Horizontal Women

February 25th, 2009 8:03 pm by Kelly Garbato

Last week, I started reading Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson’s The Pig Who Sang to the Moon: The Emotional World of Farm Animals. Well, not so much “reading” as “listening to the audiobook.” (Hey, how else am I supposed to occupy myself while I clean the house?) I read Masson’s When Elephants Weep a long time ago – back when I was a newbie vegetarian – and enjoyed it immensely. I figured I’d like The Pig Who Sang to the Moon as well, and so far, so good.

Masson structured the book so that each chapter covers a different species of farmed animals: pigs, chickens, sheep, goats, cows and ducks, in that order. He juxtaposes information about the animals’ emotional lives – thoughts, feelings, sentience, capacity for joy and sorrow, etc. – with the brutal reality for the vast majority of these “owned” animals. Treated like milk and meat machines, dehumanized and objectified, their individuality obscured and their needs ignored, farmed animals suffer the worst of humanity’s whims and wants.

Though I’m only about a third of the way in, a theme which keeps resurfacing is the extra-special abuses (the collective) we mete out to the female members of the species. With brutal precision, farmers routinely turn the reproductive systems of female animals against them, finding newer and more callous ways in which to exploit them as science and technology allow. This isn’t to suggest that males don’t suffer as well – they do. But their suffering isn’t as prolonged or extensive as that of their female counterparts; veal calves, for example, are tortured for sixteen weeks and then, “mercifully,” (relatively speaking) slaughtered. Their sisters, meanwhile, are exploited as baby and milk machines for three to four years, after which they become ground beef. First, their babies and their babies’ food is stolen from them; and, finally, their lives are snatched away as well.

By the mere fact of their sex, sows, hens, ewes, does, nannies, cows and heifers – not to mention mares, bitches, jennies, jills, etc. – are ripe for especially brutal and prolonged exploitation. Oftentimes, this involves a constant cycle of pregnancy, birth, nursing and baby-napping, culminating with the female’s own death when she’s no longer able to breed or “produce” to her “owner’s” satisfaction.

Certainly, we recognize that the theft of a mother’s child is an atrocity when the victims are human mothers and children. At the same time, we argue that non-human animals deserve no rights because they are mere brutes, “lesser” beings, ruled by instinct and instinct alone. Yet, what is the drive to reproduce and parent if not an evolutionary instinct? And if we follow the popular line of reasoning – i.e., animals are creatures of instinct – does it not stand to reason that the maternal instinct is especially powerful in non-human animals?

100 million pigs are birthed, raised and slaughtered for “pork” annually – just in the United States. 100 million piglets are stolen from their mothers. Mothers who, without a doubt, grieve for their disappeared babies. These poor mothers are forced to relive the trauma over and over, as each new litter is stolen from them. This is what I mean when I say that a female’s – a mother’s – suffering must surely be the most painful to bear.

(More below the fold…)

smite me!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Print

Ambushes for Justice (in your UTERUS!)

February 23rd, 2009 9:47 am by Kelly Garbato

ZOMFG! Bill O’Reilly believes in a Constitutional right to privacy!

No, it’s true. Well, kinda sorta:
 

 
Apparently the Constitution only protects the rights of the rich, the white, the heterosexual, the cisgendered, the faithful and the non-pregnant – and only when they’re in complete agreement with all opinions O’Reilly, natch.

Well done, Jon, well done.

(More below the fold…)

smite me!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Print

In which CNN lowers itself to TMZ’s level.

February 21st, 2009 6:24 pm by Kelly Garbato

Yesterday, when reporting on the LAPD’s leaking of photos of a battered Rihanna to paparazzi site TMZ, CNN acted honorably and chose not to run the photo(s) in question.

KYRA PHILLIPS: It’s a chilling photo involving a story that’s getting tons of buzz and reflecting a growing crisis. But we’re not going to show it to you. And I’ll tell you why in just a moment. LA police are trying to find out who leaked a picture that apparently shows singer Rihanna bruised and battered after an alleged attack by her boyfriend, the singer Chris Brown. It showed up on a celebrity website and you can choose to see the photo at any time. We’re just choosing not to show it to you. And here’s why.

The face on that photo is one of millions of battered faces. Men and women, all races, all classes, all victims. We can’t show you all their faces, but we can push this story forward and try to help you heal the scars. Let’s get past the headlines and straight to the heart of domestic abuse. At the bottom of the screen we’re showing numbers for the National Domestic Violence Hotline where you can report abuse or get help. Also here to help, our guest, Sheryl Cates, CEO of the National Domestic Violence Hotline which has taken millions of calls. Good to see you, Cheryl.*

Oh, what a difference a day makes! Today, during the 1 o’clock hour,** CNN backtracked and aired the photo – while explaining that law enforcement policy usually precludes releasing the identities of (alleged) victims of domestic violence, let alone releasing photos of their injuries. They go on to speculate that the paparazzi must have bribed someone in the department in order to illegally obtain the photo(s)…as a photo of an obviously bruised Rihanna occupies the top 1/6th of their video screen!

No fucking shame.***

(More below the fold…)

smite me!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Print

On amazing animals and androcentric language.

February 17th, 2009 4:00 pm by Kelly Garbato

Sarah Palin - Turkeys Die...

This C. David Coats quote (from the preface to his 1991 book, Old MacDonald’s Factory Farm) has been floating around the animal rights blogspherz for a few weeks now. While I think Coats is dead-on in his analysis, his choice of phrasing strikes me as a little…curious, shall we say.

Take a look:

Isn’t man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife – birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes – by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative – and fatal – health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out a card praying for “Peace on Earth.”

In the course of his patriarchy blaming, Coats assumes the language of the very patriarchy he’s indicting. Specifically, he continually employs variants of the term mankind when he’s actually referring to humankind: man is an amazing animal; he slaughters wildlife so that he can raise and eat “food” animals; man suffers from dietary-induced health conditions, which leads man to torture millions of “lab” animals in search of cures for these self-inflicted illnesses, and so on.

In fact, Coats only switches from androcentric to gender-neutral terms near the end of the paragraph – when he transitions from describing the actions of the oppressor (man) to the consequences of these actions on other human animals. To wit: “millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition”; “[m]eanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter” (“at the absurdity of man,” natch).

Possibly, this is an unintentional example of casual sexism – i.e., Coats accidentally employed largely androcentric verbiage when writing this preface. Since this isn’t primarily a feminist blog*, allow me to explain why Coats’s choice of terminology is problematic. By using language which explicitly refers to men – necessarily, at the exclusion of women – we erase women from the public sphere, from our written and oral histories, from our cultural narratives. These seemingly innocuous, male-specific terms have very real, very harmful practical consequences. Language shapes the way we think; words matter. In eliminating women from our discourse, so too do we eliminate them from our consciousness – shoving them from the public (political) to the private (domestic) sphere. “Man,” “mankind” and the like simply are not inclusive, universal terms for “men and women.” Nor is “convenience” an excuse – it’s not very hard to use “humankind” in place of “man” or “mankind,” “people” in place of “men,” etc.

(More below the fold…)

smite me!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Print

SSDD

February 17th, 2009 3:55 pm by Kelly Garbato

During their one o’clock hour, CNN highlighted these top three “most popular” stories:

2009-02-17 - CNN Top Stories - 0008

From top to bottom, the screenshot reads

1. Islamic TV Founder Accused of Beheading;

2. Teen Girl Found Dead in Army Barracks; and

3. Chinese Mistress Contest Turns Tragic

Here we have three cases of violence against women; most, if not all, of which involve some degree of sexualized violence, as well.

Upping the ante, the ticker simultaneously reads “Slain actress found dark side of Hollywood dream.”

Sigh. Same shit, different day.

The only shocking aspect of CNN’s “most popular story” roll call is that Tony Harris was able to report on it without cracking a joke about sexual assault.

—————

Tagged:

smite me!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Print

“Condoms, Rose. Condoms!”

February 16th, 2009 5:54 pm by Kelly Garbato

In honor of National Condom Week, Planned Parenthood put together a playlist of their favorite pro-condom videos on You Tube. As one is a Golden Girls skit (love those broads!), naturally I had to watch.

Which, of course, led to one click through after another.

(More below the fold…)

smite me!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Print

Creamy Potato -n- Corn Spowder

February 14th, 2009 10:57 am by Kelly Garbato

Two recipes in one week! A regular Martha Stewart, I’m becoming. Or not.

For today’s dish, I started with a recipe for Comforting Potato Soup from the International Vegetarian Union (IVU). I’ve made this for dinner a few times now, tweaking the recipe a little each time – but the photo’s from my first try, when I followed IVU’s directions to the V. Yeah, I’m a cheat. What of it?

The recipe below is more of a chowder-y consistency; I wouldn’t really call it soup. Though, it’s pretty simple to switch from one to the other: if the soup’s too liquid-y for you, add some extra flour; too thick, throw in a little more water or soy milk. This is a hard one to mess up.

IVU’s Comforting Potato Soup version is yummy, though I do prefer my own incarnation. Work with what you’ve got in the pantry; it’s a versatile meal.

Creamy Potato -n- Corn Spowder (Soup +/ Chowder)

2009-01-20 - Creamy Potato Soup - 0004

Ingredients

1 medium onion, chopped
1-2 tablespoons minced garlic
2 tablespoons olive oil
3-4 medium potatoes, peeled and cubed
2 cups water + extra to taste
2 cups soy milk (plain or vanilla) + extra to taste
3 tablespoons whole wheat flour + extra to taste
1-2 cans creamed corn
sea salt, seasoned salt, or freshly ground black pepper, to taste/for garnish

(More below the fold…)

smite me!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Print

In which my Oatmeal Banana Cookies get even better.

February 12th, 2009 5:09 pm by Kelly Garbato

Right before I got sick last week, I made another batch of those super-awesome “Best Oat Cookies that Ever Existed,” courtesy of satan at VegWeb. I wanted to try a healthier version – especially considering how quickly I scarfed ‘em all down before – so I tweaked the recipe a bit: I cut the sugar nearly in half, added an extra banana, and threw in some dried cranberries along with the chocolate chips. The new batch came out even better than the original; the sweetness of the dried fruit more than made up for the lost sugar. I hope to try it again when I’m able to procure some dried cherries and blueberries, maybe some apricots, too. Alas, the only dried fruit currently residing in my cupboard is cranberries, so I guess the extra-loaded version of this recipe will have to wait.

Oatmeal Banana Cookies (was: Best Oat Cookies that Ever Existed)

2009-02-02 - Oatmeal Banana Cookies - 0006

Ingredients

1 1/2 cups of whole wheat flour
1 teaspoon of baking soda
1 1/2 teaspoons of cinnamon + a little extra to taste
1/2 of a teaspoon of salt
1/2 cup of brown sugar + a little extra to taste
1/4 of a cup of regular white sugar + a little extra to taste
Slightly less than 1/3 of a cup of vegetable oil
1 banana, mashed to liquid (the riper, the better)
1 banana, mashed to chunks
1 1/2 teaspoons of vanilla extract
1/2 to 1 cup of water or soy milk (I used Silk Pumpkin Spice; Soy Nog will also work well)
2 1/4 cups of quick oats
1 handful, give or take, chocolate chips to taste
Several handfuls, give or take, dried fruit (cranberries, cherries, blueberries, apricots, etc.) to taste; for this recipe, I used about 4 handfuls of dried cranberries

(More below the fold…)

smite me!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Print

In which I toss Valentines Day to the dogs.

February 11th, 2009 5:12 pm by Kelly Garbato

2003-02-12 - RalphieKellyBed03

Valentines Day? Meh. I’ve never been very big on the holiday. Through most of high school, I was boyfriend-less, and thus predictably unimpressed with February 14th. The husband and I have celebrated it on and off over the years, but mostly in a half-assed kind of way: veg*n chocolates here, a dinner in there. One problem I’ve always had with V-Day is the idea of forced, scheduled romanticism. Why should the Mr. and I only go on dates or surprise one another with gifts on February 14th, eh? And why do so on a day in which the prices are all jacked up and the theaters and restaurants, obscenely crowded?

Additionally, in the few years since my budding feminism has blossomed into a thorny, black, man-hating rose, I’ve actively resisted engaging in a commercialized, wasteful and largely heteronormative holiday. Diamonds? Roses? Tacky Bandit Bears? Bargained sex? IBTP.

So, in keeping with my previous re- evaluation and -imagining of the wintry holidays, I’ve been thinking about celebrating Valentines Day in a different way. While I try to pamper my furkids – i.e., my dogs – on a daily basis, I thought it might be fun to celebrate them this Saturday. After all, there is no doggeh equivalent of “Mother’s Day” or “Grandparent’s Day” – so why not transform a lackluster holiday into it?

There are many ways you can toss Valentines Day to the dogs (or cats, rats, gerbils, pigs…whatever species your kiddos belong to). Dogs Deserve Better, for example, holds an annual Valentines Day card drive for chained dogs. During “Have a Heart for Chained Dogs Week,” Valentines – complete with informational brochures, coupons for dog food, etc. – are delivered to the “owners” of chained dogs, with the ultimate goal of freeing these animals and bringing them back into the home. You can donate money to fund the effort, or volunteer by submitting the addresses of homes that have chained dogs, creating or delivering Valentines, and gathering donations of coupons and such. If your heart belongs to a species other than canine, you can donate your time or money to help a local or species-specific organization on or around the 14th.

As for your own furkids, here are four ways you can pamper them this Saturday. Since I’ve got five dogs, these are all canine-specific, but you can adjust accordingly.

Sunday Afternoon (original)

1. Take your dog for a walk or hike. Set some time aside for a leisurely stroll, walk, run or hike – or some combination thereof – and let your dog lead the way. Allow her to walk you, wherever she chooses to go (within reason, of course). If she wants to spend five minutes sniffing and marking that tree at the corner of the street, let her. It’s her day, remember? Just enjoy her company, the beautiful weather, the sights and sounds.

(More below the fold…)

smite me!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Print

lol ur breakdown

February 10th, 2009 11:25 am by Kelly Garbato

Yes, it’s the obligatory Christian Bale mashup post.

First, the classic Christian Bale dance remix by RevoLucian:

(More below the fold…)

smite me!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Print