Hypatia, Inc.

Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals

Author(s): Carol J. Adams
Source: Hypatia, Vol. 6, No. 1, Ecological Feminism (Spring, 1991), pp. 125-145
Published by: Wiley on behalf of Hypatia, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810037 .
Accessed: 13/06/2014 10:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Hypatia, Inc. and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hypatia.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ecofeminismandthe
Eatingof Animals1
CAROLJ. ADAMS

In thisessay,I will arguethatcontemporary ecofeministdiscourse,whilepoten-

tiallyadequateto dealwiththeissueof animals,is now inadequatebecauseitfailsto
giveconsistentconceptualplaceto thedominationof animalsas a significantaspect
of thedominationof nature.I will examinesix answersecofeminists couldgivefor
not includinganimalsexplicitlyin ecofeministanalysesand showhow a persistent
patriarchalideologyregardinganimalsas instrumentshas kept the experienceof
animalsfrombeingfully incorporated withinecofeminism.2

Jean: Would you feel raping a woman's all right if it was

happeningto her and not to you?
Barbie:No, I'd feel like it was happeningto me.

Jean:Well, that'show some of us feel aboutanimals.

-1976 conversationaboutfeminismand vegetarianism
Ecofeminismidentifies a series of dualisms:culture/nature;male/female;
self/other;rationality/emotion.Some include humans/animalsin this series.
Accordingto ecofeministtheory,naturehasbeen dominatedbyculture;female
has been dominated by male; emotion has been dominated by rationality;
animals...
Where are animalsin ecofeministtheoryand practice?3

SIx ECOFEMINIST
OPTIONS

Animals are a part of nature. Ecofeminismposits that the domination of

natureis linked to the dominationof women and that both dominationsmust
be eradicated.If animalsarea partof nature,then why arethey not intrinsically
a part of ecofeminist analysis and their freedomfrom being instrumentsof
vol.6, no. 1 (Spring1991)? byCarolJ.Adams
Hypatia

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 Hypatia

humansan integralpartof ecofeministtheory?Six answerssuggestthemselves.

I discusseach in turn.

EXPLICITLY
1. ECOFEMINISM THEDOMINATION
CHALLENGES OFANIMALS

A strongcase can be madefor the fact that ecofeminismconfrontsthe issue

of animals'sufferingand incorporatesit into a largercritiqueof the maltreat-
ment of the naturalworld.Considerthe "Nature"issueof Womanof Power:A
Magazineof Feminism,Spirituality, andPolitics(1988). In it we find articleson
animal rights (Newkirk); guidelines for raising children as vegetarians
(Moran);a feminist critiqueof the notion of animal "rights"that arguesthat
the best way to help animals is by adopting broad ecofeminist values
(Salamone); an interview with the coordinatorof a grassrootsanimal rights
organization (Albino); and Alice Walker'smoving description of what it
meansfor a human animalto perceive the beingnessof a nonhuman animal.4
In addition to these articles, a resourcesection lists companies to boycott
because they test their productson animals,identifies cruelty-freeproducts,
and gives the addressesof organizationsthat are vegetarian,antivivisection,
and multi-issue animal advocacy groups. This resource list implicitly an-
nounces that praxisis an importantaspectof ecofeminism.
Or considerone of the earliestanthologieson ecofeminismand one of the
latest.ReclaimtheEarth(1983) containsessaysthat speakto some of the major
formsof environmentaldegradation,such as women'shealth, chemicalplants,
the nuclear age and public health, black ghetto ecology, greening the cities,
and the Chipko movement. The anthology also includes an essayon animal
rights(Benney 1983). The morerecentanthology,Reweavingthe World(1990),
contains an essay proposingthat "ritualand religion themselves might have
been broughtto birthby the necessityof propitiationforthe killingof animals"
(Abbott 1990, 36), as well as MartiKheel'sessaythat exploresthe wayhunting
uses animalsas instrumentsof human (male) self-definition(Kheel 1990).
Still other signs of ecofeminism'scommitmentto animals-as beings who
ought not to be used as instruments-can be found. Greta Gaard identifies
vegetarianismas one of the qualities of ecofeminist praxis, along with an-
timilitarism,sustainableagriculture,holistic health practices,and maintaining
diversity(Gaard 1989). Ecofeministscarrieda bannerat the 1990 Marchfor
the Animals in Washington, D. C. Ecofeminist caucuses within feminist
organizationshave begun to articulate the issue of animal liberation as an
essentialaspect of their program.The EcofeministTaskForceof the National
Women'sStudiesAssociationrecommendedat the 1990 NWSA meeting that
the CoordinatingCouncil adopta policy that no animalproductsbe servedat
any futureconferences,citing ecological, health, and humane issues.
Such ecofeminist attention to praxis involving the well-being of animals
ought not to be surprising.Ecofeminism'sroots in this countrycan be traced

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CarolJ. Adams 127

to feminist-vegetariancommunities. CharleneSpretnakidentifiesthree ways

the radical feminist communities of the mid-1970s came to ecofeminism:
throughstudyof political theoryandhistory,throughexposureto nature-based
religion, especially Goddessreligion, and from environmentalism(Spretnak
1990, 5-6). A good example of these communitiesis the Cambridge-Boston
women's community. One of the initial ecofeminist texts-Francoise
d'Eaubonne's1974 book Lefeminismeou la mort-was introducedthat yearto
scores of feminists who took Mary Daly's feminist ethics class at Boston
College. That same year, Sheila Collins's A DifferentHeavenand Earthap-
pearedand wasdiscussedwith interestin this community.Collins saw"racism,
sexism,class exploitation, and ecological destruction"as "interlockingpillars
upon which the structureof patriarchyrests"(Collins 1974, 161). In 1975,
RosemaryRadfordRuether'sNew Woman/NewEarthwas also greeted with
excitement. Ruether linked the ecological crisis with the status of women,
arguingthat the demandsof the women'smovement must be united with the
ecological movement. The genesis of the two book-length ecofeminist texts
that link women and animals can be traced to this community and its
associationwith Daly duringthose years.5
Interviewswith membersof the Cambridge-Bostonwomen'scommunity
reveal a prototypicalecofeminismthat locates animalswithin its analysis.As
one feministsaid:"Animalsand the earthandwomenhave all been objectified
and treatedin the sameway."Another explainedshe was "beginningto bond
with the earth as a sisterand with animalsas subjectsnot to be objectified."
At a conceptual level, this feminist-vegetarianconnection can be seen as
arisingwithin an ecofeministframework.To apprehendthis, considerKaren
Warren's(1987) four minimal conditions of ecofeminism. Appeal to them
indicatesa vegetarianapplicationarticulatedby these activist ecofeministsin
1976 and still viable in the 1990s.
Ecofeminismarguesthat there is an importantconnection between the
dominationof womenandthe dominationof nature.The womenI interviewed
perceivedanimalsto be a partof that dominatednature and saw a similarity
in the status of women and animalsas subjectto the authorityor control of
another,i.e., as subordinate:
Look at the way women have been treated.We've been com-
pletely controlled, raped,not given any credibility,not taken
seriously.It's the same thing with animals.We've completely
mutilatedthem, domesticatedthem. Their cycles, their entire
beingsareconformedto humans'sneeds.That'swhat men have
done to women and the earth.
Since ecofeminism is distinguishedby whether it arises from socialist
feminism,radicalfeminism,or spiritualfeminism,manyof the ecofeministsof
1976 identifiedthemselveswithin these classificationsas they extended them

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128 Hypatia

to include animals.Socialist feministslinkedmeat eating with capitalistforms

of productionand the classistnatureof meat consumption;spiritualfeminists
emphasized the association of goddess worship, a belief in a matriarchy,
harmony with the environment, and gentleness toward animals; radical
feminists associatedwomen'soppressionand animals'oppression,and some
held the position of "naturefeminists"who see women as naturallymore
sensitive to animals.
The second of Warren'sconditions of ecofeminismis that we must under-
stand the connections between the oppressionof women and the oppression
of nature.To do so we mustcritique"the sortof thinking which sanctionsthe
oppression"(Warren1987, 6), what Warrenidentifiesas patriarchalthinking
allegedlyjustifiedby a "logicof domination"accordingto which "superiority
justifies subordination"(Warren 1987; 1990). The women I interviewed
rejected a "logic of domination" that justifies killing animals: "A truly
gynocentricway of being is being in harmonywith the earth,and in harmony
with yourbody,and obviouslyit doesn'tinclude killing animals."
The testimoniesof the women I interviewedofferan opportunityto develop
a radicalfeministepistemologyby which the intuitiveandexperientialprovide
an importantsourceof knowledgethat servesto challenge the distortionsof
patriarchalideology.Many women discussedtrustingtheir body and learning
fromtheir body.They saw vegetarianismas "anotherextension of looking in
and finding out who I really am and what I like." From this a process of
identificationwith animalsarose.Identificationmeansthat relationshipswith
animalsareredefined;they areno longerinstruments,means to our ends, but
beingswho deserveto live and towardwhom we act respectfullyif not out of
friendship.

Feministsrealizewhat it's like to be exploited. Women as sex

objects, animals as food. Women turned into patriarchal
mothers,cows turnedto milk machines. It'sthe same thing. I
think that innatelywomen aren'tcannibals.I don'teat fleshfor
the same reasonthat I don't eat steel. It'snot in my conscious-
ness anymorethat it could be eaten. Forthe same reasonthat
when I'mhungryI don't startchompingon my own hand.

Another describedthe processof identificationthis way:

The objectifyingof women, the metaphorsof women as pieces

of meat, here'sthis object to be exploitedin a way.I resentthat.
I identifyit with waysthat especiallybeef and chickens also are
reallyexploited.The way they stuffthem and ruin their bodies
all so that they can sell them on the capitalistmarket.That is
disturbingto me in the samewaythat I feel that I am exploited.

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CarolJ. Adams 129

Fromthis processof identificationwith animals'experiencesas instruments

arisesan ecofeminist argumenton behalf of animals:it is not simply that we
participatein a value hierarchyin which we place humansover animalsand
that we must now accede rights to animals, but that we have failed to
understandwhat it means to be a "being"-the insight that propelledAlice
Walkersome yearslater to describeher recognition of a nonhuman animal's
beingness(see note 4). Becominga vegetarianafterrecognizingand identify-
ing with the beingnessof animalsis a common occurrencedescribedby this
woman in 1976:
When I thought that this was an animalwho lived and walked
and met the day, and had watercome into his eyes, and could
make attachmentsand had affectionsand had dislikes, it dis-
gustedme to think of slaughteringthat animal and cooking it
and eating it.
As women describedanimals, they recognizedthem as ends in themselves
ratherthan simplyas means to others'ends.
The third ecofeminist claim Warrenidentifies is that feminist theory and
practicemustincludean ecologicalperspective.Ecofeminismreflectsa praxis-
based ethics: one's actions reveal one's beliefs. If you believe women are
subordinatedyou will workforourliberation;if youbelieve that nature,among
other things, is dominatedyou will judge personalbehavior accordingto its
potential exploitation of nature.In this regard,FrancesMooreLappe'spower-
ful bookDietfora SmallPlanethadhad a profoundeffect on numerousfeminists
I interviewedbecauseit providedan understandingof the environmentalcosts
of eating animals.One stated:"When I was doing my paperon ecology and
feminism,the idea of women as earth,that men have exploited the earthjust
like they've exploited women and by eating meat you areexploiting earthand
to be a feminist means to not accept the ethics of exploitation."What she
recognizesis that ecofeministsmustaddressthe fact that our meat-advocating
culturehas successfullyseparatedthe consequences of eating animalsfromthe
experienceof eating animals.6

2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFEATINGANIMALS

CONSEQUENCES

One of ecofeminism'sattributesis its concern with the consequencesof the

domination of the earth. It recognizesthat the patriarchalphilosophy that
links women and nature has measurable,negative effects that must be iden-
tified and addressed.When we consider the consequences of meat produc-
tion-and the way by which each meat eater is implicated in these
consequences-ecofeminism faces the necessityof takingsides:will it choose
the ecocide and environmentaldisasterassociatedwith eating animalsor the
environmentalwisdomof vegetarianism?7

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130 Hypatia

The relationship between meat eating and environmental disaster is

measurable.8In fact, advocatesfor a vegetariandiet have createdimagesthat
translatethe environmentalprofligacyof meat productionto the level of the
individual consumer:the average amount of water requireddaily to feed a
person following a vegan diet is 300 gallons; the average amount of water
requireddaily to feed a personfollowingan ovo-lacto-vegetariandiet is 1,200
gallons; but the average amount of water requireddaily to feed a person
followingthe standardUnited States meat-baseddiet is 4,200 gallons.Half of
all waterconsumedin the United States is used in the cropsfed to livestock,
"andincreasinglythat wateris drawnfromundergroundlakes,some of which
are not significantly renewed by rainfall"(Lappe 1982, 10). More than 50
percentof waterpollution can be linked to wastesfromthe livestock industry
(includingmanure,erodedsoil, and synthetic pesticidesand fertilizers).
Besidesdepletingwatersupplies,meatproductionplacesdemandson energy
sources:the 500 caloriesof food energyfromone poundof steakrequires20,000
caloriesof fossilfuel. Sixty percentof our importedoil requirementswouldbe
cut if the U. S. populationswitchedto a vegetariandiet (Hurand Fields1985b,
25).
Vegetarians also point to other aspects of livestock production that
precipitateecocide:cattle areresponsiblefor85 percentof topsoilerosion.Beef
consumptionaccountsfor about5 to 10 percentof the humancontributionto
the greenhouse effect. Among the reasons that our water, soil, and air are
damagedby meatproductionarethe hidden aspectsof raisinganimalsforfood.
Beforewe can eat animals,theymust eat and live and drinkwater (and even
burp).9Producingthe crops to feed animalstaxes the naturalworld.Frances
Moore Lappereportsthat "thevalueof raw materialconsumedto producefood
from livestockis greaterthan the value of all oil, gas, and coal consumedin this
country... . One-third of the value of all raw materials consumed for all
purposesin the United States is consumed in livestock foods" (Lappe 1982,
66). Eighty-sevenpercent of United States agriculturalland is used for live-
stock production(includingpasture,rangeland,and cropland).
Not only is the analysisof consequencesan importantaspectof ecofeminist
thought, but for ecofeministsa failureto considerconsequencesresultsfrom
the dualismsthat characterizepatriarchalculture:consumptionis experienced
separatelyfrom production,and productionis valued over maintenance. By
this I mean that as a resultof the fetishizationof commoditiesassociatedwith
capitalistproduction,we see consumptionas an end in itself, and we do not
consider what have been the means to that end: eating (a dead) chicken is
disassociatedfromthe experienceof blackwomenwho as "lunggunners"must
each hour scrape the insides of 5,000 chickens' cavities and pull out the
recentlyslaughteredchickens'lungs.1?Both women workersand the chickens
themselves are means to the end of consumption,but because consumption
has been disembodied,their oppressionsas workerand consumablebody are

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CarolJ. Adams 131

invisible. This disembodiedproductionof a tangible product is viewed as a

positive indicationof the economy,but maintenance-those actionsnecessary
to sustainthe environment-is neithermeasurednor valued.Currently,main-
tenance of domestic space or environmental space is not calculated in
economic terms- houseworkis not calculatedin the GrossNational Product
in the United States, nor are the environmentalresourceswe value (Waring
1988). We do not measure the negative environmental effects of raising
animalsto be our food, such as the costs to our topsoil and our groundwater.
Maintenanceof resourcesis sacrificedto "meat"production.
An ethic that links maintenancewith production,that refusesto disembody
the commodityproducedfromthe costs of suchproduction,wouldidentifythe
loss of topsoil, water, and the demandson fossil fuels that meat production
requiresand factorthe costs of maintainingthese aspectsof the naturalworld
into the end product,the meat. It would not enforce a split between main-
tenance and production.The cheapnessof a diet basedon grain-fedterminal
animalsexists because it does not include the cost of depleting the environ-
ment. Not only does the cost of meat not include the loss of topsoil, the
pollution of water,and other environmentaleffects, but price supportsof the
dairyandbeef "industry" meanthat the governmentactivelypreventsthe price
of eating animals from being reflected in the commodity of meat. My tax
money subsidizeswar,but it also subsidizesthe eating of animals.Forinstance,
the estimatedcosts of subsidizingthe meat industrywith water in California
alone is $26 billion annually(Hurand Fields 1985a, 17). If waterused by the
meat industrywere not subsidizedby United States taxpayers,"hamburger"
wouldcost $35 per pound and "beefsteak"wouldbe $89.
The hidden coststo the environmentof meatproductionand the subsidizing
of this production by the government maintain the disembodimentof this
productionprocess.It also meansthat environmentallyconcernedindividuals
are implicated,even if unknowinglyand unwittingly,in this processdespite
theirown disavowalsthroughvegetarianism.Individualtax moniesperpetuate
the cheapnessof animals'bodiesas a food source;consequentlymeateatersare
not requiredto confront the realityof meat production.Tax monies are used
to developgrowthhormoneslike "bovinesomatotropin"to increasecows'milk
productionratherthan to help people learnthe benefitsand tastesof soyfoods
such as soymilk-products that are not ecologicallydestructive.
The problemof seeing maintenanceas productiveoccurson an individual
level as well. Activism is judged productive;maintenance as in cooking,
especially vegetarian cooking, is usually considered time-consuming. "We
don't have time for it- it impedesour activism"protest many feminists in
conversations. By not viewing maintenanceas productive,the fact that the
yearsof one'sactivist life maybe cut shortby relianceon deadanimalsforfood
is not addressed."lThe orderwe place at a restaurantor the purchaseof "meat"
at the meat counteralso sendsthe messagethat maintainingourenvironment

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132 Hypatia

is not importanteither. A cycle of destructioncontinues on both a personal

and economic-political level for the same reason,the invisible costs of meat
eating.
After conducting the most detailed diet survey in history- the Chinese
Health Project-Dr. T. Colin Campbell concluded that we are basically a
vegetarian species. High consumption of "meat"and dairy products is as-
sociatedwith the riskof chronicillnessessuchascancer,heartdisease,diabetes,
and other diseases.For women, eating animalsand animalsproductsappears
to be especially dangerous.A diet high in animal fats lowers the age of
menstruation-which increases the incidence of cancer of the breast and
reproductiveorganswhile alsoloweringthe ageof fertility(Brody1990;"Leaps
Forward"1990; Mead 1990).
The moment in which I realized that maintenance must be valued as
productivewas while I wascookingvegetarianfood;thus I wasdoing what we
generallyconsider to be maintenance.The problemis to escape from main-
tenance to producethese or any "productive"thoughts.Seeing maintenance
as productive is the other side of recognizingthe ethical importanceof the
consequencesof our actions.

3. THE INVISIBLE
ANIMALMACHINES

A child's puzzle called "Barn"displayschickens wanderingfreely, cows

looking out the barnyarddoor,and smilingpigs frolickingin mud. But this is
not an accuratedepiction of life down on the farm these days. The fissure
betweenimageandrealityis perpetuatedby agribusinessthat does not conduct
its farmingpracticesin this homespunway.Lawsare being passedin various
states that prevent the filming of animalswho are living in intensive farming
situations.(This phrasingis itself representativeof the problemof imageand
reality:"intensivefarmingsituation"usuallymeansimprisonmentin window-
less buildings.)As Peter Singerpoints out, television programsabout animals
focus on animals in the wild rather than animals in the "factoryfarms";
frequentlythe only informationon these "animalmachines"comes frompaid
advertising."The averageviewer mustknow moreaboutthe lives of cheetahs
and sharksthan he or she knows about the lives of chickens or veal calves"
(Singer 1990, 216). The majorityof animalsdominatedby humansno longer
appearto be a partof nature;they aredomesticated,terminalanimalswho are
maintainedin intensive farmingsituationsuntil slaughteredand consumed.
Perhapsas a result,some ecofeministsand most meat eaterssimplydo not see
farmanimalsat all, and thus cannot see them as a partof nature.
It is instructive,then, to remindourselvesof the lives of individualanimals.
Considerthe case of pigs. A breedingsow is viewed, accordingto one meat
companymanager,as "avaluablepiece of machinerywhosefunctionis to pump
out babypigslike a sausagemachine"(Coats 1989,32). Indeed,she does:about

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CarolJ. Adams 133

100 piglets, averaging"2 1/2 litters a year,and 10 litters in a lifetime"(Coats

1989, 34). Since about 80 million pigs are slaughteredin the United States
yearly,this meansthat at least 3.5 millionpig "mothermachines"arepregnant
twice duringany given year.Forat least ten monthsof each year,the pregnant
and nursing sow will be restricted in movement, unable to walk around.
Though pigs are extremelysocial beings, sows "aregenerallykept isolated in
individualnarrowpens in which they areunableto turnround"(Serpell 1986,
9). She is impregnatedforcefullyeither by physicalrestraintand mountingby
a boar,artificialinsemination,being tetheredto a "raperack"for easy access;
or through "the surgicaltransplantof embryosfrom 'supersows'to ordinary
sows"(Coats 1989, 34).
The now-pregnantsow residesin a deliverycrate about two feet by six feet
(60 cm x 182 cm) (Coats 1989, 36). In this narrowsteel cage, "she is able to
stand up or lie down but is unable to do much else. Despite this, sows appear
to makefrustratedattemptsat nest-building"(Serpell 1986, 7). Prostaglandin
hormone, injected into the sows to induce labor, also "causes an intense
increasein motivation to build a nest" (Fox 1984, 66). After deliveringher
piglets, "she is commonly strappedto the floor with a leather band, or held
down in a lying position by steel bars,to keep her teatscontinuouslyexposed"
(Coats 1989, 39). The newborn piglets are allowed to suckle from their
incarceratedmotherfor anythingfroma few hoursto severalweeks:
In the most intensive systemsthe piglets aregenerallyisolated
within hoursof birthin smallindividualcageswhich arestack-
ed, row upon row, in tiers. ... At 7 to 14 days,the piglets are
moved again to new quarterswhere they are housed in groups
in slightly largercages (Serpell 1986, 8).
Often farmersclip the pigs'tails shortlyafterbirth to avoid the widespread
problemof tail-biting (Fraser1987). It is probablethat tail-bitingresultsfrom
both a monotonousdiet and the pigs'naturaltendencies to root and chew on
objects in their environment.In essence,"thetelos of a hog is the will to root,"
which is frustratedby theirexistencein confinementsheds(Comstock1990,5).
Once onto solid food, the ..."weaners" are grownon in small
groupsin pens until they reach slaughteringweight at around
six to eight months of age. Forease of cleaning, the pens have
concrete or slattedmetalfloors,and no beddingis provided....
Foot deformitiesand lamenessare common in animalsraised
on hard floors without access to softerbedding areas (Serpell
1986, 8-9).
Ninety percent of all pigs are now raisedin indoor,near-dark,windowless
confinement sheds (Mason and Singer 1980, 8), a stressfulexistence that
includes being underfed (Lawrenceet al. 1988) and living in a saunalike

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 Hypatia

atmosphere of high humidity (meant to induce lethargy). Porcine stress

syndrome-a form of sudden death likened to human heart attacks-and
mycoplasmicpneumoniaarecommon.Once they are the appropriatesize and
weight, pigs are herdedinto a crowdedlivestock truckand transportedto the
slaughterhouse,where they arekilled.
This informationon the life cycle of these pigsrequiressome sortof response
from each of us, and the sort of responseone has matterson several levels. I
respond on an emotional level with horrorat what each individual pig is
subjected to and sympathizewith each pig, whose extreme sociability is
evidenced by these animals'increasedpopularityas pets (Elson 1990). On an
intellectuallevel I marvelat the languageof automation,factoryfarming,and
high-tech productionthat providesthe vehicle and license for one to fail to
see these animalsas living, feelingbeingswho experiencefrustrationandterror
in the face of their treatment.As a lactatingmother,I empathizewith the sow
whosereproductivefreedomshave been denied and whose nursingexperience
seemsso wretched.As a consumeranda vegetarian,I visualizethis information
when I witnesspeople buyingor eating "ham,""bacon,"or "sausage."
Intensive factoryfarminginvolves the denial of the beingnessof six billion
animals yearly. The impersonalnames bestowed on them-such as food-
producingunit, proteinharvester,computerizedunit in a factoryenvironment,
egg-producingmachine, converting machine, biomachine, crop-proclaim
that they have been removedfromnature.Butthis is no reasonforecofeminism
to fail to reclaimfarmanimalsfromthis oppressivesystem.It merelyexplains
one reasonsome ecofeministsfail to do so.

4. THE SOCIALCONSTRUCTIONOF EDIBLEBODIESAND HUMANS AS

PREDATORS

Ecofeminismat times evidences a confusion about human nature.Are we

predatorsor arewe not? In an attemptto see ourselvesas naturalbeings,some
arguethat humansaresimplypredatorslike someotheranimals.Vegetarianism
is then seen to be unnaturalwhile the camivorismof other animalsis made
paradigmatic.Animal rights is criticized"forit does not understandthat one
speciessupportingor being supportedby anotheris nature'sway of sustaining
life" (Ahlers 1990, 433). The deeper disanalogieswith carnivorousanimals
remainunexaminedbecausethe notion of humansas predatorsis consonant
with the idea that we need to eat meat. In fact, camivorismis true for only
about 20 percent of nonhuman animals.Can we really generalizefrom this
experience and claim to know precisely what "nature'sway" is, or can we
extrapolatethe role of humansaccordingto this paradigm?
Some feministshave arguedthat the eatingof animalsis naturalbecausewe
do not have the herbivore'sdouble stomach or flat grindersand because
chimpanzeeseat meat and regardit as a treat (Kevles 1990). This argument

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CarolJ. Adams 135

from anatomy involves selective filtering. In fact, all primatesare primarily

herbivorous.Though some chimpanzeeshave been observed eating dead
flesh-at the most, six times in a month-some never eat meat. Dead flesh
constitutesless than 4 percentof chimpanzees'diet;manyeat insects, andthey
do not eat dairyproducts (Barnard1990). Does this sound like the diet of
humanbeings?
Chimpanzees,like most carnivorousanimals,areapparentlyfarbettersuited
to catching animalsthan are human beings. We are much slower than they.
They have long-projectingcanine teeth for tearinghide; all the hominidslost
their long-projectingcanines 3.5 million yearsago, apparentlyto allow more
crushing action consistent with a diet of fruits, leaves, nuts, shoots, and
legumes.If we do manageto get a hold of preyanimalswe cannot ripinto their
skin. It is truethat chimpanzeesact as if meatwerea treat.When humanslived
as foragersand when oil was rare,the flesh of dead animalswas a good source
of calories.It may be that the "treat"aspectof meat has to do with an ability
to recognizedense sourcesof calories.However,we no longerhave a need for
such dense sourcesof caloriesas animalfat, since ourproblemis not lack of fat
but rathertoo much fat.
When the argumentis madethat eating animalsis natural,the presumption
is that we must continue consuminganimalsbecause this is what we require
to survive,to survivein a way consonant with living unimpededby artificial
culturalconstraintsthat depriveus of the experienceof our real selves. The
paradigmof carnivorousanimalsprovidesthe reassurancethat eating animals
is natural.But how do we know what is naturalwhen it comes to eating, both
because of the social construction of reality and the fact that our history
indicatesa very mixed messageabouteating animals?Some did; the majority
did not, at least to any greatdegree.
The argumentaboutwhat is natural-that is, accordingto one meaningof
it, not culturallyconstructed,not artificial,but something that returnsus to
our true selves-appears in a differentcontext that alwaysarousesfeminists'
suspicions.It is often arguedthat women'ssubordinationto men is natural.
This argumentattemptsto deny social realityby appealingto the "natural."
The "natural"predatorargumentignoressocialconstructionas well. Since we
eat corpsesin a way quite differentlyfromany other animals-dismembered,
not freshly killed, not raw, and with other foods present-what makes it
natural?
Meat is a culturalconstructmade to seem naturaland inevitable. By the
time the argument from analogy with carnivorous animals is made, the
individual making such an argumenthas probablyconsumed animals since
beforethe time she or he could talk. Rationalizationsfor consuminganimals
wereprobablyofferedwhen this individualat age fouror five wasdiscomforted
upon discoveringthat meat came fromdead animals.The taste of dead flesh
precededthe rationalizations,andoffereda strongfoundationforbelievingthe

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136 Hypatia

rationalizationsto be true.And babyboomersface the additionalproblemthat

as they grewup, meat and dairyproductshad been canonizedas two of the four
basic food groups. (This occurred in the 1950s and resulted from active
lobbyingby the dairyand beef industry.At the turnof the centurythere were
twelve basic food groups.)Thus individualshave not only experienced the
gratificationof taste in eating animalsbut may trulybelieve what they have
been told endlessly since childhood-that dead animals are necessary for
humansurvival.The idea that meat eating is naturaldevelops in this context.
Ideologymakes the artifactappearnatural,predestined.In fact, the ideology
itself disappearsbehind the facadethat this is a "food"issue.
We interact with individual animals daily if we eat them. However, this
statement and its implicationsare repositionedso that the animaldisappears
and it is said that we are interactingwith a formof food that has been named
"meat."In The SexualPoliticsof Meat, I call this conceptualprocessin which
the animal disappearsthe structureof the absent referent.Animals in name
and bodyaremadeabsentas animalsformeat to exist. If animalsarealive they
cannot be meat.Thus a deadbodyreplacesthe live animalandanimalsbecome
absentreferents.Without animalstherewouldbe no meat eating, yet they are
absent from the act of eating meat becausethey have been transformedinto
food.
Animals aremadeabsentthroughlanguagethat renamesdeadbodiesbefore
consumersparticipatein eating them. The absentreferentpermitsus to forget
aboutthe animalas an independententity.The roaston the plateis disembodied
fromthe pig who she or he once was.The absentreferentalsoenablesus to resist
effortsto makeanimalspresent,perpetuatinga means-endhierarchy.
The absentreferentresultsfromandreinforcesideologicalcaptivity:patriar-
chal ideologyestablishesthe culturalset of human/animal,createscriteriathat
posit the speciesdifferenceas importantin consideringwho maybe meansand
who maybe ends, and then indoctrinatesus into believing that we need to eat
animals. Simultaneously,the structureof the absent referentkeeps animals
absent fromour understandingof patriarchalideologyand makesus resistant
to having animals made present. This means that we continue to interpret
animalsfrom the perspectiveof human needs and interests:we see them as
usableand consumable.Much of feministdiscourseparticipatesin this struc-
turewhen failing to make animalsvisible.
Ontology recapitulatesideology. In other words, ideology creates what
appearsto be ontological: if women are ontologized as sexual beings (or
rapeable,as some feministsargue),animalsareontologizedas carriersof meat.
In ontologizing women and animalsas objects, our languagesimultaneously
eliminates the fact that someone else is acting as a subject/agent/perpetrator
of violence. SarahHoaglanddemonstrateshow this works:"Johnbeat Mary,"
becomes "Marywas beaten by John," then "Marywas beaten," and finally,
"women beaten," and thus "battered women" (Hoagland 1988, 17-18).

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CarolJ. Adams 137

Regardingviolence against women and the creation of the term "battered

women," Hoagland observes that "now something men do to women has
become instead something that is a part of women'snature.And we lose
considerationof John entirely."
The notion of the animal'sbodyasedibleoccursin a similarwayandremoves
the agencyof humanswho buydeadanimalsto consumethem:"Someonekills
animalsso that I can eat their corpsesas meat,"becomes "animalsare killed
to be eaten as meat," then "animalsare meat," and finally "meat animals,"
thus "meat."Something we do to animalshas become insteadsomethingthat
is a partof animals'nature,andwe lose considerationof ourrole entirely.When
ecofeminismacknowledgesthat animalsare absent referentsbut that we are
meant to be predators,it still perpetuatesthe ontologizing of animals as
consumablebodies.

5. CAN HUNTINGBERECONCILED ETHICS?

TO ECOFEMINIST

Ecofeminismhas the potential of situatingboth animalsand vegetarianism

within its theory and practice. But should vegetarianismbecome an essential
aspect of ecofeminism?Are some forms of hunting acceptable ecofeminist
alternativesto intensivefarming?To answerthis questionwe need to recognize
that many ecofeminists (e.g., Warren) see the necessity of refusingto ab-
solutize,a position consistentwith a resistanceto authoritarianismandpower-
over.Thus we can find a refusalto categoricallycondemn all killing. Issuesare
situated within their specific environments.I will call this emphasison the
specificover the universala "philosophyof contingency."
An ecofeminist method complementsthis ecofeministphilosophyof con-
tingency-it is the methodofcontextualization.It maybe entirelyappropriate
to refuseto say"All killing is wrong"andpoint to humanexamplesof instances
when killing is acceptable,such as euthanasia,abortion(if abortionis seen as
killing), and the strugglesof colonizedpeople to overthrowtheir oppressors.
Similarly,it is arguedthat the wayin which an animalis killed to be food affects
whether the action of killing and the consumption of the dead animal are
acceptableor not. Killing animalsin a respectfulact of appreciationfor their
sacrifice,this argumentproposes,does not createanimalsas instrumentalities.
Instead,it is argued,this methodof killing animalsis characterizedby relation-
ship and reflectsreciprocitybetween humansand the hunted animals.Essen-
tially,there areno absentreferents.I will call this interpretationof the killing
of animalsthe "relationalhunt."
The issue of method provides a way to critique the argumentfor the
relationalhunt. Butfirstlet us acknowledgethat the relationalhunt'sideologi-
cal premise involves ontologizing animals as edible. The method may be
different-"I kill for myselfan animalI wish to eat as meat"-but neither the
violence of the act nor the end result, meat, is eliminated by this change in

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
138 Hypatia

actorsand method.12As I arguein the precedingsection, the ontologizingof

animalsas edible bodiescreatesthem as instrumentsof humanbeings;animals'
lives arethussubordinatedto the human'sdesireto eat them even thoughthere
is, in general,no need to be eating animals.Ecofeministswho wish to respect
a philosophyof contingencyyet resistthe ontologizingof animalscouldchoose
the alternativeposition of saying "Eatingan animal after a successfulhunt,
like cannibalism in emergency situations, is sometimes necessary,but like
cannibalism, is morally repugnant."This acknowledgesthat eating animal
(includinghuman) flesh may occur at raretimes, but resiststhe ontologizing
of (some) animalsas edible.
Applyingthe methodof contextualizationto the idealof the relationalhunt
revealsinconsistencies.Becauseecofeministtheoryis theoryin process,I offer
these critiquessympathetically.It is never pointed out that this is not how the
majorityof people are obtaining their food from dead animals. Though the
ecofeminist ethic is a contextualizingone, the context describinghow we
relate to animals is not provided.Just as environmentalistsmystifywomen's
oppressionwhen they fail to addressit directly,so ecofeministsmystifyhumans'
relationswith animalswhen they fail to describethem precisely.
Ecofeminismhas not relied on the notion of speciesismto critiquecurrent
treatment of animals, though its condemnation of naturism,explicitly and
implicitly, offers a broadly similar critique. The word speciesismhas been
contaminated in some ecofeminists' eyes by its close association with the
movement that resists it, the animal rights movement, which they view as
perpetuatingpatriarchaldiscourseregardingrights. Animal rights, though,
does recognizethe right of each individualanimalto continue living and this
is its virtue. An anti-naturismpositiondoes not providea similarrecognition;
as a resultthe individualanimalkilled in a hunt can be interpreted"to be in
relationship."In other words, hunting is not seen as inconsistent with an
anti-naturistposition, though it would be judged so from an anti-speciesist
position.
An antinaturist position emphasizesrelationships,not individuals;the
relational hunt is said to be a relationship of reciprocity.But reciprocity
involvesa mutualor cooperativeinterchangeof favorsorprivileges.What does
the animal who dies receive in this exchange?
The experienceof sacrifice?How can the reciprocityof the relationalhunt
be verifiedsince the other partneris both voiceless in termsof humanspeech
and furthermorerendered voiceless through his or her death? Once the
question of the willingnessof the silent and silenced partneris raised,so too
is the connection between the relational hunt and what I will call the
"aggressivehunt." Ostensiblythe relationalhunt is differentfromthe aggres-
sive hunt, which is seen to aggrandizethe hunter'ssense of (male) self rather
than valuing any relationshipwith the hunted animal. Yet we can find in
discussions of the relational hunt and the aggressive hunt a common

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CarolJ. Adams 139

phenomenon:the eliding of responsibilityor agency.Considerthe aggressive

hunters'bible,Meditations
onHunting.In this book,JoseOrtegay Gassetwrites:
To the sportsmanthe death of the game is not what interests
him; that is not his purpose.What interestshim is everything
that he had to do to achieve that death-that is, the hunt.
Thereforewhat was beforeonly a means to an end is now an
end in itself. Death is essential becausewithout it there is no
authentic hunting:the killing of the animal is the naturalend
of the hunt and that goal of hunting itself;not of the hunter
(1985, 96).
The erasureof the subjectin this passageis fascinating.In the end the hunter
is not reallyresponsiblefor willing the animal'sdeath, just as the stereotypic
battereris presumedto be unable, at some point, to stop battering;it is said
that he loses all agency.In the constructionof the aggressivehunt, we aretold
that the killing takesplace not becausethe hunterwills it but becausethe hunt
itselfrequiresit. This is the batterermodel.In the constructionof the relational
hunt, it is arguedthat at some point the animal willingly gives up his or her
life so that the humanbeing can be sustained.This is the rapistmodel. In each
case the violence is mitigated. In the rapist model, as with uncriminalized
maritalrape, the presumptionis that in entering into the relationshipthe
woman has said one unequivocal yes; so too in the relational hunt it is
presupposedthat the animal espied by the hunter at some point also said a
nonverbalbut equallybinding unequivocalyes. The relationalhunt and the
aggressivehunt simply provide alternative means for erasing agency and
denyingviolation.
I have not as yet discussedthe fact that the relational hunt is based on
ecofeminists'understandingof some Native Americanhunting practicesand
beliefs.Butgiven that manyindigenousculturesexperiencedtheirrelationship
with animalsvery differentlythan we do today,even nonhierarchically,why
do environmentalistsgravitateto illustrationsfromNative Americancultures
that were hunting ratherthan horticulturaland predominantlyvegetarian?
Why not hold up as a counterexampleto ourecocidalculturegatherersocieties
that demonstratehumanscan live happilywithout animals'bodies as food?
Furthermore,what method will allow us to accomplishthe relationalhunt
on any large scale? Can we create as an ideal method one developed in a
sparselypopulatedcontinent and imposeit upon an urbanpopulationthat has
by and large eliminated the wildernessin which Native American cultures
flourished?The wilderness no longer exists to allow for duplication. As
RosemaryRuetherposes the question:"Since there could be no returnto the
unmanagedwilderness,in which humanscompetewith animalsas one species
amongothers,without an enormousreductionof the humanpopulationfrom
its present5.6 billion back to perhapsa million or so, one wonderswhat kind

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
140 Hypatia

of massdestructionof humansis expected to accomplishthis goal?"(Ruether

1990, 19).
The problemwith the relationalhunt is that it is a highly sentimentalized
individualsolution to a corporateproblem:what arewe to do aboutthe eating
of animals?We either see animalsas edible bodies or we do not.13

6. AUTONOMYAND ECOFEMINIST-VEGETARIANISM

As long as animals are culturally constructed as edible, the issue of

vegetarianismwill be seen as a conflict over autonomy(to determineon one's
own what one will eat versusbeing told not to eat animals). The question,
"Whodecidedthat animalsshouldbe food?"remainsunaddressed.Ratherthan
being seen as agents of consciousness,raisinglegitimate issues, ecofeminist-
vegetariansareseen asviolating others'rightsto theirown pleasures.This may
represent the true "daughter'sseduction" in our culture-to believe that
pleasureis apoliticaland to perpetuatea personalizedautonomyderivedfrom
dominance. The way autonomy works in this instance appearsto be: "By
choosing to eat meat, I acquiremy 'I-ness.'If you say I can'teat meat then I
lose my 'I-ness.'"Often the basicpremiseof the supposedgender-neutralityof
autonomy is accepted, leaving both the notion of autonomy and the social
construction of animals unexamined. As a result, animals remain absent
referents.
The ecofeminist-vegetarianresponse to this idea of autonomy is: "Let's
redefine our 'I-ness.'Does it requiredominance of others?Who determined
that meat is food?How do we constitute ourselvesas 'I's'in this world?"
Giving conceptual place to the significanceof individualanimalsrestores
the absentreferent.This ecofeministresponsederivesnot froma rights-based
philosophybut fromone arisingfromrelationshipsthat bringaboutidentifica-
tion and thus solidarity.We must see ourselvesin relationshipwith animals.
To eat animalsis to makeof them instruments;this proclaimsdominanceand
power-over.The subordinationof animalsis not a given but a decisionresulting
froman ideologythat participatesin the verydualismsthat ecofeminismseeks
to eliminate. We achieve autonomy by acting independently of such an
ideology.
Ecofeminism affirmsthat individuals can change, and in changing we
repositionourrelationshipwith the environment.This formof empowerment
is preciselywhat is needed in approachingthe issueof where animalsstandin
our lives. Many connections can be made between our food and our environ-
ment, ourpolitics and ourpersonallives. Essentially,the existence of terminal
animals is paradigmaticof, as well as contributingto the inevitability of, a
terminalearth.

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CarolJ. Adams 141

NOTES

1. Earlierversionsof this paperwere presentedat two conferences:"Ecofeminism:

The Woman/Earth Connection,"April 1990,DouglassCollege(sponsoredby the Rutgers
School of Law-NewarkandWomen's RightsLawReporter), and"Women's Worlds:Realities
and Choices, FourthInternationalInterdisciplinary Congresson Women,"June 1990,
HunterCollege. Thanks to KarenWarren,Nancy Tuana,MelindaVadas,MartiKheel,
Batya Bauman, Greta Gaard, Tom Regan, Neal Barnard,and Teal Willoughbyfor
assistancein thinkingand writingon this topic.
2. I will defendthese claimsby appealing,in part,to interviewsI conductedin 1976
of morethan seventy vegetariansin the Boston-areawomen'scommunity.These inter-
views are intendedas testimonyto the fact that ecofeminism'stheoreticalpotential,as
well as its history,is clearlyon the side of animals.They also attest to the importanceof
first-personnarrativein (eco)feministtheorybuilding(see Warren1990). Among those
interviewedwereactivistsand writerssuch as JudyNorsigianand WendySanfordof the
BostonWomen'sHealth BookCollective, LisaLeghorn,KateCloud,KarenLindsey,Pat
Hynes,MarySue Henifin, KathyMaio,SusanLeighStarr,and manyothers.
3. My startingpoint in this essayis not that of animalrightstheory,which seeksto
extendto animalsmoralconsiderationsbasedon theirinterests,sentiency,andsimilarity
with humans.My writingis informed by this argument,but my startingpoint here is that
ecofeministsseek to end the perniciouslogic of dominationthat has resultedin the
interconnectedsubordinationof womenandnature.Fromthis startingpoint, I recognize
manyother issuesbesidesthat of animals'subordinationas problematic.In fact, mythesis
arisesbecausethe ecofeministanalysisof naturerequiresa morevocal namingof animals
asa partof that subordinatednature.ThusI amnot patchinganimalsonto an undisturbed
notion of humanrights,butamexaminingthe placeof animalsin the fabricof ecofeminist
ethics-a startingpoint that alreadypresumesthat the exploitationof natureentailsmore
than the exploitationof animals.
My emphasis here is on ideology.An ideology that ontologizes what are called
"terminal"animals as edible bodies precedesthe issuesassociatedwith animal rights
discourseandecofeministtheory.Myattemptis to exposethis ideology,not throughwhat
ecofeministsand environmentalistssee as the animal rightsstrategyof ethical exten-
sionism from humansto some nonhumans,but by exploringthe resultof the human-
animal dualismthat has precipitatedboth the animal rightsmovement as well as the
suspicionsof it amongthose who favora morebiotic wayof framingthe problemof the
oppressionof nature.The problemis thateach time the bioticenvironmentalistdiscourse
is willingto sacrificeindividualanimalsas ediblebodies,it demonstratesthe reasonthat
argumentsfor rightsand interestsof individualanimalshave been so insistentlyraised
and endorsesan ideologythat is a partof the logic of dominationthey ostensiblyresist,
while participatingin the human-animaldualism.
4. Walkerappearsto mean by this concept that each animal possessesa unique
individuality,sentiency,andcompletenessof self in one'sselfandnot throughothers,and
should exist as such for human beings,not as imagesor as food. Since the concept of
personhoodis extremelyproblematicfromthe perspectiveof feministphilosophy,I will
not use that term though I think that in a general,less philosophicallybaseddiscourse,
this is what my sourcesmean when talkingabout"beingness."
5. My own The SexualPoliticsof Meatbeganas a paperfor Daly'sclasson feminist
ethics (see Adams 1975). In her book The Rapeof theWild,Daly'sclose friendAndree

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
142 Hypatia

CollardappliesDaly'sfeministphilosophyof biophiliato animals.As earlyas 1975Collard

wasworkingon the intersectionof the oppressionof womenandoppressionof animals.
6. Warren'sfourth point, that ecological movements must include a feminist
perspective,is not as apparentin the 1976 interviews.The animalliberationmovement
tracesits roots to Singer's1975 text AnimalLiberation;thus the feministcritiqueof this
movement was not readilyapparentin 1976 because the movement itself was in its
gestationalperiod.Subsequentfeministwritingsapplya feministcritiqueto the animal
liberationmovementwhile agreeingwith the premisethat the exploitationof animals
must be challenged (Kheel, Collard, Corea, Donovan, Salamone). The politics of
identificationis a de factocritiqueof argumentson behalfof animalsbasedon dominant
philosophies,since it does not attempt to establish criteriafor rights but speaks to
responsibilityand relationships.In The SexualPoliticsof Meat, I use feminist literary
criticismas an antidoteto "rights"language.I am currentlydevelopingan (eco)feminist
philosophyof animalrights.
7. Some environmentalists have argued that the complete conversion to
vegetarianismwill precipitatea populationcrisisand thus is less ecologicallyresponsible
than meateating(Callicott 1989,35). This assumesthat we areall heterosexualandthat
womennever will have reproductivefreedom.
8. For environmentalissuesassociatedwith meat productionsee Akers (1983),
Pimental(1975, 1976), Hurand Field (1984, 1985), Krizmanic(1990a and 1990b).
9. A by-productof livestockproductionis methane,a greenhousegas that can trap
twentyto thirtytimesmoresolarheat thancarbondioxide.Largelybecauseof theirburps,
"ruminantanimalsarethe largestproducersof methane,accountingfor 12 to 15 percent
of emissions,accordingto the E.P.A."(ONeill 1990,4).
10. Ninety-five percent of all poultryworkersare black women who face carpal
tunnel syndrome and other disorderscaused by repetitive motion and stress (Clift
1990; Lewis 1990, 175).
11. On this see Robbins(1987) and poet AudreLorde's(1980) descriptionof the
relationshipbetweenbreastcancerand high-fatdiets.
12. While some might arguethat the methodof the relationalhunt eliminatesthe
violenceinherent in other formsof meat eating, I do not see how that term, as it is
commonlyusedtoday,can be seen to be illegitimatelyappliedin the context in which I
use it here. I use violentin the sense of the AmericanHeritageDictionary's definition:
"causedby unexpectedforceor injuryratherthan by naturalcauses."Even if the animal
acquiescesto her/hisdeath, which I arguewe simplydo not know,this death is still not
a resultof naturalcausesbut of externalforcethat requiresthe useof implementsandthe
intent of which is to cause mortalinjury.This is violence, which kills by woundinga
beingwho wouldotherwisecontinue to live.
13. One of the anonymousreviewersraisedthe issuethat plantshave life, too. Due
to spaceconstraintsmy responseto this point had to be omitted;interestedreadersmay
writeto me forthis information.It is importantto acknowledgehoweverthat the greatest
amountof plantexploitationisdueto the growingof plantfoodsto feedterminalanimals.

REFERENCES

Abbott,Sally.1990.The originsof God in thebloodof the lamb.InReueaving

theworld,3540.
IreneDiamondandGloriaFemanOrenstein,eds.SanFrancisco: SierraClubBooks.

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CarolJ. Adams 143

Adams,Carol. 1975. The oediblecomplex:Feminismand vegetarianism.In Thelesbian

reader.Gina Covina and LaurelGalana,eds. Oakland,CA: Amazon.
. 1990. The sexualpoliticsof meat.New York:Continuum.
Ahlers, Julia. 1990. Thinking like a mountain:Towarda sensible land ethic. Christian
Century(April 25): 433-34.
Akers,Keith. 1983. A vegetarian sourcebook.New York:G. P.Putnam'sSons.
Albino, Donna. 1988.C.E.A.S.E:Buildinganimalconsciousness.An interviewwithJane
Lidsky.Womanof Power.9: 64-66.
Barnard,Neal. 1990. The evolution of the human diet. In The powerof yourplate.
Summertown,TN: BookPublishingCo.
Benney,Norma. 1983.All of one flesh:The rightsof animals.In Reclaimtheearth.Leonie
Caldecottand StephanieLeland,eds. London:The Women'sPress.
Brody,JaneE. 1990. Hugestudyindictsfat and meat.TheNew YorkTimes.May8.
Callicott,J. Baird.1989.Indefenseof thelandethic.Albany:State Universityof New York
Press.
Clift,Elayne.1990.Advocatebattlesforsafetyin minesandpoultryplants.New Directions
for Women(May/June):3.
Coats,C. David. 1989.OldMacDonald's factoryfarm.New York:Continuum.
Collard,Andree, with Joyce Contrucci. 1988. Rapeof the wild:Man'sviolenceagainst
animalsandtheearth.London:The Women'sPress.
Collins, Sheila. 1974.A differentheavenandearth.ValleyForge:JudsonPress.
Comstock, Gary. 1990. Pigs and piety: A theocentric perspectiveon food animals.
Presentedat the Duke Divinity School conference,"Good News for Animals?"
October3-4, 1990.
Corea,Genoveffa.1984. Dominanceand control:How our culturesees women,nature
and animals.TheAnimals'Agenda(May-June):37.
Davis, Karen.1988. Farmanimalsand the feminine connection. The Animals'Agenda
(January-February): 38-39.
d'Eaubonne,Francoise.1974. Feminismordeath[Lefeminismeou la mort].In New French
feminisms:An anthology.ElaineMarksand Isabellede Courtivron,eds. New York:
Shocken Books, 1981.
Donovan,Josephine.1990. Animal rightsand feministtheory.Signs15 (2): 350-75.
EcofeministTaskForceRecommendation-Itemno. 7. 1990. Presentedto the National
Women'sStudiesAssociationnationalmeeting,June,Akron, Ohio.
Elson,John. 1990. This little piggyate roastbeef: Domesticatedporkersare becoming
the latestpet craze.Time.(January22): 54.
Fox, MichaelW. 1984. Farmanimals:Husbandry, behavior,andveterinary
practice(view-
pointsof a critic).Baltimore:UniversityParkPress.
Fraser,David. 1987. Attractionto bloodas a factorin tail-bitingby pigs.AppliedAnimal
Behaviour Science17:61-68.
Gaard, Greta. 1989. Feminists, animals, and the environment:The transformative
potential of feminist theory. Paper presentedat the annual convention of the
National Women'sStudies Association, Towson State University, June 14-18,
Baltimore.
Goodyear,Carmen.1977. Mankind?CountryWomen(December):7-9.
Hoagland,SarahLucia.1988. Lesbianethics:Towardnew values.Palo Alto: Institutefor
LesbianStudies.
Hur, Robin. 1985. Six inches from starvation:How and why America'stopsoil is
disappearing.Vegetarian Times(March):45-47.

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144 Hypatia

Hur,Robin and Dr. David Fields. 1984. Are high-fatdiets killing ourforests?Vegetarian
Times(February):22-24.
. 1985a. America'sappetite for meat is ruining our water. VegetarianTimes
(January):16-18.
.1985b. How meat robsAmericaof its energy.Vegetarian Times(April):24-27.
Kevles, Bettyann. 1990. Meat, moralityand masculinity.The Women'sReviewof Books
(May): 11-12.
Kheel,Marti.1987. Befriendingthe beast.Creation(September-October):11-12.
. 1988.Animal liberationandenvironmentalethics:Can ecofeminismbridgethe
gap?Paperpresentedat the 1988 annualmeetingof the WesternPoliticalScience
Association,March10-12, 1988.
. 1990. Ecofeminismand deep ecology:Reflectionson identity and difference.
Reweavingtheworld128-37. IreneDiamondand GloriaFemanOrenstein,eds. San
Francisco:SierraClub Books.
Krizmanic,Judy.1990a.Is a burgerworth it?Vegetarian Times152(April):20-21.
. 1990b. Why cutting out meat can cool down the earth. VegetarianTimes
152(April):18-19.
Lappe,FrancesMoore. 1982. Dietfor a smallplanet:Tenthanniversary edition.New York:
BallantineBooks.
Lawrence,A. B., M. C. Appleby,and H. A. Macleod.1988. Measuringhungerin the pig
using operantconditioning:The effect of food restriction.AnimalProduction47:
131-37.
Leapsforward:Postpatriarchal eating. 1990. Ms. (July-August):59.
Lewis,Andrea. 1990. Lookingat the total picture:A Conversationwith health activist
BeverlySmith. In The blackwomen'shealthbook:Speakingfor ourselves.EvelynC.
White, ed. Seattle:The Seal Press.
Lorde,Audre. 1980. Thecancerjournals.Argyle,NY:Spinsters,Ink.
Mason,Jimand PeterSinger.1980.Animalfactories.New York:CrownPublishers.
Mead,Nathaniel. 1990. Special report:6,500 Chinese can't be wrong.Vegetarian Times
158 (October):15-17.
Moran,Victoria.1988. Learninglove at an earlyage:Teachingchildrencompassionfor
animals.Womanof Power9: 54-56.
Newkirk,Ingridwith C. Burnett. 1988. Animal rights and the feminist connection.
Womanof Power9: 67-69.
O'Neill, Molly. 1990. The cow'srole in life is called into questionby a crowdedplanet.
New YorkTimes.(May6, 1990) Section 4: 1, 4.
Ortegay Gasset,Jose. 1985.Meditations on hunting.HowardB. Wescott,trans.New York:
CharlesScribner'sSons.
Pimental,David. 1975. Energyand land constraintsin food proteinproduction.Science
190: 754-61.
. 1976. Land degradation:Effectson food and energy resources.Science194:
149-55.
Pimental, David, P. A. Oltenacu, M. C. Nesheim, John Krummel,M. S. Allen, and
Sterling Chick. 1980. The potential for grass-fedlivestock:Resourceconstraints.
Science207: 843-848.
Robbins,John. 1987. Dietfor a new America.Walpole:Stillpoint.
Ruether,Rosemary.1975. New woman/newearth:Sexistideologies and humanliberation.
New York:SeaburyPress.

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CarolJ. Adams 145

. 1990. Men, women and beasts: Relations to animals in Western culture.

Presentedat the Duke Divinity School conference, "Good News for Animals?"
October3, 1990.
Salamone,Connie. 1973. Feministas rapistin the modem malehunterculture.Majority
Report(October).
. 1982. The prevalenceof the naturallaw within women:Women and animal
rights.In Reweavingthewebof life:Feminismandnonviolence.Pam McAllister,ed.
Philadelphia:New Society Publishers.
.1988. The knowing.Womanof Power9: 53.
Serpell,James. 1986. In the companyof animals:A studyof human-animal
relationships.
Oxford:BasilBlackwell.
Shiva,Vandana.1988.Stayingalive:Women,ecologyanddevelopment. London:ZedBooks.
2d ed.New York:A New YorkReviewBook.
Singer,Peter.(1975) 1990.Animalliberation.
Spretnak,Charlene.1990.Ecofeminism:Ourrootsandflowering.In Reweaving theworld.
IreneDiamondandGloriaFemanOrenstein,eds.San Francisco:SierraClubBooks.
Walker,Alice. 1986. Am I Blue,Ms. July30.
.1988a. Why did the Balinesechicken crossthe road?Womanof Power9: 50.
Waring,Marilyn.1988.If womencounted:A newfeministeconomics.San Francisco:Harper
& Row.
Warren,KarenJ. 1987. Feminismandecology:MakingconnectionsEnvironmental Ethics
9:3-21.
.1990. The powerand the promiseof ecologicalfeminism.Environmental Ethics
12: 125-46.

This content downloaded from 78.56.45.90 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:59:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions