The role of professionalization regarding female exploitation in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement

Abstract

Adams (2004, The pornography of meat. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd), Deckha (2008, Disturbing images: PETA and the feminist ethics of animal advocacy. Ethics and the environment, 13(2), 35-76), Gaarder (2011, Women and the animal rights movement. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press), Glasser (2011, Tied oppressions: an analysis of how sexist imagery reinforces speciesist sentiment. The Brock review, 12(1), 51-68), and others have criticized People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for sexually exploiting young women in outreach and fundraising efforts. This article extends these critiques in addressing the problematic relationship between objectified volunteer female activists and Nonhuman Animal rights organizations (Animal Liberation Victoria, Fish Love, LUSH, and PETA). These organizations have largely professionalized and have consequently refocused their priorities on fundraising for organizational maintenance. An exploration into the social movement literature on the phenomenon of professionalization casts the use of young women's bodies for financial gains in a more troubling light. The Nonhuman Animal rights industry that exploits the sexuality of female activists ultimately exploits archetypes of women as nurturers and temptresses. These groups also utilize women's vulnerability by targeting female consumers and their sensitivity to body image. This article places female objectification within the logic of social movement professionalization. These organizations merge advocacy with capitalist interests to the ultimate disadvantage of women and Nonhuman Animals alike. The exploitation of female stereotypes and ultimately the female body, it is argued, is ineffective in challenging ideologies of oppression as both a practical and a theoretical matter.

An Analysis of Diversity in Nonhuman Animal Rights Media

“…For one, the movement is comprised mostly of women, though this is likely due to a historical association between women, care-taking, and nature (Adams and Donovan 1995;Wrenn 2015). However, the movement demonstrates distinct race and class patterns as well, as it is comprised by mostly white and middle-class participants (Maurer 2002; The Humane League 2014).…”

“…As part of this appeal to patriarchy, female advocates are frequently sexualized (Adams 2004). Hoping to increase resonance with men under the mantra ''sex sells,'' more and more organizations are relegating female participation to strip shows and soft-core pornography (Wrenn 2015). This bargain with patriarchy has been extremely off-putting to many women who view this posturing as threatening, insulting, or counterproductive (Deckha 2008;Gaarder 2011;Glasser 2011).…”

“…Indeed, one study that analyzed the tactics of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) concludes that using sexualized images of women actually reduces support for ethical campaigns (Bongiorno et al 2013). It is also worth considering that these tactics may be solidifying male dominance and marginalizing female participation in advocacy spaces (Wrenn 2015).…”

“…2 In advocacy spaces, it is often thin women who are used as movement representatives (Harper 2010) and women are also often sexually objectified (Adams 2004;Gaarder 2011). PETA is most frequently criticized for regularly employing female sexual objectification as a tactic, but as a dominant presence in the American movement, it has normalized this tactic for many smaller activist groups as well (Wrenn 2015). 3 Importantly, these representations are not a result of 1 While not all vegans are activists for other animals, and not all activists are vegan, this study explores Nonhuman Animal rights media which is grounded in ethical veganism (veganism that is engaged as a political action against speciesism).…”

White Women Wanted? An Analysis of Gender Diversity in Social Justice Magazines

“…Limited African American participation is sometimes thought a consequence of off-putting tactics which are rounded in racial insensitivities, as well as the and practicing their own 'post-racial' epistemologies and praxis of AR/VEG 'cruelty free ethics'" [3] (p. 17). Adding to this, Adams [22], Gaarder [24], and Wrenn [29] have suggested that the movement also exploits gender inequality in an effort to advance Nonhuman Animal rights.…”