What does feminism have to do with animals?

After meeting with Christine, my thesis class instructor, I wasn’t sure if I felt more nervous or excited. She is enthusiastic about my project and she asked me great questions but I stumbled over my answers and I realized just how far I am from where I need to be in just eight weeks.

She asked something along the lines of, why feminism? What does it add to or take away from the credibility of animal liberationist ideology to compare it with feminism? Why do I feel the need to substantiate animal rights by likening it to feminism?

I hadn’t thought it about it like that before. The foundations of feminist thought certainly do not translate perfectly over to the efforts of animal liberationists. A classical definition of feminism is the, “movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women.” Most animal liberationists are not fighting on behalf of political equality between humans and other species. We recognize fundamental differences between humans and other animals in regards to a number of characteristics, including the ability to use language and critical reasoning skills, which are necessary requirements of any kind of political participation. For this reason, animal liberationists are not concerned with granting other animals the exact same political rights as humans. That being said, while there is no reason to grant pigs or dogs the right to vote, animal liberation is concerned with extending political concern to pigs and dogs, whose bodies are capable of being exploited and subjugated to torture or mistreatment.

But animal liberation and the feminist movement do share similar struggles and similar opposition. In particular, both movements are concerned with the exploitation of the reproductive body. Eggs and milk, two staples of the American diet, are quite literally the products of the reproductive systems of chickens and cows, respectively. So when we have a food system dependent upon these two products, this means we must have a constant supply of chickens and cows whose reproductive bodies are controlled exclusively for the purpose of producing these food items. In our modern economy, this means that all measures are taken to up productivity and lessen expenses and these decisions are made with little to no regard for the impact on the animals involved.

Women’s reproductive bodies have also been targets of exploitation. Forced prostitution, rape, and laws that limit a woman’s right to abortion or other reproductive health services are just a few examples of how a women’s reproductive bodies have been exploited systematically throughout history. A common struggle for feminists is liberating women from the mandatory role of childbearer. These systems of exploitation—rape, prostitution, culturally mandated social roles—have all been constructed for the benefit of the oppressor, in this case patriarchy. For animals, these systems of exploitation—vivisection, animal farming, hunting—are also constructed for the benefit of the oppressor, in this case humans.

[Takes a moment. Breathes. Remembers she is not writing her thesis just yet]

So that’s where I’m going with that. That’s why I’m comparing animal liberation with feminism. But I also appreciate Christina’s suggestion that it might take away from our concern for animals if we are only able to justify it through a comparison with human struggles.

I started reading Beyond Animal Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals, edited by Josephine Donovan and Carol J. Adams, today. Essentially it is another take on understanding animal liberation in contrast to the reason-based approaches presented by Peter Singer and Tom Regan. But I will get into it in more detail at another time. That’s enough for one day.