See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324006217

Overlapping Oppressions: Patriarchal Links between Women and Animals

Preprint · May 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26463.76967

CITATIONS READS
0 460

1 author:

Bryannah Voydatch
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Women and Animals studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bryannah Voydatch on 26 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Overlapping Oppressions: Patriarchal Links between Women and Animals

By

Bryannah Voydatch

Humanities Requirement Course Sequence

Course Number Course Title Term

PY 2731 Introductory Ethics A15

RE 2722 Questions of Evil and Good B15

PY 2717 Philosophy & The Environment D16

PY 2719 Philosophy of Science A16

Presented to: Prof. John Sanbonmatsu

Department of the Humanities and Arts
D Term, 2017
JS6 – PY15

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements of
The humanities and Arts Sufficiency Program
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, Massachusetts
 1

Table of Contents
I. Introduction 2

II. Argument Analysis 4

Figure 1: PETA’s “All Animals Have the Same Parts” ad 7

III. Examination of Media 9

Figure 2: Arby’s hamburger advertisement 11
Figure 3: Alternating scenes of cutting meat and touching the woman 12
Figure 4: Alternating scenes of grabbing animals’ carcasses and grabbing the woman 12

IV. Moving Forward 13

Bibliography 15
 2

Overlapping Oppressions: Patriarchal Links between Women and Animals

By Bryannah Voydatch

Abstract: ​The Humanities and Arts capstone experience consisted of a seminar on the

Philosophy of Violence, culminating in a portfolio of written work that included a term

paper entitled "Overlapping Oppressions: Patriarchal Links between Women and

Animals," arguing that the oppressions of women and animals, and by extension the

violence committed against them, are connected through the existence of patriarchal

dichotomies and the cycle of objectification.

I. Introduction

Patriarchal societies, societies where men have the majority of the control, have

treated men as superior and women as inferior for millennia. Because of this

systemically perceived inferiority, women are oppressed and subjected to great

violence, including sexual assault, sexual harassment, rape, and more. In these

patriarchal societies, the inferiority of animals is often taken for granted as well. Acts of

extreme violence are usually committed against animals in these societies too.

Approximately 9.2 billion animals are killed for food every year in the United States

alone, and many are abused or neglected, tested on, or killed by the destruction of

ecosystems (“Farm”). Much of this violence is normalized or hidden such that people in

patriarchal societies are either unaware of the violence that occurs or see it as an

unfortunate but inevitable part of life.

In this paper, I argue that the oppressions of women and animals, and by

extension the violence committed against them, are connected through the existence of
 3

patriarchal dichotomies and the cycle of objectification. I will pursue this argument first

by examining pre-existing arguments for and against the connection between violence

against women and animals, and then showing how the means by which they are

connected can be condensed down to patriarchal dichotomies and cycles of

objectification.​ ​Following this analysis, I will examine the representation of violence

against women and animals in various cultural media to highlight connections between

violence against women and animals.

In my argument that violence against women and violence against animals are

connected or linked through their objectification and patriarchal dichotomies,

“connected” or “linked” will be be defined to mean the aforementioned violences

reinforce or perpetuate each other or have the same core causes. The patriarchal

dichotomies I will refer to in this paper include the male/female and human/animal

dichotomies. In these societally constructed dichotomies, each of the two respective

parts are seen as complete opposites where one is valuable and the other is

un-valuable because it is unlike the one that is valued. In this way, men are societally

privileged and valuable because they are men, and women or anything deemed

unmasculine is devalued for being unlike men (Glasser 55). In the same way, humans

are deemed inherently valuable while animals are devalued because of the ways they

are unlike humans. Oppression will refer to the way both women and animals (and

many other groups) are treated in a patriarchal society, where they are systemically

subordinated and exploited so that their oppressors benefit from their abuse and unjust

treatment.
 4

II. Argument Analysis

In ​The Sexual Politics of Meat, ​Carol Adams presents one of the first and most

well known arguments that there exists a connection between violence against women

and violence against animals. Adams’ strongest argument for the connection between

these oppressions and violence is in her examination of the “cycle of objectification,

fragmentation, and consumption” by which both animals and women are objectified or

“rendered being-less” (Adams 58). Adams claims that it is through the concept of the

absent referent that the objectification of women and animals links the violence that is

committed against them (Adams 51). The idea behind this concept is that both animals

and women are seen as being absent from their consumption through the processes of

objectification and fragmentation. For example, animals as beings are absent from their

consumption because they are objectified and fragmented such that the meat that is

consumed no longer visually or mentally resembles the animals it came from, allowing

the meat consumer to forget the animal was once a live being and distance themselves

from the act violence (Adams 51-53). This cycle and concept works in the same ways

for women, where they are objectified and seen as being absent from their sexual

consumption.

The absent referent links the objectification and subsequent violence that is

committed against women and animals in how the violence is referred to. When

violence against women is referred to metaphorically in terms of violence that is

committed against animals (such as when a woman feels “like a piece of meat” after

being raped), it has the effect of hiding and normalizing the violence that is committed
 5

against animals. In the same way, by referring to violence against animals in terms of

women, violence against women is normalized and hidden (such as how the restraints

used to artificially inseminate cows are called “rape racks”) (Adams 54).This shows how

the violence against women and animals reinforce and perpetuate each other, and are

therefore connected through their societal objectification.

Adams also argues for the connection of violence against women and violence

against animals through the patriarchal connection between male dominance and meat

eating (Adams 23). According to Adams, because meat has always been associated

with male strength and virility, eating meat is symbolic of patriarchal control and

domination (Adams 36). Meat eating, and the violence that is inherent in meat, is

representative of masculinity and male power. This connection is evidenced by societal

discourse equating meat eating to strength and masculinity, the patriarchal

traditionalism of women preparing meat for men, and the fact that during famines,

women often give up meat for the men to the point of malnourishment because men are

seen as needing meat more than them (Adams 39). The connection that Adams argues

for between male domination and violence against animals is, in essence, an argument

for the connection of oppressions due to patriarchal dichotomies. Because this male

domination that authorizes the killing of animals for meat would not exist without both

the male/female and human/animal dichotomies, Adams’ claims support my argument

that violent acts against women and animals are connected because of the existence of

patriarchal dichotomies.
 6

In her article, “Of Mice and Men: A Feminist Fragment on Animal Rights,”

Catharine MacKinnon discusses women’s and animals’ rights in contemporary times.

She argues that the oppression of women and animals are linked because of how

decisions are made to try to help their situations. Just as women’s rights issues have

not been helped by “those who benefit from the inequality defining [the] approaches” or

necessary laws, the same can be said for animals (MacKinnon 270). The way that

predominantly men propose how women should be helped or protected and the way

humans propose how animals should be helped or protected serves to show how

women are perceived as innately inferior to men and animals are perceived as innately

inferior to humans. The fact that in a patriarchal society, laws and so-called solutions

are made without their input shows how they are lesser and must rely on men/humans

to grant them rights that they otherwise would not have. Men, according to MacKinnon,

do not have to be given rights by anyone else because they are already seen as “valid”

and worthy, whereas women and animals must first be shown to be “like men” in a

substantial way in order to be deserving of rights (MacKinnon 271). It is in this way that

MacKinnon’s discussion of protections for women and animals suggests patriarchal

dichotomies are a root cause of the their oppressions and therefore link the violence

committed against them.

Though People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaign for and

support stopping violence against animals, in a way even they provide a

counterargument to the connection between violence against animals and women that I

and many others have proposed. PETA has released many advertisements featuring
 7

sexualized women posed as animals. A notable example includes the “All Animals Have

the same Parts” campaign in figure 1 below. Since PETA wants to stop violence against

animals but actively contributes to the objectification and subsequent violence against

women, they clearly disagree with the idea that violence against animals is linked to

violence against women. By presenting a woman as having the same parts as animals

that are eaten, PETA successfully shows similarities between humans and animals but

does not critique the sexualization of the woman and relies on her sexual objectification

to sell their message (Glasser 59). This is actually counterproductive to their cause. For

the ad to have its intended effect, the viewer of the ad must accept the idea that

portraying a woman as an animal is degrading. The ad therefore strengthens the

patriarchal ideal that animals are inferior (Glasser 61). By embracing the degrading use

of parallels between women and animals, they reinforce the same patriarchal

dichotomies that oppress animals and women alike.

Figure 1: ​PETA’s “All Animals Have the Same Parts” ad

Some argue feminists shouldn’t be concerned with animal oppression any more

than they should be concerned with eliminating any other kind of oppression, as

symbolic connections between women and animals are useless in practice (see Dixon).
 8

I argue that while all forms of oppression and violence are cause for concern, the ways

through which violence against women and animals is connected suggests their

oppressions and liberations are dependent on the same core issues and so the

oppression of animals should be just as pressing as the oppression of women to

feminists. These patriarchal dichotomies and the objectification of women and animals

have connected their oppressions going back to the inception of civilization, where

Aristotle’s ideas are a key example of this. Aristotle claimed that it was natural for men

to be in control and because men were “perfect,” women and animals were inferior and

were created for the sake of men (Aristotle). Because men have been able to stay in

power in patriarchal societies, these man/woman and human/animal dichotomies have

persisted as the most predominant dichotomies besides, perhaps, the

animate/inanimate dichotomy (MacKinnon 263). The simultaneous objectification of

women and animals that Carol Adams describes and I have presented above serves to

lower women and animals even more in this patriarchal hierarchy so in a way they may

be seen as even less than animate beings. Because of this way that women and

animals have uniquely been made inferior in patriarchal societies, the oppression of

animals is linked to that of women and should be an area of special concern for

feminists.

Now that I have examined key arguments for and against patriarchal dichotomies

and objectification as the connections between violence against women and animals

and also presented my stance, I will discuss several examples of these connections in

western culture and various forms of media.

 9

III. Examination of Media

In 2012, Georgia state Representative Terry England, while discussing a bill that

would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks even in the case of stillborns, compared women

to livestock. England commented, “Life gives us many experiences. I’ve had the

experience of delivering calves, dead and alive, delivering pigs, dead and alive,”

suggesting that women giving birth to stillborn babies is simply a life experience and is

no different than livestock such as cows or pigs giving birth to stillborn young (Owens).

This comment provides a clear example of Adams’ absent referent that I have

discussed above, and how it serves to objectify and oppress both women and animals.

By comparing women giving birth to animals giving birth, England is asserting himself

as dominant and in control of both women and animals. Because the control over

livestock and their reproductive systems is taken for granted, his comparison suggests

that women are also inferior to men and able to be controlled by them. At the same time

that he is establishing the inferiority of women, he is hiding the violence that is

committed against cows and pigs who are artificially inseminated and forced to give

birth, showing how comments like England’s serve to reinforce and link the oppression

of both women and animals.

While the comparisons between women and animals are problematic in

themselves, the way many feminists discuss this issue is problematic as well because

they fail to consider the connection of oppressions. In “6 Absurdly Demeaning

Conservative Attacks on Women,” an online editorial article by Soraya Chemaly, she

discusses instances of conservative politicians comparing women to animals, including

 10

the instance I have analyzed above. She explains how these comparisons are

demeaning to women because the animals they are compared to are “domesticated,”

“dumb,” “unclean,” and more (Chemaly). What is problematic about Chemaly’s

discussion is that she fails to critique these perceptions of animals as inferior to humans

and even seems to adhere to them herself. She is failing to see how her stance on

animals contributes to the same patriarchal dichotomies that keep men in a superior

position to both animals and women (Wyckoff). By not criticizing these patriarchal

dichotomies, the idea that beings can be oppressed based on ways they are unlike men

is reinforced and the objectification and oppression of women is more likely to continue

as a result.

While sexist advertising is unsurprisingly common in patriarchal societies,

advertising that specifically compares women to meat or animals is also very common.

An Arby’s advertisement (shown in figure 2 below), for example, shows two hamburgers

with hands holding them as if they are a woman’s breasts and says they are “about to

reveal something you’ll really drool over.” Though this is only an advertisement for

hamburgers, it serves to objectify both the animals that died for the meat and the

woman that is suggested by the imagery. The woman is shown only as an isolated pair

of breasts for men to “drool over,” and is nothing more than a fragmented object of

desire. The animal in the ad is almost completely hidden from view, as it has been

objectified and fragmented to the point where it no longer resembles an animal and is

now referred to only as a burger meant for consumption, just as the woman is presented

as an object to be sexually consumed. Both have been objectified to the point where
 11

they are no longer viewed as beings and are both absent from consideration in their

consumption.

Figure 2: ​Arby’s hamburger advertisement

The song “Animals” and its corresponding music video by the popular band

Maroon 5 contains constant animal references to women. In the song, lyricist and singer

Adam Levine sings “baby I’m preying on you tonight/hunt you down eat you alive/just

like animals...maybe you think that you can hide/I can smell your scent for miles/just like

animals” (Maroon 5). While these lyrics are somewhat ambiguous, the music video

really shows how the song relates to violence against women and animals. In the video,

which has over 400 million views on YouTube, a man working at a butcher shop

fantasizes about having sex with a woman purchasing meat; the video goes back and

forth between shots of him cutting meat and his hands on her naked body (shown in

figure 3 below). Throughout the video, he stalks her like “prey” as he is also shown in a
 12

butcher shop with hanging animal carcasses. Scenes of him caressing her naked body

are continually alternated with scenes of him caressing animal carcasses (shown in

figure 4 below).

Figure 3: ​Alternating scenes of cutting meat and touching the woman

Figure 4: ​Alternating scenes of grabbing animal carcasses and grabbing the woman

While it is possible lyricist Adam Levine is making a statement on the societal

objectification of women, this is rather unlikely. The lyrics and video together suggest

that he is hunting down the woman to sexually consume her. The alternating between

him cutting meat and fantasizing about having sex with her show the parallel between

the consumption of the dead animal and the sexual consumption of the woman, both of

which he seems to have control over. This comparison serves to sexually objectify the

woman as simply an object of his desire or “a piece of meat” for him to consume and to

objectify the dead animals in the butcher shop that no longer even resemble animals.
 13

This video and song present a strong demonstration of how the way women and

animals are simultaneously objectified contributes to the violence done against both of

them. The woman is objectified by her comparison to meat, allowing the man to “prey”

on her and “eat her alive,” suggesting he is stalking her to sexually assault her (Maroon

5). At the same time, the violence that is committed against animals to make meat is

normalized and hidden. Despite the constant imagery featuring meat, no living animals

are shown or suggested even though an animal must be killed in order for the meat to

exist. Meat becomes its own object, removed from the violence that was implicit in its

creation. These similar themes reinforce the idea that their objectification links violence

against women and violence against animals.

IV. Moving Forward

Now that we have explored the connection between violence against women and

animals, the question is: What can we do about it?

Feminists and women’s rights activists must stop falling into the trap of playing by

the patriarchy’s rules. Many women and liberal feminists often try to show how they are

rational like men or to erase their “animality,” hoping it will justify their equality to men

and further women’s cause (Adams & Donovan 2). These attempts of women to show

they deserve equality because they possess the traits that the patriarchy deems

valuable only serves to strengthen patriarchal dichotomies. This way of thinking

contributes to the idea that beings should only be safe from harm or worthy of moral

consideration if they possess male traits and are shown to be like men, showing how

men continue to be the standard to which all other beings are held (Slicer 111). These
 14

dichotomies that hold man as the perfect, valuable being have favored neither animals

nor women, so women should be careful not to contribute to this oppressive system.

Feminists and animal rights activists need to start working together more. It is all

too often that feminists participate in the violence against animals or animal rights

activists use sexually objectified women to sell their message. Both groups would

benefit if the other was aware of their cause and aware of how their oppressions are

linked and reinforce one another (Glasser 57). The reason these patriarchal

dichotomies exist and the reason women and animals are objectified so efficiently is to

keep the patriarchy in control. The patriarchy wants movements to adhere to its

hierarchies and dichotomies so they will be at odds and fight each other instead of

making progress towards dismantling the oppressive patriarchal system. Feminists and

animals rights activists need to stop contributing to the factors that cause both of their

oppressions. The underlying causes of the oppression and the whole patriarchal system

need to be changed, not just the individual acts of violence.

 15

Bibliography

Adams, Carol. ​The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. ​New
York: Continuum Publishing Company, 2000.

———, Josephine Donovan. ​Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical

Explorations. ​City: Publisher, Year.

Aristotle, Benjamin Jowett. ​Politics. ​Mineola: Dover Publications, 2000.

Bailey, Cathryn. “On the Backs of Animals: The Valorization of Reason in Contemporary
Animal Ethics.” ​Ethics and the Environment, ​Vol. 10, no. 1, 2005, pp. 1–18.

Chemaly, Soraya. “6 Absurdly Demeaning Conservative Attacks on Women.”

AlterNet.org. http://www.alternet.org/story/155362/6_absurdly_demeaning_conse
rvative_attacks_on_women (accessed April 20, 2017).

Dixon, Beth A. “The feminist connection between women and animals.” ​Environmental
Ethics,​ Vol. 18, issue 2, 1996, pp. 181–94.

“Farm Animal Statistics: Slaughter Totals.” The Humane Society of the United States.
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/resources/research/stats_slaughter_totals.
html? (accessed April 28, 2017).

Francione, Gary L. ​Introduction to animal rights: Your child or the dog? ​Philadelphia:
Temple University Press, 2000.

Glasser, Carol. 2011. “Tied oppressions: An analysis of how sexist imagery reinforces
speciesist sentiment.” ​The Brock Review, ​Vol. 12, issue 1, 2011, pp. 51–68.

MacKinnon, Catharine A. “Of mice and men: A feminist fragment on animal rights.”
Animal rights: Current debates and new directions. ​Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2004.

Maroon 5. “Animals.” ​V,​ Interscope Records. 2014.

Owens, Leigh. “Terry England, Georgia Republican Lawmaker, Compares Women To

Farm Animals.” HuffingtonPost.com. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/
Terry-england-farm-animals_n_1335976.html (accessed April 20, 2017).
View publication stats

16

Slicer, Deborah. “Your daughter or your dog? A feminist assessment of the animal
research issue.”​ The feminist care tradition in animal ethics​, New York: Columbia
University Press. 2007.

Wyckoff, Jason. “Linking Sexism and Speciesism.” ​Hypatia, ​Vol. 29, no. 4, 2014, pp.
721–737.