Kaylee & Jayne, x-mas 2006

So. When last we talked of my furkids, I told you how my husband and I came to adopt Ralphie, Peedee and O-Ren – none of whom were considered “less adoptable,” or at least not at the time of their adoption. In fact, I doubt that each dog’s respective rescue group would have had much trouble placing them, had Shane and I not come along. We both recognized this, and felt rather guilty about it. So when we decided to adopt dog number four (and possibly five!), we resolved to find a “special” dog – a senior, someone with medical or behavioral issues, maybe even a bonded pair of dogs.

Our first choice was a pair of teeny lil’ rat terrier sisters, Bella and…I forget the other dog’s name. They were older adults with behavior issues, namely, anxious temperaments and a fear of men. They also needed to be adopted together – strike three. Ultimately, the adoption didn’t pan out; we were never able to meet the girls, in fact, because their fear of men was so great that their foster mom had more or less decided to adopt them herself. When we inquired about them, they’d already spent a few years in their foster home and were still fearful in the foster dad’s presence. I can see why mom gave up any hope of rehoming them, dog bless her heart.

So we hit Petfinder again, specifically in search of a pair of dog-friends who had to be adopted together. Unfortunately, Petfinder’s search parameters don’t easily allow for such a search (or even easy browsing), so when looking for a pair, you really just have to hope that they share a single listing. (Or else be prepared to pour over every single profile!) There really weren’t many bonded pairs of dogs listed at the time; besides Bella and her sister, Kaylee and Jayne were the only smallish dog-friends up for adoption. So, three years ago this September, we went out to Lexington, MO – about an hour’s drive from where we lived – to visit them.

From Kaylee’s Petfinder listing

Kaylee and Jayne originally came to Friends of the Friendless with a third dog, Paige, roughly six months before we met them. The three had been abandoned in a home when the tenants moved out; the landlord found them, several weeks later, starving and in rough shape. Jayne had heartworm, while Kaylee suffered from some serious dental problems, the result of both bad genes and a lifetime’s worth of neglect.

Curiously, Jayne had already been spayed by her previous owners, while Kaylee had not. From the looks of her sagging belly and, shall we say “well used” nipples, Kaylee had obviously birthed a few litters during her eight years. Jayne, in contrast, doesn’t appear to have ever had pups – odd because Jayne is a classically handsome terrier, while Kaylee is…not. (I joke that she’s so ugly, she’s back to being cute, much like a rhinoceros or ground mole. I totally mean that in a nice way, though.)

From Jayne’s Petfinder listing

Paige had since been adopted, while Kaylee and Jayne languished in the shelter/rescue. Supposedly, an older women had committed to adopting them, but died while on a cruise she’d already booked and had to take before she could bring them home. (Shane is convinced that this is the most elaborate cop-out, ever.) So I can only imagine what their foster mom, Gina, thought when we committed to adopting them, but said we’d be unable to bring them home until after we got back from an already-scheduled trip to New York! Unlike their would-be fairy dogmother, Shane and I kept our word; we welcomed Kaylee and Jayne into our home several weeks later, on September 30, 2006.

One of the few photos in which all five dogs appear.

For the most part, everything has worked out beautifully. They each have their “issues,” but that’s precisely why we adopted them!:

* As I mentioned, each has dealt with medical problems. Jayne was just finishing up heartworm treatment when we brought her home; while her bout with heartworm may have shortened her lifespan, Gina her vet able to treat it successfully. Don’t let a heartworm diagnosis deter you from adopting a dog – the treatment can be difficult (especially for the patient), but it is a treatable disease.

At least she has a sense of humor about it.

Kaylee, on the other paw, has had ongoing dental issues. She’s been under for dental surgery at least twice, in order to have ten or so teeth removed. Friends of the Friendless also spent a small fortune in dental work prior to the adoption. I know it can be a chore, but it’s important to brush your dog-kid’s teeth every day. (Cats, too, though I’m hardly one to lecture – Ozzy won’t let us anywhere near his mouth!)

* Both girls are terrified of rain, thunder and loud noises – much more so than Ralphie, Peedee and O-Ren combined. A heavy rainfall is enough to send them each to their respective hiding places: Jayne, under the bed, and Kaylee, in the bathroom or closet. The July 4th fireworks display is like Armageddon to them. We’re fairly certain that they were kept outdoors, irregardless of the weather, which would explain their sometimes irrational fears.

Jayne is afraid of the camera, too; each flash is like a stab to the heart!

* Jayne is especially nervous and aloof, probably owing to poor (or no!) early socialization. While she was mostly afraid of human contact in those early days, she’s gradually gotten used to our affections. When you pet her, she freezes up, as if terrified; but pull away, and she looks at once puzzled and annoyed: Why’dya stop!?

She spends much of her time alone, near but not in the action: when everyone’s in the living room, watching tv or eating, she’ll hang out across the hall, in the office; when we’re in the office, she’s in the living room, sleeping on the couch. Even at night, it’s hard to snuggle with her: everyone (save for the cat) sleeps in bed with us, but as always, Jayne stays back, claiming the guest bed as her own. She seems extremely conflicted about humans: are we friends or foes?

I suspect that some of Jayne’s issues might be due to something more insidious than a simple lack of socialization. For instance, the dogs jump at the chance to lick spoons and dishes, especially when covered in peanut butter. While Jayne will happily clean an unattended bowl, she cringes when I offer up a spoon; the larger the utensil, the more pained her expression. I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that her previous owner used to hit her with similar objects. This would also explain her ambivalence in regards to human attention and kindness.

Kaylee spurns my advances.

Luckily, Kayle doesn’t share Jayne’s uncertainty. Though she’s hardly one for hardcore snuggling, Kaylee enjoys giving and receiving affection. A little too much, perhaps: Kaylee and O-Ren are my two little shadows, following me everywhere. And I do mean everywhere, including the bathroom. Kaylee’s struggles with anxiety are the polar opposite of Jayne’s: she has separation anxiety, and will mark up the house when left alone, particularly if she knows I’m around, but cannot get to me. Thus, we’re rarely apart: while I do yoga in the spare room, she naps in a cage behind me; when I shower, she relaxes in the corner of the bathroom; she’s even at my heels while I vacuum, scaryloudrobot be damned.

Thankfully, Kaylee’s separation anxiety is on the mild side, and can usually be prevented by crating her on the rare occasions when she’s left alone. More often than not, we try to accommodate her, for example, by taking her to the drive-in with us. (Hey, she’s quiet – which is more than I can say about our first three adoptees!)

Jayne & Kaylee

* Shane and I really, really wanted to adopt a bonded pair of dogs who couldn’t live without one another. We gave it our best shot, but even though Friends of the Friendless fought to keep them together, the two mostly seem indifferent towards one another. Perhaps they’ve simply grown apart in the three years they’ve been with us. It’s hard to remember exactly how they regarded one another in those early days.

The rescue group thought that Kaylee and Jayne might be mother and daughter, but I don’t see the resemblance; both are mostly white terriers, and that’s about it. Short of doing a DNA test, though, we’ll never know. Personally, I think Kaylee and O-Ren look more like mother and daughter than do Kaylee and Jayne. Both girls have decidedly porcine bodies: Kaylee is the momma sow to Rennie’s piglet.

Kaylee, lovin’ on O-Ren

* Eight years old at the time of adoption, Kaylee was considered a “senior” even then; now going on eleven, she’s practically ancient! She’s also smart, alert and athletic – and more active than her soon-to-be five-year-old daughter Jayne. Don’t write off an adult or senior animal based on age alone – it’s just a number, even for dogs.

To use another example, Ralphie the dachshund will be twelve this October, yet he’s more active, playful and fit than when we adopted him eight years ago. Having plenty of playmates, a large yard, a healthy diet and lots of exercise has kept him young. There’s plenty of life yet in each of our “old people”!

Kaylee can still keep up with Peedee!

Besides, old folks need love, too. There something especially heroic in adopting an animal who’s not long for this world; in loving someone whom you’re destined to lose much, much too soon; or in attempting to redress a life’s worth of neglect, abuse or loneliness in a few short months or weeks.

Even though Kaylee and Jayne faced some barriers to being adopted, I still think they’re on the “easy” end of the spectrum. Reading about Alec and his guardian Nicole, I wonder whether I could ever overcome such difficult obstacles. Anxious peeing? Cat trouble? Rotting teeth? Meh, these vegan cake when compared to sudden paralysis and incontinence! But I imagine that many people find unexpected resolve when faced with tragedy. Of course I’d continue to love and care for Ralphie if his back were to go, or Kaylee if she became incontinent in her old age. What other choice does one have?

Likewise, adopting a “less adoptable” animal can be an especially rewarding experience. You may not initially bring the benefit of a lifetime’s worth of love and bonding to the table when confronting the animal’s “special needs” – but these will develop in time (perhaps a surprisingly short time!). Until then, take comfort in the knowledge that you’ve saved a life – a life that so many others consider not worth saving. Beyond rescue. Undeserving. Unlovable. A throwaway.

But all animals deserve a safe, loving home. Every one.

From their Twitter profile (!);
Counterclockwise: Ralphie, Peedee, O-Ren, Ozzy, Jayne & Kaylee

(Crossposted from.)

———————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare holidays observances events adoption pet companion animal animal companion dog canine cat feline special needs senior petfinder my furkids furkids dogkids flickr photos Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable- Pet Day August 12 kaylee jayne rat terrier fox terrier jack russell terrier terrier mutt

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, today is the first (?) annual Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable-Pet Day! Petfinder created the holiday in order to raise awareness about animals who have an extra difficult time finding their forever homes, for a whole host of reasons.

Among cats and dogs, animals who face added obstacles to being rehomed include:

- Seniors and adults;
- Animals with medical issues, including disability and disease;
- Animals with emotional or behavioral issues, such as shyness or a nervous temperament;
- Animals who must be the only nonhuman in the home;
- Bonded animals who must be adopted as a pair – or, worse still, a trio, quartet, etc.;
- Cats with feline leukemia (a transmissible disease);
- Black dogs (for additional information, please see my post at Change.org on Black Dog Syndrome); and
- Dogs who belong to a so-called “dangerous” breed (pit bulls being the “dangerous” breed de jour).

If you plan on adopting an animal companion (or have adopted in the past), congratulations! With this one simple act, you become a hero to two animals – the one you rescued from a pound, shelter, rescue group or sanctuary, and also to the animal for whom you’re freed up a space in said pound, shelter, rescue group or sanctuary. According to the HSUS, between 3 and 4 million cats and dogs are killed (note: not “euthanized”) in U.S. shelters every year. While adopting one or two or even ten animals might seem a drop in the bucket, it makes a world of difference to the animals whose lives you’ve saved by adopting instead on buying.

But, as always, there’s more you can do! In regards to animal adoption, go out of your way to choose a cat or dog who meets the above criteria. Naturally, you may not be able to deal with all of these issues; for example, if you already live with one healthy cat, a FIV+ feline is out of the question. Instead of focusing on what you cannot do, however, concentrate on how you can help animals in need. For example, adopting a black dog doesn’t take any more effort than adopting a multi-colored one.

If your home is already filled to capacity, you can urge friends and family members to adopt – and to consider adopting a “less adoptable” animal, to boot. Or make a donation to any one of the hundreds+ animal rescue organizations across the country (and the globe) – many of which specifically focus on a population of “less adoptable” animals, be they companion, farmed, or “exotic”/wild animals.

Of course, you can also help by spreading the word. Make this Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable-Pet Day a success by linking to Petfinder on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc., and by telling the world about your “special” kids!

Speaking of which, part two of my family’s own story is coming up next!

[Pictured above is a very young me, circa 1997 - note the leather purse, ugh! on each count - with two of my family's own "less adoptable" girls:

Shannon the black mutt, one half of a 6-year-old pair of sisters we adopted from the local humane society (her sister, Shana, had already passed when this photo was taken); and

Shadow the pit bull mix, who had been hit by a car and had a crushed leg when we found her.

As with all our kids, they were both pure awesomeness, and I miss them more than words can say.]

(Crossposted from.)

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare holidays observances events adoption pet companion animal animal companion dog canine cat feline special needs senior petfinder my furkids furkids dogkids flickr photos Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable- Pet Day August 12

Today is the Day of Silence,

a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. Students from middle school to college take some form of a vow of silence in an effort to encourage schools and classmates to address the problem of anti-LGBT behavior. The event is designed to illustrate the silencing effect of this bullying and harassment on LGBT students and those perceived to be LGBT.

The DOS organizers explain:

As the Day of Silence approaches we’ve been getting lots of questions and comments along two similar but distinct threads on our various websites and in our email.

1) Do I need to be silent all day? Can I communicate at all? Can I blog/tweet/facebook?

2) Being silent doesn’t help and only perpetuates the problem. We should be speaking out.

The answer to both of these is similar: being silent has been and continues to be a very powerful way to create positive dialogue around the problem of anti-LGBT bullying for many students across the country. However, each person who participates in the Day of Silence has a different way of participating.

For some, the best way to participate is by being completely silent, including not participating in online communication. For others, the best way to participate is by spending the day speaking out about the issues of LGBT bullying. Some who participate get limited approval from their schools for their participation and so can only be silent during breaks between classes. There are many ways of participation ranging from complete silence to no silence.

The point is that the DOS is a day to bring attention to the problem of anti-LGBT bullying and each person who participates must determine how they can best use, or not use, their voice to do that. If you feel you will have the deepest positive impact by remaining completely silent and have the appropriate approvals to do so then go for it. If you feel that in your situation, you can have a deeper positive impact by speaking out then that should be your way of observing. No one can make that determination but you.

Your voice, whether silent or loud, WILL make a difference this Friday and the Day of Silence will speak volumes.

The DOS isn’t just for students, however. Adults can participate as well, by signing the pledge of solidarity; speaking out against anti-LGBTQ prejudice and bullying; observing a day of silence, whatever form that may take; Tweeting about the DOS; writing about the DOS on Facebook, your blog or similar; silencing your blog; and/or wearing red or rainbow-colored clothing.

In observance of the Day of Silence, easyVegan.info will remain silent for the rest of the day. Please take this opportunity to check out the Day of Silence blog and website, and educate yourself about LGBTQ issues.

The Get Active! section of this site also features links to a number of human rights organizations, including the following:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) * Action Center * E-Mail Subscriptions * Lesbian & Gay Rights

Amnesty International * Action Center * E-Mail Subscriptions * OUTfront!

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) * Action Center

Human Rights Campaign (HRC) * Action Center * E-Mail Subscriptions

People for the American Way (PFAW) * Action Center * E-Mail Subscriptions

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) * Action Center

Like many of you, I assume, I focus most of my energy and attention on animal advocacy issues because I believe that, generally speaking, non-human animals are the single most abused and exploited group of individuals on the planet. As such, I have the potential to make the greatest impact in this area.

Yet, it’s critical we realize that all social and environmental justice causes are equally important and in need of our support. While we may choose to concentrate on one area or issue, it’s absolutely imperative that we consciously refrain from adding to the suffering of and further marginalizing other groups in the process. This means – at the very least – making a concerted effort not to engage in sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, ableism, sizeism, colonialism, xenophobia, etc., in the course of our animal advocacy efforts.

Just as it’s morally wrong to mistreat and exploit non-human animals based on arbitrary criteria like species membership, so too is it morally wrong to mistreat lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and transsexual persons due to such arbitrary criteria as sexual orientation and gender identity.

I hope you’ll join me in this day of silence and solidarity.

——————-

Updated to add:

Immediately after posting this entry, I saw at Bitch Magazine this memorial for Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, an 11-year-old boy from Springfield, Massachusetts, who took his own life on April 6. The suicide came after months of bullying at the hands of classmates; ‘girlie,’ ‘gay’ and ‘fag’ were just a few of the slurs hurled at Carl – who would have turned 12 today.

Please take a moment to leave an encouraging note for Carl’s family.

Words matter.

——————-

Tagged: day of silence dos intersections parallel oppressions events dos lgbtq homophobia transphobia gender identity sexual orientation action alerts solidarity

If you consume meat, eggs or dairy, this is what you support. The alienation and separation of mothers from their children. The reduction of the female body to a meat- and/or milk-producing machine, wherein babies constitute the “meat,” and the milk meant for them is stolen and sold to humans who have absolutely no need for the stuff. Rape, murder and ecocide.

Parents: how would you feel if someone abused your child in such a cruel manner? If someone tore her from your side, and denied her all but the most basic of maternal comforts?

Women: have you really no sympathy for your animal sisters, singled out for especially brutal abuse and exploitation – all because they’re capable of giving rise to new life? Some miracle.

100 million pigs. 100 million mothers, daughters and sons. 100 million reasons to go vegan.

Photos via Animal Rights Advocates Inc.

(Crossposted from.)

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare meat food pork factory farming intersections parallel oppressions animals and women Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson the pig who sang to the moon pig sow piglet ethology animal behavior flickr photos farm sanctuary books farmed animals

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.

The theme of maternal exploitation in The Pig Who Sang to the Moon is one I’ll return to. For now, allow me to excerpt a few related passages from Chapter 1, Pigs Is Equal.

Intelligence does not imply worthiness; in other words, it should not matter, from an ethical perspective, how intelligent a particular species or even any particular individual is – after all, we don’t shoot a human being who is not doing as well as his contemporaries at school. Nonetheless people tend to comment on the particular intelligence of these “horizontal humans,” as they are sometimes called because they are so much like us. (p. 37)

In many American factory farms, pigs are routinely sedated and kept in dark or semidark giant sheds so that all they can do is eat and sleep for twenty-three out of twenty-four hours. All the joie de vivre is driven out of the pig. Fattened to immobility, tails cut, teeth removed, their natural instincts to investigate frustrated by being forced to exist in a small pen, their sense of cleanliness ruined by being forced to urinate and defecate in their sleeping space, something no pig would ever do in nature – they have been utterly metamorphosed. So heavy are they that many find it difficult to stand on their own legs. Piglets are taken from their mothers when they are about three weeks old and put into “nursery” pens – where of course, no nursing takes place – with metal bars and concrete floors. They move to “growers” and “finishers,” and at about six months, when they attain the “slaughter weight” of 250 pounds, they are killed. [...] The mothers fare no better. They are confined in small pens or metal gestation crates (two feet wide) after pregnancy and four months later are transferred to farrowing crates where they barely have room to stand and lie down. They are denied straw bedding (too expensive). Unable to exercise or even move, they become very heavy (the point, of course) and subject to crippling leg disorders. Psychologically, they become “neurotic,” as the breeders call them, biting the bars of the crates, in a sitting position much like dogs, but looking dazed, showing all the signs of mourning the loss of their babies. Then it is time for the slaughterhouse. (p. 38-39)

In the wild, female sows getting ready to give birth will often construct protective nests as high as three feet. They line these farrowing nests with mouthfuls of grass and sometimes even manage to construct a roof made of sticks – a safe and comfortable home-like structure. On modern pig farms, where the mother is forced to give birth on concrete floors, her babies are often crushed when she rolls over. This never happens in the wild because the baby simply slips through the nest and finds her way back to her own teat. [...] Within forty-eight hours of birth the litter establishes a “teat order,” and from then on each piglet suckles only that particular teat on his mother. This seems to be a sort of dominance hierarchy, or at least has always been so interpreted. If allowed, piglets suckle for eleven to thirteen weeks or even longer. On factory farms, however, they are usually removed from the mother at three to four weeks and never see her again. This is so that, having stopped suckling, the mother can be returned into the breeding cycle and be made pregnant again a week or two later. (p. 46-47)

Breed, gestate, deliver, nurse, grieve, repeat: this is a sow’s lot. The whole damn “pork” subdivision of the megatheocorporatocracy rests on the female pig’s sexual organs – in her ability to give birth to the next generation of porcine “property.”

Parallels, anyone?

(Crossposted from.)

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare meat food pork factory farming intersections parallel oppressions animals and women Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson the pig who sang to the moon pig sow piglet ethology animal behavior flickr photos farm sanctuary books farmed animals

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 likely, though, I think Coats’s choice of words is thoughtful and intentional. As I noted above, the first half of the paragraph is front-loaded with androcentric terms: man this, he that. However, Coats quickly switches to more inclusive terms when describing the effects of man’s sins on other humans beings. Rather than a sexist slip-up, Coats’s transition from sexist to gender-neutral verbiage appears to be intentional, perhaps in an attempt to stress that man (as the primary profiteer in a patriarchy) is the oppressor, while other humans (women, children and some groups of disadvantaged men) – in addition to non-human animals – are man’s victims.

While I appreciate Coats’s intent (if this is indeed the case), I think his reasoning is misguided at best (and patronizing or outright sexist at worst). Most humans are both agents and victims of the patriarchy: precious few (men) occupy the top rungs of a hierarchy, while most everyone else – dangling precariously on the various middle rungs – are at once oppressed by those above, as they oppress those below. This goes for most everyone: men, women, children, people of color, religious minorities, LGBTQ individuals, etc. Even the most disadvantaged among us (humans) are able to exploit non-human animals, which collectively sit at the bottom of the pyramid. Just as we are all exploited, so too are we all exploiters.

Think about it: wherever women are genitally mutilated, forced into arranged or underage marriages, expected to birth babies throughout their fertile years, derided for being too feminine or not feminine enough, valued less than the fetuses in their wombs, or otherwise treated like receptacles for the male gaze, his magic seed, various bodily secretions, or outright male hatred, women still have the right to torture, enslave and slaughter animals for the most trivial of reasons, consume their corpses, wear their skins, etc.** Ditto people of color, people of lower socioeconomic statuses, children, homosexuals, transgendered people, people of disability, etc. The particulars may change, but the human privilege is always there.

In excluding women (and other marginalized groups) from the category of “oppressors,” Coats is obscuring the true nature of our relationships – to one another, to non-human animals and to the natural world around us. Truthfully, we all carry some sort of privilege, whether it’s over women, people of color, LGBTQ’s, or non-human animals (etc.). Old MacDonald (as in, The Megatheocorporatocracy (TM) formerly known as Old MacDonald) may own that factory farm, but we all reap its benefits (and consequences). We all need to check our privilege at the door.

The good news? We all have the opportunity for self-improvement, personal growth and transformation. You can start by going vegan, if you haven’t already.

Step #2: ditch the sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic/sizeist/ableist/speciesist language, please.

——————

* Crossposted from.

** Hence the Sarah Palin photo at the top of this post: she was (and continues to be) the victim of countless misogynist attacks during the 2008 election cycle, yes, but she also victimizes non-human animals on both a personal (hunting, food, clothing, entertainment) and public (gov’t policy) basis.

——————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare language intersections parallel oppressions animals and women sexism racism speciesism C. David Coats Old MacDonald’s Factory Farm an amazing animal violence the cycle of violence sarah palin androcentric mankind humankind feminism feminist flickr photo

Of all PETA’s campaigns, I think I find the “fur hag” meme most offensive. While feminists can (and do) disagree on whether nudity and porn can ever be empowering for women, “fur hag” is a rather obvious gender-based slur, and draws upon a number of age-old stereotypes about women – which PETA further elucidates with their “fur hag” artwork.

To be fair, I have no idea whether PETA actually invented the term “fur hag” – but they’ve certainly been quite influential in launching “fur hag” into the mainstream. Wherever fur-wearing celebs are trashed – on gossip blogs, in fashion show protests, or even on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, “fur hag” is inevitably bandied about as an insult. Oftentimes by other women, who apparently see nothing sexist about denigrating women they dislike with misogynist slurs.

Let’s start by looking at the word “hag.”

Dictionary.com defines “hag” as:

1. an ugly old woman, esp. a vicious or malicious one.
2. a witch or sorceress.
3. a hagfish.

The first definition is obviously problematic: a hag is “an ugly old woman, esp. a vicious or malicious one.” While I have no qualms about calling people (women and men) who wear fur “vicious” or “malicious,” the term “hag” also attacks the fur wearer’s physical appearance and gender – a “hag” is “an ugly old woman.” In fact, the primary aspect of this definition involves appearance and gender – a “hag” is “an ugly old woman,” especially [but not necessarily] “a vicious or malicious one.” “Vicious” and “malicious” are somewhat extraneous to this definition; a “hag,” then, is chiefly “an ugly old woman.”

Which begs the question – why should one’s gender and physical appearance be used as insults? A person’s outward physical appearance has nothing to do with her moral and ethical character, or her value and worth as an individual. To call upon physical attractiveness (or perceived lack thereof) as an insult is, well, insulting and prejudiced, not to mention misguided and deceptive. Further, when you stop to consider what constitutes physical attractiveness in Western culture (thin, white, young, “all-American”), such judgments are usually racist, ageist, and sizeist as well.

The size of Beyonce’s ass, for example, says nothing about her as a person. It’s irrelevant.

In this first definition, “hag” is also a gender-based slur – inasmuch as it, by definition, refers to a woman – and an ugly one, at that. Because for women, who are judged largely on their physical appearance (and to a much greater degree than men), there is nothing worse than being ugly, unfuckable, unlovable. We are the sex class, mere objects for the male gaze (and receptacles for their holy, magical sperm).

Since it’s a gender-based slur, “hag” can never be applied to men – unless, of course, it’s used to emasculate a man by equating him with a woman (as is done with “bitch”). Such a use of the term relies on the idea that women are somehow inferior – to call a man a woman is to take him down a peg in our patriarchal hierarchy. Again, this usage just reinforces “hag” as a sexist slur.

The second definition is no better – a “hag” is “a witch or sorceress.”

Let’s look at dictionary.com‘s definition of these terms:

Witch

1. a person, now esp. a woman, who professes or is supposed to practice magic, esp. black magic or the black art; sorceress. Compare warlock.
2. an ugly or mean old woman; hag: the old witch who used to own this building.
3. a person who uses a divining rod; dowser.

Sorceress

a woman who practices sorcery; witch.

As with “hag,” both “witch” and “sorceress” refer primarily to women – and ugly and mean old women. Because Dog knows that women (as opposed to men) are mean and ugly, and our meanness and ugliness only multiply as we age.

Then there’s the use of “witch” as a euphemism for the even more offensive “bitch,” which I’ll return to later.

Finally, the third and last definition offered for “hag” is “a hagfish.”

Hagfish are

marine craniates of the class Myxini, also known as Hyperotreti. Myxini is the only class in the clade Craniata that does not also belong to the subphylum Vertebrata. That is, they are the only animals which have a skull but not a vertebral column.

Despite their name, there is some debate about whether they are strictly fish (as there is for lampreys), since they belong to a much more primitive lineage than any other group that is placed in the category of fish (Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes). Their unusual feeding habits and slime-producing capabilities have led members of the scientific and popular media to dub the hagfish as the most “disgusting” of all sea creatures. Although hagfish are sometimes called “slime eels,” they are not eels at all.

While it’s certainly possible that PETA and anti-fur protesters are referring to the “ugly” hagfish when calling Lindsay Lohan a “fur hag,” I highly doubt it. But hey, let’s just say they are. Using “hagfish” as an insult is speciesist – it draws on negative associations about an animal species, for doing/being what it was designed to by evolution. It’s no better than calling a cheating husband a “dog,” a dirty roommate a “pig,” or a tattle-taley sibling a “rat”: all reinforce negative stereotypes about a particular animal species. These stereotypes, in turn, affect how we view and treat these animals. For example, it’s easier to exploit animals that are perceived as ugly, unlovable, alien or subhuman. PETA knows this: hence their “Sea Kittens” campaign. Words matter.

“Hag” as short for “hagfish” is also a slur which attacks a person’s physical appearance, rather than her moral character. As I said above, this is inaccurate and prejudiced. And again, it’s also a slur that’s more likely to be applied to women than men, as a woman’s worth more often rests on her so-called physical attractiveness.

The artwork that PETA uses to illustrate their “fur hag” materials are a “lovely” illustration of the above. In keeping with the dictionary definitions of “hag,” PETA’s “fur hags” are primarily women – ugly, old women.

In addition to the ad I included at the beginning of this post (which depicts the “fur hag” as an older, obese, conventionally unattractive woman), consider the following:

While we can argue over whether Anna Wintour and Donatella Versace are conventionally attractive women, I think it’s obvious that PETA took care to select the least flattering photos of each woman to grace these “fur hag” ads. Again, each are depicted as old, ugly, witch-like women. The ads’ copy goes further, explicitly declaring that “Fur is worn by beautiful animals and ugly people.” While the adjective “ugly” could apply to Ms. Wintour and Ms. Versace’s moral characters, I think the unflattering, deliberately ugly portrayals of each belie PETA’s real intent: to attack their looks in addition to/instead of their personality flaws. Also, while PETA claims that fur is worn by “ugly people,” this is really a disingenuous stab at gender neutrality, as most (if not all) of their anti-fur/”fur hag” ads 1) target women and 2) employ gender-specific slurs.

(I should note that PETA also produces the “Ink, Not Mink” anti-fur ads, which do include some male models. However, I don’t think these qualify, for reasons I’ll explain in a later post. The short answer, though, is that they don’t make sense – comparing “ink” to “mink” is like comparing apples to golf balls. Rather than making a legitimate, logical point, I get the impression that PETA just needed another rhyme for their latest celeb campaign.*)

PETA’s recent treatment of the Ollsen twins (or the “Trollsens,” in PETA’s own words) takes the “fur hag” stereotype to hateful extremes, portraying the twins as painfully ugly trolls.

On the “Trollsens” portion of their website (www.peta2.com/Trollsens/), PETA features cartoonish graphics which portray the young women as old, ugly, trollish witches – “fur hags” to letter:

PETA goes even further, by nicknaming each twin: “Hairy Kate” for Mary-Kate, and “Trashley” for Ashley….

(“Hairy” is yet another insult which plays to gender stereotypes, as women aren’t supposed to have body hair…even though we’re the same primates as our male counterparts. “Trashley” is spiteful, but rather gender-neutral.)

…and inviting the audience to dress them up in “fatal fashion.”:

This last screenshot is by far the most disturbing of the bunch – and the worst extreme of “fur haggery” that I’ve seen. Here, the Ollsens are stripped nearly naked, their barely clothed bodies a horror to behold. The young women are imagined as old and, well, haggard – their bodies, wrinkled and aged, covered in liver spots. They are old, ugly, practically corpse-like – nightmarish trolls and witches, the both of them.

Worse still, PETA also hits a body image hot spot by making the twins impossibly thin – in a word, anorexic. Given the high incidence of eating disorders among women in Western nations (and, increasingly, in non-Western nations which are slowly adopting Western standards of beauty), this is not only hateful – but fucking irresponsible, to boot. Women already receive conflicting and impossible messages about their self-worth and bodies, without a social justice organization adding to the toxic cultural milieu. It’s the classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario” – women are either too thin or not thin enough (the Ollsens are ridiculed for their thinness, while Beyonce is ridiculed for her “fat ass”); spend too little or too much time on their physical appearance (it’s a fine line between frumpy and vain); etc., etc. etc.

In fact, Mary-Kate has been diagnosed with anorexia, and it’s rumored that Ashley suffers from an eating disorder as well. To attack the twins on such a personal level – deriding them for caving under the crushing weight of society’s impossible beauty demands, to the point where one or each of them suffers from a psychological disorder – is shamefully cruel.

While I’m disappointed and angry with PETA for promoting gender stereotypes and misogynist slurs through the “fur hag” campaigns, my heart breaks a little every time fellow animal rights advocates – especially women – refer to it approvingly, thus further perpetuating dis-empowering gender roles. The slur “fur hag” attacks women, simply for being women. A woman’s actions and intent are secondary, merely icing on the cake. “Hags” are vilified for their femaleness – a femaleness which grows more offensive the “uglier” and older they become. In using the term “hag,” women are not only hurting the fur-wearer, but themselves as well.

Ditto the term “bitch,” which is also bandied about in the animal advocacy community with glee. And with increasingly frequency, natch, in the wake of the highly misogynistic 2008 election cycle. Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin may be awful people, but they’re awful for their views on non-human animals, the environment, etc. – not because they’re women who hold these views.

Again, let’s see what dictionary.com has to say about the word “bitch”:

1. a female dog.
2. a female of canines generally.
3. Slang.
a. a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman.
b. a lewd woman.
4. Slang.
a. a complaint.
b. anything difficult or unpleasant: The test was a bitch.
c. anything memorable, esp. something exceptionally good: That last big party he threw was a real bitch.

Here, as with “hag,” “bitch” primarily refers to an unlikable woman. As with “hagfish,” it can also refer to an animal – a female dog – so using it in this manner is speciesist as well as sexist. (Three of my best friends are bitches, in point o’ fact, making bitch-as-a-slur that much more offensive to me.)

Bigger feminist bitches than I have tackled the b-word, so rather than rehash, allow me to quote liberally.

Andi Zeisler, co-founder (with Lisa Jervis) of Bitch magazine, as quoted in Shakesville:

Bitch is a word we use culturally to describe any woman who is strong, angry, uncompromising and, often, uninterested in pleasing men. We use the term for a woman on the street who doesn’t respond to men’s catcalls or smile when they say, “Cheer up, baby, it can’t be that bad.” We use it for the woman who has a better job than a man and doesn’t apologize for it. We use it for the woman who doesn’t back down from a confrontation.

So let’s not be disingenuous. Is it a bad word? Of course it is. As a culture, we’ve done everything possible to make sure of that, starting with a constantly perpetuated mindset that deems powerful women to be scary, angry and, of course, unfeminine — and sees uncompromising speech by women as anathema to a tidy, well-run world.

From Bitch magazine’s ‘about us’ page:

The writer Rebecca West, back in the day, said, “People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.” We’d argue that the word “bitch” is usually deployed for the same purpose. When it’s being used as an insult, “bitch” is an epithet hurled at women who speak their minds, who have opinions and don’t shy away from expressing them, and who don’t sit by and smile uncomfortably if they’re bothered or offended. If being an outspoken woman means being a bitch, we’ll take that as a compliment, thanks.

We know that not everyone’s down with the term. Believe us, we’ve heard all about it. But we stand firm in our belief that if we choose to take the word as a compliment, it loses its power to hurt us. And if we can get people thinking about what they’re saying and why when they use the word, that’s even better.

And last, but certainly not least, “bitch” describes all at once who we are when we speak up, what it is we’re too worked up over to be quiet about, and the act of making ourselves heard.

Used as an insult, “bitch” is a misogynist term: it applies to women who are loud, ambitious, outspoken, opinionated. (It’s also worth noting that the threshold where these traits turn from an advantage to a liability is much lower for women than men.) Uppity women are “bitches,” and “bitch” is the patriarchy’s way of telling them to STFU. As members of the patriarchy, socialized in its woman-hating culture, women can be (and oftentimes are) misogynists, too – along with men, many women are foot soldiers, seeking to reinforce and enforce gender roles, or self-haters, denigrating the “unwomanly” traits they see in other women. Women can be sexist, just as people of color can be racist, gays and lesbians can be homophobic, etc., etc., etc.

On a personal note, as a vegan and animal liberationist, I sometimes find myself employing speciesist terms (“dehumanize,” “pig” as an insult, etc.). As someone who was raised and exists in a highly speciesist culture, I’m not immune from unconsciously engaging in speciesism myself. The most we can do is recognize, apologize and learn from these mistakes.

So comes a plea for the animal advocacy community, men and women alike – please stop using sexist terms such as “hag,” “bitch,” “cunt,” “slut,” etc. as insults. Ditto other slurs which rely on various “isms” for their power. Fighting one oppression by engaging in another is both unethical and counterproductive.

Likewise, if you’re a woman, and you feel comfortable doing so, reclaim “bitch” and “cunt” as your own. You can do so by using them in a positive and complimentary way – “Bitches get shit done!”

It’s time to recognize “fur hag,” “fucking bitch” and the like for what they are – attacks on women, attacks which have no place in a social justice movement.

Hate is hate, violence is violence, oppression is oppression – and enough is enough.

(Crossposted from.)

———————

* Update, 1/25/09: Duh, me. Somehow I neglected to mention PETA’s other anti-fur campaigns, “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” and “Turn Your Back On Fur.” While neither rely on sexist slurs, they do primarily include women celebs – which irks me, since men wear fur, too. As with the “Ink, Not Mink” campaign, I’ll address these in a later post.

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare language fur hag bitch feminism misogyny sexism peta people for the ethical treatment of animals ads advertisements campaigns ollsen twins trollsens animals and women intersections parallel oppressions race racism gender stereotypes class classism words matter marketing flickr photos fur anti-fur

MON: The Woody Show is off for MLK Day . . . or as Woody & Ravey call it…the day after the Steelers beat the Ravens to go to the Superbowl.

TUES: Tony (in a chicken suit) will try to catch chickens in the studio! Plus The Woody Show wants to find out if chickens will eat….chicken.

THURS: Comic Doug Benson will stop by during SF Sketchfest!

pattrice notes,

Without doubt, being carted to and then chased around a radio station will be extremely distressing to the birds in question. Moreover, mockery is a means by which people distance themselves from animals, in order to make their abuse less ethically troubling. Thus, this event, if allowed to go forward, will not only harm the two birds but also contribute to the callous disregard for animals that facilitates both everyday and extreme abuses of animals. [...]

There is, of course, one more cause for concern about this particular event. Why, on the day that our nation’s first African American president will be inaugurated, will radio hosts be making jokes about eating chicken?

The answer is obvious, but allow me to state it anyway. Clearly, by introducing chickens into their Inauguration Day “joke,” the hosts of “The Woody Show” are invoking an age-old stereotype involving African Americans and chicken:

This section of the Authentic History Center’s “Teaching Diversity With Multimedia” collection focuses on stereotypes of people of African descent from the end of the American Civil War in images of blacks with themes of chicken and watermelon. Analysis of a large collection of artifacts with racist African American imagery reveals several common themes. One is the linking of Black people in a negative way to chicken and watermelon. The origins of these stereotypes are unclear. They may have begun as Southern stereotypes and then evolved into Black stereotypes. It’s also possible that these evolved out of American slavery. Numerous primary sources chronicle Black resistance to slavery through “silent sabotage,” or, day-to-day acts of resistance. Stealing from the master was one example. It seems logical that, given that food would be among the most desirable of items a slave would pilfer, and chickens and watermelons would have been commonly available. [...] The connecting of Blacks to chicken and watermelon was done in a way to dehumanize Blacks and subject them to ridicule. This process helped contribute to prejudice and discrimination. Surprisingly, many young people are unaware of the long history of these stereotypes, while some older Black people refuse to eat watermelon because of that history. And yet the stereotype still exists. In 1989, while stationed at a Marine Air Station in Yuma, Arizona, I was standing in line at the chow hall and noticed a particular theme in the day’s cuisine. The main offerings that day were fried chicken, black-eyed peas, and watermelon. I soon realized, to my horror, that it was Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. I do not know if this gesture was intended as a racist joke, or if the head cook really thought that offering such food was a way of honoring Dr. King.

Here, the “The Woody Show” staff is using animal abuse borne of speciesism in order to make a racist “joke” at the expense of African Americans. To add insult to injury, they’ve specifically chosen to do so on a day which is especially historic for people of color – indeed, all of America – that is, the day of President Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Real, live animals will be harmed during this “skit” – and possibly even forced to cannibalize their own. Meanwhile, the racial aspect of this “joke” will contribute to the casual/”softcore” (and overt) racism which is all too common in this country. Indeed, Obama’s candidacy and subsequent victory seems to have triggered a retrogressive racist backlash, in no small order. Racism and speciesism collide in one ugly spectacle.

pattrice suggests,

Don’t wait to protest after the fact. Stop this event before it happens. Call the producers of LIVE 105 at (415) 478-548 and insist that in-studio animal abuse is not funny, on Inauguration Day or any other day.

There’s additional contact for “The Woody Show” here, though I’m not sure calling in live will do much good. Probably your righteous indignation will only elicit additional racist (sexist, homophobic, sizeist, etc.) slurs, along with more than one cry of “I’m no racist!” I’m sure at least one host will even claim to be a “liberal,” “progressive,” or otherwise “tolerant” guy (or gal). And I think it’s a given that every last one of ‘em will crack a defensive joke about enjoying tortured and tormented chicken dishes.

(Crossposted from.)

——————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare action alerts pattrice jones the woody show san francisco Barack Obama Inauguration Day animal abuse animal cruelty cruelty to animals intersections parallel oppressions racism speciesism chicken meat stereotypes kits live 105 radio radio stunt

Now that this post is making the rounds (which is to say, a few bloggers have mentioned it – lolz on me!), I want to make the following clarifications:

1) As I said at Change.org, I don’t think Obama is a misogynist. In calling his “girly dog” remark sexist, I’m not grouping him with hardcore misogynists like Ann Coulter, Joe Francis, Rick Warren and the like. Rather, I think that Obama occasionally engages in the sort of casual, softcore sexism that’s all too common among men (and women!) who have been raised in a culture steeped in misogyny. An occasional slip is understandable and excusable – after all, we’re all socialized with certain prejudices, which we have to unlearn – but only if you’re willing to recognize, apologize and learn from it.

Here, Mrs. Obama offered her husband several opportunities to reconsider his comments – and he didn’t. To me, his failure to recognize how this gendered stereotype might offend his wife and daughters is worse than the comments themselves.

2) Upon re-reading the post, I see that I conflated “small dogs” with “girly dogs” – my bad! While I think there’s a strong correlation between a dog’s size and his/her perceived “girly”-ness, there are exceptions. The standard poodle, for example, is a larger breed, but might be considered “girly,” inasmuch as it’s “high maintenance” (i.e., is rather well groomed). “Girly doesn’t necessarily equal “small,” but the two are somewhat related.

Nor do I have a problem with Obama preferring a large dog; indeed, as some have pointed out, large dogs are overrepresented in shelters, at least in some areas of the country, and thus it might do more good for Obama to adopt a large breed. That’s fine by me – but he can do so without denigrating “girly” dogs (and, by extension, actual girls and women).

3) Enumerating the consequences of gender-based stereotypes and insults on human men and women is well beyond the scope of this blog.

However, if you:

a) Don’t understand why the term “girly” might be perceived as an insult, and a gender-based one at that;

b) Don’t see the links between misogyny and homophobia; and/or

c) Don’t recognize the practical, real-world effects of gender stereotypes and gendered slurs on men and women (and girls and boys), or understand how men and women (and girls and boys) receive different, gendered socialization, then

I highly recommend adding some feminist blogs to your reading list. For a primer, start with Finally, a feminism 101 blog. As far as non-AR feminist blogs go, I also like Shakespeare’s Sister and Feministe, both of which are relatively light on speciesism.

If you think I need to “lighten up” or “get over myself,” you really need to do some feminist homework!

4) Finally, I’d like to add that the term “girly dog” also invokes class and race stereotypes. When you think of the quintessential “girly dog” and her “owner,” probably you think of a small, white, yappy, puffy little dog with bows in her perfectly groomed hair. The dog – being a lap dog, as Obama also said – is most likely pictured lounging on the lap of an equally perfectly groomed woman, who is either prissy and “diva”-ish, like Paris Hilton (another blogger’s term and example), or older and regally respectable, like Ms. Walters. Either way, she’s white and upper-class. At least, that’s my take on the term.

—————–

Oy. After months of equivocating on the dog issue, the Obama family has announced that they’ve narrowed their choice down to two breeds: the Labradoodle and the Portuguese Water Dog. Unfortunately, as Adopt-a-Pet.com reports, while these are not the only two “hypoallergenic” breeds available, they are harder to find on animal adoption websites:

You recently signed Adopt-a-Pet.com‘s petition on www.Presidential-Pooch-Pardon.com asking Barack Obama to adopt a shelter dog. He is interested in adopting, but has narrowed his search to uncommon breeds that are difficult to find in a shelter. Now, on the President-Elect’s website, there’s a section where people can vote for their favorite ideas, and the top vote-getting ideas will be directly seen by Obama. One of the animal shelter workers who posts pets for adoption on Adopt-a-Pet.com has posted an idea urging the president to consider finding a mixed breed dog with the right individual traits that meets his family’s needs.

You can make a huge difference by voting one more time here. If this is your first time on the site, you’ll be asked to create an account, which is super simple. After you create your account, click the link above again to locate the suggestion.

Thank you for being part of this non-partisan effort to promote homeless pet adoption please spread the word to your friends!

Indeed, a search of Petfinder for “Labradoodle” currently turns up zero results, while “Portuguese Water Dog” uncovers seven purebred dogs.

Additionally, in selecting a purebred dog, the Obamas are practically inviting greedy breeders to cash in on their (hopefully) compassionate choice by sexually exploiting and selling the “Obama dog.” (Doubly so if they adopt a breed that’s hard to find through adoption routes.) A mixed breed or mutt – particularly one of unknown heritage, which can’t easily be reproduced – would help minimize this risk.

Also on the Obama dog front, Adopt-a-Pet.com has some crazy cute graphics you can download, encouraging the Obamas to adopt a mutt.

They’re available at muttslikeme.adoptapet.com, which is a riff on Obama’s observation that “A lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me.”

Incidentally, the Tennessee Guerrilla Women included a clip of the November 25, 2008 Barbara Walters Obama interview in their discussion of the Labradoodle/Portuguese Water Dog dilemma. Here, Walters asks the Obamas about their dog search, sharing with Barack and Michelle a photo of her own dog, Cha-Cha – a Cuban Havanese who she describes as “like a little terrier”:

I’m too lazy to type up a transcript, but luckily the WaPo’s Ruth Marcus summarizes:

No girly dog.

Excuse me?

That’s right. Barack Obama doesn’t want a girly dog.

As in Barbara Walters’s non-allergenic terrier, a Havanese named Cha Cha.

“It’s like a little yappy dog?” Obama asked Walters, foolishly ignoring his wife’s advice not to criticize.

“It, like, sits in your lap and things?” queried the skeptical president-elect.

Michelle, still trying to save her husband from himself, pronounced the dog “cute.”

Barack wasn’t buying it. “It sounds kind of like a…a girly dog,” he said, at which point his wife pointed out, “We’re girls. We have a house full of girls.”

Except for the, well, Top Dog, who forthwith issued an executive order. “We’re gonna have a big, rambunctious dog.”

That’s right. The “new face of feminism,” who is married to a woman and has two young daughters, doesn’t want a “girly dog.” And, ahem, sees nothing wrong with using the word “girly” as a pejorative. Nice.

The term “girly dog” is yet another example of intersecting oppressions – another instance of animal advocacy as a feminist issue.

Let’s start with the stereotype of a “girly dog.” “Girly dogs” are much like “girly girls” – small, weak, fluffy, frilly, frou-frou-ey, in need of copious amounts of grooming, with large closets (filled with sparkly pink clothes, no doubt) and even bigger (yappy) mouths. Girly dogs, like girly girls, are feminine. Submissive. Annoying. Rather useless. Lazy. Bitchy. A pain in the ass. By extension, men who “own” “girly dogs” (or are “girly” themselves) are gay. Which is almost as bad as being a woman.

Big, rambunctious dogs, on the other hand, are manly. Tough. Full of testosterone. Rebellious. Not easily controlled. Leaders, not followers. They take shit from no one – least of all, girly dogs and women. 100%, Grade A hetero. Manly dogs are no one’s bitches.

Akin to the men eat meat / women nibble on salad dichotomy, the girly / manly dog split also hurts women and animals. Here, both women and small dogs are devalued for superficial reasons; the content of their characters is based on their physical characteristics, real or imagined. That which is “girly” or feminine is dismissed, denigrated, while the “manly” or masculine is judged superior and preferable. Inherent in this equation is the “I ain’t no fag!” protestation – only homosexual men “own” small, yippy dogs. In addition to being breedist and sexist, the term “girly dog” is also homophobic.

Ageist, too: small, “girly” “lap” dogs are the sort of “pets” one might picture relaxing in the laps of older women, such as Ms. Walters herself.

To summarize, in just two words, women (older women especially), gay men and small dogs are all denigrated through their perceived associations with and similarities to one another.

So eff you, Obama, for using the term “girly” as an insult – and in the company of two accomplished women, one of which is your wife, to boot.

To paraphrase Wanda Sykes, “Don’t say that something is girly when you mean that something is dumb or stupid. It’s insulting. It’s like if I thought this pepper shaker was stupid, and I said, ‘Man, this pepper shaker is so 47-year-old man with dumbo ears and a penchant for flip-flopping.’” Or, you know, “This pepper shaker is so Barack Obama.”

And while we’re at it, don’t reinforce the stereotype that small dogs are somehow dumb, stupid or inferior because of their size. My “girly” dogs will eff you up, yo.

(Crossposted from.)

—————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare pet companion animal dog canine adopt mutt mixed breed Labradoodle Portuguese Water Dog hypoallergenic Adopt-a-Pet.com barbara walters michelle obama girly sexist sexism misogyny homophobe homophobia parallel oppressions intersections language video video blogging you tube

To wit:

Let’s dissect, shall we?

First and foremost, we have the exoticising and othering of “foreign” (read: non-Western) peoples and cultures: the narrator stresses that the BK “scientists” traveled far and wide, trekked to remote villages, through miles of dirt roads, in order to find – gasp! – people who have never tasted an American burger. They are Whopper Virgins – oh, the humanity! Just look at the silly primitives, with their goat milk and rutabagas and shit! Don’t they know that factory farmed animal parts, pumped full of antibiotics and covered in feces, are the pinnacle of culinary genius?

The voiceover is performed in the vein of a kitschy, retro documentary, thus giving off an air of mystery and gravity (not to mention old-skool ethnocentrism), as though the BK researchers are encountering previously “undiscovered” cultures for the first time, and must record the moment for posterity’s sake. Close your eyes, and you can almost recall a lost episode of Wild Kingdom: now watch as the Serengeti lion stalks her prey, so stealth, quiet, focused…the great beast’s muscles become tense in anticipation of the kill…the antelope senses her presence…

Even the soundtrack reminds the viewer that These People Are Not Like Us, as BK appropriates each culture’s musical style in order to push their product. Listen closely and you can hear the “exotic,” “ethnic” notes of a pan flute, as if floating towards us from far, far away in the mountains. Isn’t that special.

Luckily (for BK shareholders, that is; everyone else is a loser in this deal), Burger King is raring to pop the natives’ Whopper Cherries. Hello, colonialism vis-à-vis American capitalism! 11,300 outlets in 69 countries isn’t enough for the death dealers at BK; no ma’am. The world will not be complete until there’s a BK franchise in every city and every town the world over; who cares about animal abuse, water pollution, global warming, bird flu, food poisoning, environmental degradation, habitat loss, biodiversity, cultural diversity, or public health and safety when there are markets to corner and buxxx to be made? Next stop: Mars! Hey, the world is not enough, am I right?

Like most bigotry, the racism in this campaign doesn’t stand alone: they also throw in a healthy serving of sexism, because what ad would be complete without a little woman-hating?

By equating the non-Westerners’ burger “illiteracy” (as the obligatory white doods refer to it in BK’s documentary) with “virginity,” the BK marketing geniuses are equating the Whopper with a sort of sex. Or rather, the act of eating the Whopper is equated with sex; the Whopper itself is the consumable sexual object. Said consumable sexual object is usually depicted as female in gender, as eco-feminist Carol Adams has astutely noted time and again. While BK doesn’t explicitly make the connection in this campaign series, that’s usually the way it goes. And BK’s no stranger to this tactic, either.

Anyway, back to all that hot, nasty, life-altering sex the Whopper Virgins are being introduced to. When BK compares eating a Whopper to having sex, let’s think about what they’re suggesting. “Burgers” are made of “meat.” Factory farmed “meat.” This “meat” consists of a collection of corpses of abused, exploited, tortured and ultimately murdered animals; animals which were previously living, breathing, feeling, sentient creatures. “Meat” is, above all else, death and destruction.

Sex = meat = death.

Now that’s a fucking lovely concept to promote, eh? On its face, it’s misanthropic – harmful to men and women alike – until you also consider that women are more often compared and reduced to “pieces of meat” than are men, and meat is advertised in highly sexual, gendered terms. So it’s not much of a stretch to infer that, in the Sex = meat = death equation, women are just as likely to be the consumed as they are the consumer.

Not that any of us should be the consumer; meat consumption, at least in industrialized Western societies, is not only wholly unnecessary, but it’s also harmful: harmful to the environment, harmful to our health and, above all else, harmful to the animals we’re killing and consuming. The speciesism in the Whopper Virgins series is the most prevalent of the “isms” – and it’s also the least visible, because it’s so widely accepted as “how things are.”

The thinkers at ABC News, for example, noted the irony in Burger King blowing their wad to travel around the world and seek out “virgins” who have never tasted a Whopper – while 16,000 children die every single day from hunger-related causes.

No word on the billions of animals slaughtered annually, though.

Instead of exporting these destructive dietary habits, we should reform them, starting with our own plates.

I say*, give me Whopper Virginity – because the alternative, is Death.

* In my very bestest Tyler Durden voice, natch.

(Crossposted to.)

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare burger king bk whopper whopper virgins advertising race racism othering colonialism sexism misogyny sex carol adams the sexual politics of meat youtube videos commercials ad ad campaign meat factory farming speciesism intersections parallel oppressions animals and women