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

Abstract

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

Keywords::

• animal rights
• gender
• objectification
• professionalization
• social movements
• sexualization

Notes

^1. The term ‘Nonhuman Animals’ is capitalized to indicate that these individuals constitute a distinct social group.

^2. Recognizing that language has the power to otherize (Nibert 2002), I have placed disparaging and euphemistic terms in quotation marks. For this same reason, I have insisted on eschewing the term ‘animals’ in favor of ‘Nonhuman Animals’ or ‘other animals.’ Though this encumbers the reading at times, it is my intention to challenge normalized oppression in common language.

^3.http://www.milkgonewild.com/.

^4.http://www.facebook.com/v/10150425905880030.

^5. As of this writing, the PETA.xxx site only contains graphic clips of Nonhuman Animal rights issues and no longer features nude women.

^6. Analogous to the American magazine Cosmopolitan.

^7. This online community frequently overlays sexualized images of women with violence against other animals.

^8. While many female consumers are targeted for their consumption of unethical products, Luke (2007) notes that cosmetics, ‘fur,’ and other items associated with female beauty are actually tied to patriarchy. The ability to purchase these exploitative ‘luxury’ items for women to display is seen as a demonstration of status. Furthermore, women are pressured to consume these products in fulfilling their role as a decorated object of the male gaze.

^9. Luke (2007) notes that while cosmetics marketed to women are far less likely to have been tested on other animals, male consumers are rarely targeted. This is especially troubling given LUSH's explicit desire to target female consumers.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Corey Lee Wrenn

Corey Lee Wrenn is an Instructor in Sociology with Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. She is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Sociology at Colorado State University. She received her BA in Political Science from Virginia Tech in 2005 and her MS in Sociology from Virginia Tech in 2008. Her research interests include social movements and nonhuman animals and society.