From a young age I can recall my household being a divided one, in one corner we had my mother and on the other my father, sister, and I. Now I would not go as far as to call my mother a pet hater, rather growing up in the Dominican Republic shaped her view on animals (specifically dogs) in a particular way. Unlike the rest of us my mother did not understand the necessity of having a dog if its soul purpose in life wasn’t to protect us. While she eventually conceded to our constant pleading, my mother often complained about our skittish maltese Cocoa sleeping in my bed and his nonexistent sense of danger. Although, culturally our views may have differed slightly the fact is for centuries nonhuman animals have played an essential role within our human society.
Whether we think back to our original use of nonhuman animals, which often consisted of labor, a source of food, and ultimately companionship. Humans are often referred to as being responsible for singlehandedly oppressing these beings. Within Greta Gaard’s essay Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations, the author describes the five conditions of oppression as “exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence… is enough to consider those experiencing it to be oppressed” (Gaard 20). Unfortunately, animals tend to experience all five of these conditions throughout their lifetime. In particular domesticated pets are constantly forced to conform to what Gaard refers to as the rituals and practices associated with humans. As a result, being a pet signifies having, “one’s life decisions controlled by someone else: when and what to eat; when and where to urinate and defecate; how to at” (Gaard 21).
Throughout her essay the author also specifies two common sites in which humans and nonhuman animals tend to interact within our modern society. The first as previously discussed is through domesticity and the second occurs at the dinner table. Since the dawn of time humans have eaten animals as a means of survival. However, for those currently living within technologically advances countries many Ecofeminist and followers of moral vegetarianism find it unethical that meat consumption continue within these countries. This is due to the fact that these individuals have a choice on what they want to eat and yet choose to inflict violence upon innocent beings that have the same as rights as them. In particular moral vegetarianism urges its followers to focus on the caring-for approach, which takes into consideration social contexts and individual histories. Thus, while it may condemn animal eaters who have a choice in food. Followers of moral vegetarianism understand that, “one may not treat all interest equally… geographical context may sometimes be relevant. The Ihalmiut, for example, whose fried domain makes the growing of food impossible, do not have the option of vegetarian cuisine” (Curtin 2). This shows that starvation is not the goal of moral vegetarianism, rather equality and kindness for all.
Ecofeminist have also noted the connection between the oppression of women and the oppression of animals. Women are often dehumanized with pointed language referring to them as “sow,” “bitch,” “bird-brain,” and so much more. It even goes as far as infecting the way we eat. A perfect example of this is shown within the comedic film “White Chicks” during the dinner seen were Terry Crews proceeds to tell the waiter “perhaps a salad for the lady.” This stereotypical seen is universally recognizable and “paints the picture that plant food is for ladies, and perhaps cows, but me? Not so much” ( Eisenberg). Our society has conditioned men to associate their masculinity with meat. In a series of experiments, researchers found that after a mans masculinity was threatened a meat dish was able to lower their anxiety back to normal.
I chose to end the blog with this photo for a few reason. The first consist of the fact that historically the culinary field has been and continues to be a male dominated field, leading me to believe that the individual cutting the meat is a man. Another interesting fact is that the figure has a foot on the cutting board indicating that he’s dominating or has control over what he is cutting. Lastly, the amount of meat on the cutting board for one person implies some amount of privilege seeing as the figure is sharing with no one.
Sources:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/meat-heads-new-study-focuses_b_8964048?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly91bWFzc2QudW1hc3NvbmxpbmUubmV0L3dlYmFwcHMvYmxhY2tib2FyZC9leGVjdXRlL2Rpc3BsYXlMZWFybmluZ1VuaXQ_Y291cnNlX2lkPV8yMTkyNl8xJmNvbnRlbnRfaWQ9XzE0ODYwMTlfMQ&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANnIhs9b78q-bVLgELiYYjke_nX9vSAw52iFPuZB6J0AplRnV1NRjxmuwsjvZPqMk1_e-RZfbp9Fy7055AHF25Fq-wCeho9qBPAHIjQywA5oOOJGJcjL9EDt0TaTXVUAAsmkgbzjtyGIG_9Ra5Cxqb7-AESNQDK8sPXAspYve2sa
https://www.academia.edu/2489929/Ecofeminism_on_the_Wing_Perspectives_on_Human-Animal_Relations