals:
“Beyond Pacifism” by Daniel Peyser
http://www.abolitionist-online.com/article-issue05_beyond.pacifism.daniel-peyser.shtml
Brandon Becker´s last undefined ..If you register your site for free at
Also see:
“You Don’t Support the ALF Because Why?” by Steve Best
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Best–Support%20ALF.htm
Jeffrey said, “ALL illegal activity, no matter how ‘nonviolent’ brings more violence simply because of its *illegality*.”
It’s possible that you’re correct, in the short term. But in the long term it’s debatable.
The Civil Rights activists who refused to move to the back of the bus, who sat down at lunch counters, who demonstrated peacefully through sit-ins, etc. would probably have agreed that any short term violent reactions to their nonviolent illegal actions were worth it in the long run.
And thank you, Brandon, for providing those links.
EV: I may not have made myself clear. The violence I referred to that nonviolent illegal activity brings to activists is sad but of little consequence. They know going in they, as Mr. Becker states, “risk their liberty”. No, the violence their activity brings is onto the nonhumans they claim to act for is of far greater consequence. For it shall continue unabated as long as there is demand! The illegal non-sentient physical property damage they engage in, though nonviolent in *your* understanding, is precisely the violence history has shown us does not work. This violence bears no comparison with the nonviolent actions of civil rights workers in ’60′s US history. Most, if not all the actions you refer to were found to be legal under federal law.
Jeffrey at Coolwater4animals´s last blog ..Going Vegan in Stages?
Jeffrey: You may have heard “consent is manufactured,” yes? The same principle applies to demand. Demand is manufactured, too.
Just visit your local elementary school cafeteria and look at the posters on the wall and the foods on kids’ plates. They eat the cheap, leftover beef that is the surplus of the dairy industry. They learn that it’s normal to eat dead animals and to drink the milk that those dead animals produced when they were alive.
Those kids aren’t actually demanding meat. It’s absurd to argue that all those animals lives were destroyed due to “consumer demand.” In many cases, the demand doesn’t exist. It just doesn’t.
And while some animal advocates work tirelessly to educate consumers and reduce their demand for animal products, the animal exploiters work to manufacture demand among younger consumers. Thus, until or unless we out-number or out-smart them, we can never undo all of their handiwork.
Congratulations, EV!
I think you’ve just made Gary Francione’s point for why gratuitous T&A campaigns are not the “harmless antics” Ingrid Newkirk says they are and why underground paramilitary operations are so much destructive B.S. and indeed ALL “activism”, if it is to be successful, must instead be unceasingly focused on nothing more than clear, consistent, continuous, nonviolent Abolitionist Vegan education.
.
Jeffrey at Coolwater4animals´s last blog ..Going Vegan in Stages?
Jeffrey,
I encourage you to read this essay by Rick Bogle which critiques Francione’s position against illegal direct action to defend the rights of other animals:
http://primateresearch.blogspot.com/2007/08/animal-rights-violence.html
The two comments following the essay are also worth reading.
Also, I believe the individual rescued/liberated from enslavement and murder at the hands of the flesh, vivisection, or other industries wouldn’t consider such lifesaving actions to be “destructive B.S.,” such as this bird freed from the torture of captivity: http://www.directaction.info/news_oct15_09.htm
Have you ever noticed how the tactics of Francione and his followers are very similiar to that of the Republicans? It’s interesting to note.