Corey Lee Wrenn's Blog, page 4

A Critique of Open Rescue

What is Open Rescue?

Open rescue, a tactic devised by Australian Patty Mark in the 1990s, has been witnessing a resurgence in 21st century anti-speciesism work. Direct Action Everywhere (DXE), for instance, regularly employs this tactic alongside its other direct action tactics (including disruptions both outside and inside supermarkets and restaurants). DXE has offered a number of reasons why open rescue is particulary powerful:

[It] Provid[es] a window into the world of animal abuse [which] is Reason #1 for open investigation and rescue. [ . . . ]

Reason #2: Undercover investigations – in which an activist obtains employment and secretly takes footage of a facility – face serious obstacles. [ . . . ]

Reason #3: Open rescue is a powerful statement of our opposition to an oppressive system. 

Reason #4: Open rescue saves animals, and tells their individual stories.

Although there is some validity to these points, there are some potential negative (or counterproductive) consequences that should be considered.

Do Moral Shocks Work?

To the first point, the utility of morally shocking imagery is highly contested (readers can learn more in my 2013 publication with Society & Animals). DXE is correct here to focus on "abuse" and not "use": those viewing this imagery are likely to interpret it within the mental schema of welfare reform. Decades of societal emphasis on improving welfare for other animals rather than abolishing their use altogether has conditioned the public to react to graphic images of Nonhuman Animal suffering with a desire to reform and donate. There is much less encouragement for them to go vegan or support liberation. Open rescue has traditionally existed in the repertoire of professionalized organizations, which, alongside speciesist industries, have socialized consumers to respond to upsetting information or imagery by purchasing more "humane" speciesist products. There is no reason to believe that DXE's work will be interpreted any differently.

Undercover Footage for Consumers or Funders?

To the second point: just how much more open-rescue footage do we need exactly? Dozens of organizations have been obtaining similar footage since the 1970s. While DXE claims its undercover footage is "groundbreaking," many other large non-profits also target "humane" agricultural facilities. We have the information; we have the images. I suspect that the true reason for continuing these rescues is to maintain the treadmill of activity and evidence of impact for grant proposals. Open rescues actually save very few individuals, and those who are saved will be replaced immediately. However, rescue efforts make for a good story on websites and grant proposals. Vegan education efforts, by contrast, do not make for glamorous or exciting photo opportunities. Furthermore, vegan education is also aimed at seriously challenging systems of oppression. These may be off-putting to potential funders, many of which directly or indirectly benefit from specieist industries.

Open rescues, although exciting and heroic, unfortunately maintain the system as it is. This tactic therefore protects the interests of conservative foundations that maintain most grant monies. Open rescues give non-profits something to write about and fund-raise behind. DXE may pride itself in resisting the heavy reliance on funding that characterize other non-profits, but the donation rhetoric that it does engage reads similarly to that of the larger non-profits.1 For that matter, its logo is plastered on its outreach materials, posters, signs, and volunteer t-shirts for a reason. This rescue work is not 100% about Nonhuman Animal liberation. It is also, to some extent, about advertising the organizational brand. The social movement arena is a competitive world. To survive and thrive, a group needs to raise resources. To do so, it has to start prioritizing single-issue campaigns, shocking imagery, brand promotion, and yes, fundraising.

It also needs full-time employees to run the organization and more funding to pay them to do so. Like other professionalized organizations, DXE maintains the pro-capitalist position that some privileged individuals will be paid to advocate.2 Funding careerists can be problematic because it supposes that the revolution can be "bought." However, not everyone can access the privilege of non-profit employment; the non-profit system is known to reproduce social inequality by under-representing oppressed groups on the payroll.3 Furthermore, it is capitalism that has created this oppression. What reason is there to believe that capitalism, a system which requires inequality and competition to function, will end oppression? Dismantling oppression will require the efforts of millions of individuals, and it is not plausible for them to expect a paycheck or stipend. The notion that activists can work against the forces of capitalism while simultaneously earning an income from it is nonsensical and it is also privileged. This is advocacy as industry.

Empowering Activists and Consumers or Empowering Speciesism?

DXE's third point, that open rescue is a "powerful statement," also exhibits the aforementioned issue with counterproductive audience interpretations. But I also question what type of power is being stated. Open rescues, in spotlighting Nonhuman Animal suffering and vulnerability, may also reinforce the tendency for consumers to distance themselves from speciesism or even reinforce attitudes of social domination. Ironically, DXE has acknowledged this very possibility in previous communique. Kelly Atlas writes:

Horrific, graphic images can trigger defense mechanisms that make people shy away from the scene, thereby discouraging engagement with the liberationist message and political activity. [ . . . ] 

I am also concerned that repeatedly seeing images of people of a given group (nonhumans) being objectified by one's own group (humans) may normalize their objectification in the viewer's mind.

Indeed, in an essay for Vegan Feminist Network, I have likened this use of imagery to the mechanisms of pornography. It seeks to elicit a physiological reaction by presenting images of degraded and objectified bodies to the privileged human gaze:

The entire point of pornography is to titillate via the sexual degradation and humiliation of an oppressed body.  Those who consume pornography are consuming it specifically to “get off,” so to speak, on the demonstrated powerlessness of otherized bodies.  The relationship between the viewer and the viewee is one that reproduces and reinforces a hierarchy of domination.  Pornography users also report experiencing a “tolerance,” meaning increasingly degrading and shocking imagery is needed for them to feel something.  The pornography industry is happy to serve that need by producing increasingly disturbing media. [ . . . ] 

So what makes it any different for vegan advocates who share these images with the intention of shocking people with images of violated and degraded animal bodies?  And for that matter, what gives them the right?  

Indeed, the power relationship behind the production and reproduction of these images must be considered. As shareable content, their intended purpose is to create a shocking response, even if that intention is in good will. Unfortunately, this can reinforce the privileged status of the viewer and the objectification of the image's subject matter.

Finally, DXE seems to conflate open rescue with emotionally-charged imagery. These are separate tactics. Open rescue is only one of many ways to use imagery to inspire social change. However, DXE suggests that, without open rescue, the Nonhuman Animal rights movement lacks arsenal. If open rescue is to be conceptualized as arsenal, it must surely be that of a double-edged sword. It works to elicit a physiological response that will encourage the "Do something, anything! Less talk, more action! Donate now! Reform it!" type of mentality. This muddled and anxious energy can more easily be steered down profesionalized pathways that perpetuate the non-profit system. It is less likely to be guided toward veganism and system change.

Notes
1. From the DXE donation page (as of January 9th, 2015): "Yes, we could use funding. Materials, cameras, and technology aren't cheap. Our groundbreaking investigations of 'certified humane'  farms cost a tiny fraction of what is spent in comparable investigations by large non-profits, but expenses still often run into the thousands of dollars."
2. From the DXE donation page (as of January 9th 2015):  "And a small number of DxE Fellows and Investigators have given up their careers to work for animals; we hope to support them with activist stipends."
3. I do not know the data for DXE, which is actively more racially inclusive, but the Nonhuman Animal rights industry as a whole tends to reserve paid positions for white men of means.

A version of this essay was originally published on January 9th, 2015.

Readers can learn more about the social movement politics of Nonhuman Animal rights and veganism in my 2019 publication, Piecemeal Protest: Animal Rights in the Age of Nonprofits. The beautiful cover art for this text was created by vegan artist Lynda Bell and prints are available on her website, artbylyndabell.com.

Readers can learn more about the politics of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Heganism is Sexist

"Heganism." Veganism...for men.

Like Dr. Pepper 10 and lotion "for men," gendering veganism serves to protect masculinity by otherizing that which is feminine.

What is wrong with drinking diet soda, using body lotion, or eating vegan? These are things that women stereotypically do. Because women are one of the most detested and devalued groups in society, the association between women and veganism becomes problematic for the marketplace. To protect fragile masculinity and encourage men to consume in perceived safety, the stigma must be removed by creating a "masculine" alternative in line with hegemonic masculinity. In this way, men can ritually perform their masculinity through their spending practices.

Masculinity is defined largely in what it is not, and it is not feminine. The construction of masculinity works in much the same way as does speciesism. We define humanity as being not animal, and therefore humanity is superior by comparison. This is also thought to be one of the root causes of heterosexism: masculinity is defined by ostracizing that which is feminine. Differentiating persons into groups and then placing them on a hierarchy to support these differentiations feeds structural discrimination.

The Nonhuman Animal rights movement is comprised mostly of women because food is gendered and being concerned for the welfare of Nonhuman Animals is also gendered.  There is no genetic predisposition for women to be advocates for other animals; it is a product of socialization. Men's discomfort with veganism and anti-speciesism also stems from socialization.

Aggravating sexist understandings of Nonhuman Animal rights advocacy can only encumber efforts to achieve Nonhuman Animal liberation. Heganism works to assuage fragile masculinity to encourage men's participation. In doing so, however, it reinforces the notion that veganism is essentially "for women" and that men will be stigmatized if they participate without veganism being explicitly defeminized.

The otherizing of women, however, is exactly the type of otherization that sustains speciesism. Hierarchies must be dismantled, woman-hating must be challenged, and all persons--be they men, women, human, or nonhuman--should be acknowledged as sentient beings worthy of equal moral consideration.

A version of this essay was originally published on March 5, 2013.

Readers can learn more about the social movement politics of Nonhuman Animal rights and veganism in my 2019 publication, Piecemeal Protest: Animal Rights in the Age of Nonprofits. The beautiful cover art for this text was created by vegan artist Lynda Bell and prints are available on her website, artbylyndabell.com.

 

Readers can learn more about the sexism in vegan advocacy in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Un-naming the Enslaved: Names, Identity, & Speciesism

Names are more than personal identifiers. They are also symbolic representations of personhood. Witholding names from individuals has been an important ideological tool of oppression.

In a Huffington Post piece, Tukufu Zuberi discusses the sociological importance of naming as exemplified in an 18th century slaveholder's ledger. Persons listed in the ledger were simply referred to as "Negro male" or "Negro female."  

Zuberi explains that, while many enslaved persons were given a first name by their owners, they were largely erased from history after death without family names to link them to later generations. Being nameless has important social implications. Without an identity, persons become objects. The lives of unnamed persons are socially invisibilized.

Vegan sociologists have observed the deindividualizing effect of unnaming with nonhuman persons as well.  Many animals kept as pets are generally given only a simple first name as a matter of easy identification, which is promptly forgotten to history after their passing. Free-living animals remain largely anonymous, primarily abstracted as species. They are rarely individualized and even more rarely named. Cows, pigs, and other large "livestock" are identified by numbers, if identified at all.

When naming happens, there is a direct challenge to the object-status. Names create an identity and encourage empathy. Creating personality profiles for dogs and cats increases adoptions, for instance. Naming farmed animal rescues increases donations. Free-living animals that are identified with names are often specially protected from "hunters" or other human harms.

Even so, the use of pet names for other animals continues to reflect the relationship of dominance between human and nonhuman animals. The same was true in the American slave system. Enslaved humans were sometimes named by owners, but usually only with first names. Following the abolition of slavery in the United States, most freed persons simply adopted the surname of their previous owners.  Having a full name offered a more meaningful individualization and higher social status. Many Black American families have since taken further ownership over their names, choosing African or uniquely Black American names to detach from the legacy of slavery. 

Could Nonhuman Animals ever be granted full names? Perhaps not, yet the continued use of pet names like Skippy or Snowball surely only reinforces anthroparchal social relations.

Readers can learn more about vegan sociology in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Rape as an Anti-Speciesism Tactic and the Vegan Male Discourse

Content warning

As vegan feminism becomes more prominent in contemporary third-wave anti-speciesist activism, countermobilization within the vegan movement has emerged to protect activism "for the animals." Status quo activism that lacks a clear feminist lens, however, defaults to the patriarchal status quo.

Feminist criticism of especially contentious tactics (such as utilizing reenactments of sexual assault against female activists to depict human violence against animals) is sometimes deflected by status quo activists as "anthropocentric." What is more, women are sometimes aligned with the perpetrators, perpetrators who are, for women and other animals, primarily men:

In my opinion intersectionality is the epitome of human centric ideology, it diminishes everything in a much too simplistic and shallow way. I dont agree that every struggle/injustice is equal. I believe and able to prove very easily that the non human animals are the most in need at the moment and are the ones who get the least amount of help. Also the ones who are responsible for said oppression are in many cases the ones who get the fruits of your brand of activism. I choose to protect and defend the rape victims, instead of the rapists.

269life representative, 2013

Likewise, feminist critiques of sexist campaigning are regularly dismissed with sexist stereotypes about women's communication: we're "bickering," "gossiping," or "distracting."

Misogynistic campaigning reinforces a violent culture whereby the exploitation of vulnerable bodies is normalized. Resistance to feminist discourse also reinforces a violent culture in which the voices of those vulnerable bodies are not deemed relevant.

Can analogies be helpful for advancing anti-speciesism? Sometimes. Capitalizing on rape culture to scare women into compliance, however, is cruel. We must keep in mind that at least one in three women (not to mention boys, genderqueer folks, and other marginalized groups) have experienced completed or attempted rape.

All women, for that matter, live in a society in which the possibility of being raped is high and the possibility of that rape being trivialized by others is also high. That is rape culture.

I cannot imagine how visually shocking rape analogies would be psychologically persuasive, only traumatizing. Trauma is more likely to encourage withdrawal and self-protective measures. It invites inaction. A vegan society cannot be built out of the trauma and fear of rape.

Readers can learn more about the politics of sexism in Nonhuman Animal rights activism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Neuroscience Explains Vegan Commitment to Nonvegan Companies

For some years now, I have been outspoken in my criticism against LUSH Cosmetics. LUSH is a purveyor of premium bath and body products, and it regularly engages in misogynistic stunts to promote them. With every renewed critique I raise, I can expect a number of LUSH devotees to come to the company's defense. I have always found this curious, as LUSH is not even a vegan company. Indeed, LUSH not only profits from the exploitation of women, but, in selling a large variety of animal-based products, it also profits from the exploitation of other animals. What's the disconnect here? Why are vegans so committed?

Companies are considerably invested in building consumer trust and brand loyalty. Neuroscience has identified just how powerful this marketing can be. 

First, consumers form meaningful, emotionally rich relationships with brands. Brand loyalty becomes embedded in the consumer. For instance, researchers exposed participants in a study to pictures of beloved brands and then measured their skin response. For comparison, they also measured their response to images of good friends. The result? There were no significant differences between the response to favorite brands and favorite people.

Brands can also become tied to people's own identities. When a brand is discovered to have behaved unscrupulously, this can elicit negative feelings in the consumer by association. They may feel ashamed, threatened, or insecure. A criticism of a favorite brand, in other words, becomes a criticism of the consumer themselves.

Perhaps, then, it makes perfect sense why so many vegans are adamant about their Karma soap and LUSH bath bombs. They are in a committed relationship.

This research will also have implications for other vegan outreach. Strong consumer relationships with "meat" and dairy brands like Oscar Meyer, Jimmy Dean, Carnation, and Cadbury's will certainly complicate activist efforts.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Science was a Founding Principle of the Vegan Movement

In my book, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights, I note the unfortunate disconnect between anti-speciesist activism and scientific evidence.  Tactics and theory in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement are, for the most part, designed according to personal leanings, hunches, tradition, religious beliefs, or capacity for the greatest financial return.

Thought leaders in the movement spend a lot of time on podcasts, blogs, and books pontificating on what they think will work and why. Rarely, if ever, do they actually consult the decades of research in social movement theory, psychology, sociology, economics, and other social sciences to support their chosen approach.  

This lack of engagement with evidence is compounded by the prevalence of new ageists who promote plant-based eating for spiritual purity, good vibes, or a chance at enlightenment.  

Anti-speciesists of the early 20th century who spearheaded the historic split from The Vegetarian Society would likely be disappointed to know that one of the movement's greatest strengths, the considerable scientific support for veganism, is often sidelined.  They would be disappointed perhaps not surprised.

In my book, I explore some of Donald Watson's and Henry Salt's early writings about the relationship between anti-speciesist work and scientific rigor.  The avoidance of nonscientific, religious claimsmaking was a founding principle of the vegan movement.

Other early vegans agreed, and exposed these values in early issues of The Vegan. In an essay titled, "Veganism and Science--And A Warning," author W. S. James writes in 1948:

[...] a warning is necessary if the vegan movement is to avoid the embarrassments and setbacks which the vegetarian movement has suffered.  There are those in the vegetarian movement, and no doubt there will be those in the vegan movement, who oppose scientific thought and try to pick a quarrel with science, attempt to discredit it, and thereby ridicule their own movement in the process.

Publications by the Vegetarian Society, it seems, included horoscopes and bizarre, unfounded dietary theories. James fears the disrespect for science gives the public the impression that we are a cult:

Veganism needs to avoid this sort of bunk and bathos, otherwise it will scare away the intellectually minded reformer for ever.

Scientific rigor, it was argued, is necessary to protect veganism "as a vital, progressive force." Likewise, religion was excluded the early Vegan Society values:

Keep veganism a practice based on ethics, aesthetics, humaneness, health, economics and science.  We shall agree on this: and we shall disagree on anything else.

A century ago, vegan founders warned that a disregard for science would imperil the movement's effectiveness.  "Veganism has everything to gain by a wholehearted scientific attitude, and everything to lose by an unscientific approach," James concludes.  Has the modern vegan movement heeded the warning?

Readers can learn more about the social movement politics of Nonhuman Animal rights and veganism in my 2019 publication, Piecemeal Protest: Animal Rights in the Age of Nonprofits. The beautiful cover art for this text was created by vegan artist Lynda Bell and prints are available on her website, artbylyndabell.com.

Readers can learn more about the politics of vegan research in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Explorers Race to the Poles, Animals Lose

Race to the Poles is an American documentary produced for Discovery Channel in 2000. The film follows the international competition between America, Britain, Norway, and other countries keen on being the first to plant their flag. Typical of many historical stories told from a Western perspective, the experiences of white males take precedence, while vulnerable populations are often relegated to the sidelines or ignored altogether.

Arctic exploration involved a great deal of heroism as men scrambled for fame and glory. Much of their successes (and near successes (it took countless attempts before the poles were finally reached) were heavily dependent upon the native population that assisted them. It is doubtful as to whether the European and American explorers were welcome in the first place, as Inuits, their land, and their waters have been heavily exploited by outsiders over the centuries. Explorers often adopted a paternalistic attitude toward them. It is known that Commander Peary, an American explorer in the North Pole, took a 14-year-old Inuit girl as a "mistress." Many other polar explorers, in fact, sexually exploited native women and abandoned the resulting children.

The exploitation of Nonhuman Animals was also central to the explorations. Hundreds of dogs were transported by ship and pushed across hundreds of miles of ice in sub-zero weather. Peary commented: "Other dogs may work as well or travel as fast and far when fully fed; but there is no dog in the world that can work so long in the lowest temperatures on practically nothing to eat."  Many were run to death.  Others might be set free to "fend for themselves" (i.e. die) in the icy abyss. Weak dogs were sometimes killed to be cannibalized by their languishing companions.

Ponies, too, were pulled into the race. British explorer Captain Robert Scott brought several Nordic ponies who were not able to withstand the temperatures and had difficulty walking in the snow. Some starved to death, but Scott reports shooting the rest.

Free-living animals like muskox, seals, narwhals, deer, and walruses also met gruesome ends as adventurers attempted the poles again and again and ran low on food supplies. Still more were killed as the adventurers waited in boats for months for optimal traveling times.  An explorer describes a walrus hunt:

Mac had a Winchester automatic rifle, and he got off five shots so fast that before the first one left the muzzle the other four were chasing it. He dropped a large bull, which gave a convulsive flop and rolled into the water with a splash. I hit a couple, and with hoarse grunts of pain and fury they all wriggled off the ice and dived out of sight. The boat was hurried to within five yards of Mac's bull, and an Eskimo hurled a harpoon, hit the large bull, and threw overboard the sealskin float. At this stage of the game about forty other walruses, that had been feeding below, came up to the surface to see what the noise was about, spitting the clam shells out of their mouths and snorting. The water was alive with the brutes, and many of them were so close to us that we could hit them with the oars. A harpoon was driven into another by a corking throw [ . . . ]

- Robert E. Peary (1910) The North Pole

Indeed, the entire expedition was thoroughly dependent upon the life and death of other animals. The hair and skin of Nonhuman Animals often comprised their clothing. Countless Nonhuman Animals were killed and rendered, potted, and otherwise preserved for the supplies picked up in nearby ports or donated by advertisers sponsoring the expeditions.

This essay originally appeared on the Animals & Society Institute's Human-Animal Studies Cinema Blog, June 24, 2013. Readers can learn more about the colonial politics of speciesism in my 2021 publication, Animals in Irish Society: Interspecies Oppression and Vegan Liberation in Britain's Oldest Colony. Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

My Dog is Just a Dog: On Breedism and Ideations of Purity

[image error]

In 2020, I adopted a little white dog who had been rescued from the streets in Bulgaria, a county where stray dogs are still commonplace and "management" solutions tend to be lethal. I know I am biased, but my dog is especially cute. I am regularly stopped by strangers who want to meet Mishka, know more about her, or even take pictures. One of the first questions people ask is "He or she?" The second is ususally, "What breed?"

Neither answer tends to satisfy. Firstly, Mishka is intersex. Second, Mishka is just a dog.

When I clarify that Mishka was adopted as a street dog and likely has no pedigree, this invites folks to start guessing. Part Chihuahua? Jack Russell? My coworker who adopted from the same rescue shelled out nearly $100 for a canine DNA test to solve the mystery of her own dog's origins.

The narrative itself is problematic. There is an assumption that Mishka and other mutts are abominations of some pure past. The reality is that Mishka and most other street dogs lack any sort of pedigree. They probably come from a long line of regular old dogs, what we would now call "mutts." This begs the question: must dogs be linked to "pure" relatives in order to be recognized as legitimate? I suspect the answer is yes, otherwise the questions and guesses would not be so frequent. Why can't a dog just be a dog?

What we seem to forget is that most dog breeds are recent creations. They are products of cruel and speciesist animal testing. By way of an example, dogs would be purposefully bred to be all white. But whiteness often corresponds with deafness. Puppies resulting from failed experiments would then be drowned or bashed to death.

Puppies who survived the experiments (in so far as being lucky enough to be born with the desired genetics) were not absconded. "Perfect specimens" are characteristically harmed by painful genetic manipulations that impact breathing, skeletal, and cardiovascular health. Pugs and Bulldogs have respiratory problems, for instance, while Chihuahuas often have dental issues as their jaws are too small for all the teeth dogs are typically coded for. Imperfect specimens, meanwhile, such as "mixed" dogs and "mutts," are liable to be dumped into rescues and/or destroyed.

This is not a system we should be celebrating or normalizing with curious, seemingly innocuous questions. Asking a dog's breed is a microaggression. It is the canine equivalent to asking people of color, "Where are you from?" or "Can I see your papers?" Breedism is a holdover from the era of eugenics and continues to have fatal consequences. We should resist the ableist, racist and colonialist desire to push individuals into categories. Let dogs be dogs.

Readers can learn more about the racial politics of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Research Challenges the Emotionality of Anti-Speciesist Thought

A study in the Journal of Neuroscience has found that those who are sensitive to fairness and justice are not reacting only to emotions. Rather, brain scans indicate that they are thinking rationally and logically. The experimenters showed "sensitive" people images of a homeless person being abused. Scans demonstrated that it was the rational parts of their brains that reacted.  The common dismissal of activists as overly emotional or angry is misinformed. Social justice is also a logical matter.

There are important implications for activism on behalf of other animals.  First, prevailing social science emphasizes the emotiveness of anti-speciesism. However, this neuroscience research would suggest that many activists are opposed to and upset by speciesism as a matter of rational conclusion, not emotional reaction.

Second, emotionality is also considered a distinctly feminine quality, but the rational response registered by participants aligns with stereotypes of masculine activism. Rationally speaking, speciesism just does not make sense. However, dismissing anti-speciesism as an emotional response could be effective in deferring any uncomfortable feelings that nonvegans and speciesists experience when confronted with inequality. This tactic can be effective in a sexist culture where all things feminine are devalued.

Lastly, this study speaks to tactical diversity. The Nonhuman Animal rights movement relies heavily on moral shocks to trigger emotional reactions. But this approach will not work for everyone. Some will be motivated by emotional appeals, while others are triggered by logical ones.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of vegan research in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

The “No-Means-Yes” Rape Trope in PETA Pornography

Too often in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement sexist scripts are used to push messages of animal liberation. While utilizing the naked female form as a stand-in for other animals is a common tactic, there is a growing trend among some organizations to pull on more insidious themes in pornography to resonate with a sex-saturated society.

Consider the "I'd Rather Go Naked Than" ad campaign featuring Alexandra Burke. The advertisement itself is rather standard for PETA, but the promotional language is rather disturbing:

"I was nervous about posing nude as I've never done it before," she said. "It was uncomfortable initially, but the photographer made me feel relaxed and at ease. Ultimately I love my body, so it was great to do something for such a worthwhile cause."

As pornography becomes more normal in the public sphere, the scripts that used to tantalize are now tolerated. Producers have responded with increasingly shocking material. In the case of PETA, the "I'd Rather Go Naked Than" campaign that launched in the 1990s was initially quite shocking. However, naked women are now ubiquitous even in mainstream media. There is likely pressure to keep these campaigns relevant with more extreme and fetishistic framing.

{"align":"center","id":4499,"sizeSlug":"full","linkDestination":"media"} -->

In Burke's case, the trope of the reluctant, innocent woman whose inner slut is waiting to emerge has been applied by PETA campaigners. This is not at all to slut-shame, but it is clear that the campaign's language aligns with perhaps the most popular sexual script in pornography. It is found in the most viewed genres centering women and girls who are described as virgins, teens, or "barely legal." Although she is clearly uninterested in a sexual exchange, she is persuaded to do so, and, after the act is complete, she indicates that she actually enjoyed participating.

This is a classic "no-means-yes" or "no-means-persuade me" myth that predators use to rationalize violence against women and pornographers use to shock consumers who have built up a tolerance. In both pornography and PETA campaigning, even if a man is not physically present in the scene, the power of the pornographer, media producer, and (patriarchal, male-owned) media, in general, is apparent in the ability to make the woman behave against her will.

Traditional gender norms teach us that women and girls are supposed to play "hard to get" and be innocent, pure, and unwilling.  It is this unwillingness that is eroticized. Rape and sexual domination are exercises in power.

PETA emulates this common pornography trope to titillate, but this tactic comes at the expense of women's dignity. Furthermore, it risks aggravating rape myths that endanger us all. If the Nonhuman Animal rights movement actively contributes to a culture of domination and violence, it is unclear how this will be effective for animal liberation.

 
 

Readers can learn more about sexism in animal rights activism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.
 
Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.