On Vegetarian Ecofeminism

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Untitled by Natalia Lavrinenko from Pixabay

Ecofeminists associate the “oppression of women [with] the oppression of animals—” prevalent in depictions and perceptions of food; they believe a solution for improved quality of life (for humans and animals, alike) requires challenging human/male control (Gaard 20). Curtin, citing Carol Adams, acknowledges the woman-animal connection “through pornographic representations of women as “meat” ready to be carved up;” (Curtin). Choosing the picture of an unidentifiable human, carving slices of meat punctuates parallels between the control/exploitation and devaluation of women and animals by human (male-centric) society. This depiction of meat displays a killed animal in a “marketable/desirable” image through fragmentation which, Gillis & Jacobs explain, is “the reduction of a person to a particular body part” (220). This modeling/photography technique emphasizes the allure of a woman’s body parts, rather than her entire being/identity. In the image, the chef carving meat highlights individual slices, not the animal (and valued life) it came from. The placement of knives is also revealing—one knife, perpendicular to the cutting board (through the meat’s center) is reminiscent of a flag planted in conquered land; meanwhile, the horizontal knife, slicing the meat, lays in the chef’s arms as one holds a rifle. The chef may be a non-gendered entity, but the context of war/conquest suggests human dominance over animals (a form of cultural imperialism, which Gaard states “is enough to consider those experiencing it to be oppressed” (20)). In a module on vegetarian ecofeminism, a picture comparing meat to conquered land details the harm privileged men inflict on animals, women, and diverse groups in asserting their control. Despite Curtin’s argument: “men, athletes[,] and soldiers in particular, are associated with red meat and activity…whereas women are associated with vegetables and passivity,” Gaard observes, “animal pejoratives are used to dehumanize women,” reinforcing these connections over time (Curtin; Gaard 20). Animal terms describing people differ—implying activity/power in men and passivity/weakness/sexuality in women (i.e., characterization of a wolf versus a vixen). In this image, the (animal) meat is a passive object while a (human) figure is actively carving, linking exploitation of women and animals, by men and humanity, respectively. As Gaard writes, humans abuse “the labor of wild and domestic nonhuman animals, their reproduction and their bodies”—this exploitation prevails in human interactions: women make less money for equal work, and “in cultures where food preparation is primarily understood as women’s work, starvation is primarily a women’s issue” (Gaard 20; Curtin). Curtin believes ecofeminism “emphasizes that one’s body is oneself, and that by inflicting violence needlessly, one’s bodily self becomes a context for [such] violence,” and Gaard (citing Young) defines cultural imperialism as “experiencing ‘how the dominant meanings of a society render the particular perspective of one’s…group invisible at the same time as they stereotype one’s group and mark it out as Other’” (Curtin; Gaard 20). These two philosophies agree that normalizing systemic violence causes women/animals to internalize abuse: systems of inequality ignore victims’ experience—further ostracizing survivors—and devalue their existence to sanction continued harm. The image’s lack of identifiable/living features in the meat, and the human figure, acknowledges neither the perspective of the former animal nor the person: in essence, allowing humanity to harm animals without consideration or guilt. Objectification, “‘seeing and/or treating a person…as an object,’” usually pertains to people, but in this instance, I extend its meaning to all sentient beings (Gillis & Jacobs 219). Masculine social standards have historically harmed women and animals. To overcome sexism, feminism should recognize how human-animal conflict reflects relations between men and women (among other diverse individuals) to promote expansive well-being.

Gendering food is one method of reinforcing human privilege and gender norms, furthering women’s/animals’ oppression. One example of gendered foods/food-eating practices is believing meat consumption is “manly.” According to Eisenberg, “researchers found that after consumers experience a threat to their masculinity, the availability of a meat dish lowered their anxiety back to the level of an unthreatened control group.” However, a vegan/vegetarian option did not offer the same relief. This may suggest men assert control over nature (animals) to alleviate emotion or validate their masculinity. Though, Gaard argues, women also find comfort in control: “many people…believe that their well-being can be attained and enjoyed independently of—and even, at the expense of—the well-being of others, both human and non-human” (21). Given social acceptance/preference for perceived masculine qualities (like rationality or power), systems of oppression and domination reinforce the subordination of women/femininity and animals (and assumed attributes: emotionality and weakness). Moral vegetarianism in men “mark[s] the decision to stand in solidarity with women’ and ‘resist ideological pressures to become a ‘real man’” (Curtin). Men can support women by recognizing, and challenging, social beliefs/practices that harm/devalue women and nature/animals (noted above), while challenging toxic masculinity which harms their well-being, too. A second gendered assumption around food is the devaluation of femininity, expecting women/females (and animals) to naturally provide for the socially dominant group (men, humans). Gaard writes, “for centuries, ‘pet’ species have been socially constructed to create animal bodies and behaviors most serviceable to humans—” similarly, Curtin notes, “the consumption of eggs and milk…exploit the reproductive capacities of the female” (Gaard 21; Curtin). Men control women’s reproductivity through legislation (abortion bans) or the threat of violence, thus women and animals experience similar constrictions throughout their lives.

Ecofeminists perceive non-human animals as victims of violence, exploitation, and human control, akin to women in patriarchal societies. Human relations with animals are unequal. People are the oppressors, and animals are the oppressed. Gaard writes, domesticated pets “are often denied full expression of their natural urges” due to human ownership; “sows are confined their entire lives and ‘repeatedly artificially inseminated…to produce pigs for consumption;” and Curtin observes, “women, more than men, experience the effects of culturally sanctioned oppressive attitudes toward the appropriate shape of the body” (Gaard 20; Curtin). In animal (and sexist) oppression, human (male) control and perception construct the oppressed being’s life. Just as people dictate animals’ lives, rules men define influence women’s lives. Consider, people cage animals for transportation somewhere humans designate. Similarly, women follow a system limiting their autonomy on the assumption of male violence/control (never walk alone at night, carry your keys like a weapon, avoid distractions, as threats are everywhere)—neither women nor animals may presume their freedom or safety. Curtin writes, “Since the consumption of eggs and milk…[both] exploit the reproductive capacities of the female, vegetarianism is not a gender neutral issue.” Reproductive rights are an issue of autonomy, regardless of the species. With human mistreatment of animals, it is evident that the control which humanity asserts over nature/animals is the same as men use to dominate women. In respecting women’s autonomy, we must also condemn the exploitation of nature and non-human animals.

Works Cited

Curtin, Deane. “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care.” Hypathia, No. 6, Spring 1991, pp. 68-71, Acrobat Version, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 24 February 2025.

Eisenberg, Zoe. “Meat Heads: New Study Focuses on How Meat Consumption Alters Men’s Self-Perceived Levels of Masculinity.” HuffPost, 13 January 2016, 13 January 2017, Online. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/meat-heads-new-study-focuses_b_8964048. Accessed 24 February 2025.

Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations.” Women & Environments, Fall 2001. University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 24 February 2025.

Gillis, Melissa J., and Andrew T. Jacobs. “Chapter 7: Embodiment, Beauty, and the Viewer.” Introduction to Women’s and Gender Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2017, 2020, New York, pp. 219-220. Accessed 24 February 2025.