But why shouldn’t vegans discuss with non-vegans the latter group’s participation in something that may very well be wrong? Animal ethics, after all, is no different from any other fundamental aspect of morality – using non-humans as means to our ends is either right or wrong. It cannot be a matter of personal or cultural preference any more than basic issues involving humans. After all, no one thinks that human slavery, rape, child molestation, or spousal abuse are matters of personal opinion of preference. To treat the animal issue differently is simply speciesist.

The fact that humans have been exploiting non-humans for a long time – so very long, in fact, that we take it granted as being in the “natural” order of things – does not excuse our continuing to do it. Like scientific truth, our understanding of moral truth is constantly evolving. New evidence and considerations are brought to our attention, calling on us to re-evaluate our assumptions about ourselves and the world we live in. We now know, for instance, that humans can thrive on a plant-based diet, and we have developed acceptable alternatives to animal clothing and fabrics. So to continue to exploit animals is, at this point, to inflict needless violence on animals – something that any reasonable person will agree is undesirable. The onus is on those who participate in senseless violence to justify why they are doing it. We don’t ask non-rapists to explain why they’re abstaining from senseless violence; we shouldn’t ask it of vegans, either.

To frame the discussion in terms of vegans being ‘dogmatic’, ‘fundamentalist’, or ‘vegangelicals’ is to overlook the fact that, unlike religious dogma, veganism – and animal rights – can be defended on rational grounds. And if animal use is unjust, then it would be quite irresponsible for us not to speak out. Those who decry vegans “imposing our morals” on non-vegans rarely stop to think about how their own day-to-day actions impose extreme suffering and death on animals, and extreme degredation on the environment.

Given the pervasiveness of speciesism in our society, and the fact that most people have not had a chance to consider the need for veganism as minimal standard of decency, vegans should avoid judging non-vegans personally. But judging actions is not the same thing as judging people. The whole “please don’t judge me” way of looking at this is a thinly-veiled, narcissistic attempt to divert attention from what’s really at stake in the issue – massive violence being inflicted on vulnerable, non-human individuals who, like us, will never know or experience anything more precious than this life, here and now.

 All hens used for egg-laying – including backyard and so-called ‘free-range’ hens – begin their lives at a place called a hatchery.

When birds are bred into existence for egg-laying at these places, half of them are born male. Of no use to the egg industry, and unable to grow fast enough to be profitable for meat (another breed of birds, known as ‘broilers’, are used for that purpose), the roosters are separated from their sisters and are immediately killed. The most common methods of killing include grinding up their bodies, or dumping them – still alive and conscious – into giant trash cans, where they are left to starve and/or suffocate.

Roosters (male chicks), of no use to the egg industry, are ‘discarded’ as trash, left to starve and/or suffocate.

For every egg-laying hen in existence, there is a male rooster who was brought into the world, only to be immediately deprived of life.

In many ways, the culling of male chicks at hatcheries vividly illustrates what is wrong with our relationship with non-humans. The prevailing social and legal norms surrounding non-humans are such that their lives do not have any inherent value; they only have economic value. Their lives are only worth the money they can rake in – for us. When there is no profit to be made from allowing them to live, we immediately ‘discard’ of them, like dirty napkins.

Use

The domestic chicken is a direct descendent of a bird known as the Red Junglefowl, believed to have originated from Southeast Asia.

Unlike the Red Junglefowl, who only lays a few eggs per year, domestic hens have been bred by humans to lay close to 300 (unfertilized) eggs per year. For a hen, laying an unfertilized egg is the biological equivalent of a human women menstruating – it’s what their bodies do in the absence of pregnancy. Because the normal female body (within a particular age bracket) is supposed to be ready to conceive, and because conception would require passing on nutrients to the zygote/fetus/baby, the female body is continuously burdened with additional nutrition that, in the absence of conception, is then “released” (via menstruation or laying an unfertilized egg). For example, human women of reproductive age require 18mg of iron daily, compared to men (and females of non-productive age), who only need 8mg daily. Extra iron is required to make up for what’s lost each month.

Just as a heavy menstrual flow would present a burden on the health of a human woman, so too does the astronomically high egg-laying rate present a burden on the health of hens. Calcium in particular seems to be lost from the high rate of egg-laying, which might explain why poor bone health is common.

This dilemna – our desire to get as many eggs as possible vs. the hens’ health and physical autonomy – is a classical example of the problem with animal use and domestication in general. All of our uses of animals – however “humane” – necessarily involve trading away their interests (no matter how vital) for our gain. Domestication is a social contract for which animals do not sign up and in which we force them to exist in a perpetual state of vulnerability. Unlike human children, who eventually grow up and become autonomous, ‘domesticated’ animals are stuck in a permanent state of dependence upon us. At any and every moment, they have to hope that we have their interests in mind – because they don’t have a lot of say if we don’t. We then go on to harm and exploit them for various purposes.

The bodies of non-humans do not exist for the use and gratification of humans. We cannot justify ‘domesticating’ and using the bodies of vulnerable animals for our gain, any more than we can justify sexually abusing children. Just as there is no way ”just” or “compassionate” way to molest children, there is no “non-abusive” way to exploit vulnerable animals for human gain. 

If you look after rescued hens, do them a favour and crack open their own eggs in front of them – they will eat them! Eating their own eggs allows hens to re-gain many of the nutrients that their bodies lose through being forced to lay so many eggs in the first place. Us (humans) eating their eggs – even from backyard-type situations – is problematic because it deprives them of nutrients that they would benefit from.

Treatment

Although better treatment would not resolve the basic problem of using non-humans as means to our ends, the reality is that all egg ‘production’ – including ‘free-range’, ‘cage-free’, etc – involves torturing hens.

The reason is simple: animals are economic commodities. Treating them better – by giving them lots of space, access to the outdoors, etc – would cost a lot of money. In a world of 7 billion hungry humans, there is simply no affordable way to ‘produce’ enough eggs while treating hens ‘nicely’.

The most common method of ‘producing’ eggs is the battery-cage system, where the hens are kept in wire mesh cages. Given the equivalent of a notebook-sized piece of paper on which to live out their entire lives, extreme psychological stress from over-crowding often leads to pecking, fighting, and even cannibalism. Feet and heads often get stuck in between the wires of the cages, causing many birds to die slowly of starvation or thirst. A lack of exercise, combined with the drain of laying an obscene number of eggs, often leads to frail bone health and even osteoporosis.

Hens crowded into battery cages. Note the frail bones and feather loss, brought about by physical deprivation and heavy laying demands.

Alternatives to the battery-cage – such as cage-free or free-range systems – are nothing more than marketing labels, and do not confer welfare benefits for animals. Cage-free egg ‘production’, for example, involves cramming hundreds of thousands of birds into a giant shed. Individual cages are replaced with one giant cage, and the over-crowding is every bit as bad. Fighting and cannibalism are prevalent, and the lack of space means that birds piss, crap, and step all over one another.

‘Free-range’ is also a meaningless label. There is no legally agreed upon (or enforceable) definition of ‘free-range’. In fact, eggs marketed as ‘free-range’ involve violence and exploitation identical to conventional methods:

Slaughter

The vegetarian myth – that milk and eggs don’t result in killing – is just that. Like all ‘farm’ animals, egg-laying hens are on death row. They are kept alive only as long as it is profitable to keep them alive. When the cost of feeding them out-grows the benefit derived from their egg ‘production’ (always at a fraction of their natural lifespan), they are slaughtered.

Conclusion

Most people already accept the basic ideas that should lead them – on their own – to veganism. We all agree that it’s wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering and death on animals. But eating animals and animal products (or wearing, using them, etc) is not necessary:

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”

Indeed, we all accept that animals are somebodies, as opposed to somethings.

The breeding and use of hens for egg-laying, with all that it involves (compromised health, suffering, and death), is a violation of their right to bodily autonomy. It necessarily involves treating sentient beings as if they were objects – something that goes against the moral norms that most of us claim to accept. Veganism bridges the moral disconnect by taking to heart the notion that animals are somebodies as opposed to somethings.

The good news is that, in the 21st century, you can have your vegan cake and eat it, too. You don’t need eggs to make delicious cakes, cookies, and cupcakes!

Other traditional dishes can also be made without eggs:

Vegan Zucchini Frittata

Scrambled Tofu

Mini Crustless Tofu Quiches

Holiday Nog

~

If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. If it’s wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering and death on animals, then – by definition – we can’t justify eating, wearing, or using animals and animal products for our taste buds, convenience, sense of habit, etc.

“Veganism isn’t about giving anything up or losing anything. It is about gaining the peace within yourself that comes from embracing non-violence and refusing to participate in the exploitation of the vulnerable. Veganism is not a ‘sacrifice’. It is a joy.” – Gary L. Francione

“I’m actually pretty sick of people uncritically buying into the fatuous New Age edict of “thou shalt not judge”, which dishonestly or confusedly conflates judgment of actions with judgment of people…

The “don’t judge” injunction is usually just a knee-jerk way of trying to shut down any kind of discussion which is too confronting. It attempts to divert attention to shaming the person who is pointing out a moral wrong, such as animal use, rather than confront the moral wrong itself. When we stop making judgments about right and wrong actions, we are really in deep trouble and have totally lost out moral compass. Some behaviours are simply *better*, morally, than others. If this fact happens to upset the comfort zone of people who wish to persist in a stage of stunted moral relativism, so what? A moral life isn’t about being comfortable. Veganism as a moral choice really is *better* than animal use. If that statement makes you feel uncomfortable, perhaps there’s good reason to feel uncomfortable, i.e. maybe that’s the voice of conscience and should be heeded.

The very idea of “thou shalt not judge” is itself a judgement! It’s saying that no judgments are allowed except for my judgement that you should not judge. It’s very controlling and repressive. Moral relativism breaks down instantly when any individual is confronted with the threat or actuality of harm to themselves or those they love. Then, there’s no doubt in their minds that some behaviours should be condemned absolutely as wrong. And… no-one, not even the most committed moral relativist or New-Ager, thinks that rape, assault or murder is ever OK when it comes to humans. So to try to justify these things for non-humans on the basis of non-judgmentalism is just speciesism.

To frame the issue in terms of everyone being “on their own journey” is another way of distracting attention away from the animals and towards ourselves. It attempts to put a romantic gloss on something that’s very ugly. It’s not about *us* and our journey; it’s about *them*, the billions of sentient beings who are enduring unimaginable suffering because of our choices. Some journeys, those that inflict suffering and death on others, should never be made.”

- Linda McKenzie

“the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently”

In other words, discrimination simply means treating certain things differently.

When we discern between various categories, we need some basis on which to do so. If I go to the clothing store and buy a warm acrylic sweater rather than a light T-shirt, I probably have a reason for doing so. Perhaps my discrimination between warm and light clothing is based on the observation that it is currently mid-winter, and that warm clothing is better suited to my needs.

Discrimination on the basis of certain criteria can become problematic when the criteria in question is irrelevant. If I am on the board of admissions for a university, which criteria will I use to decide whether or not you should be admitted? If I use your marks as the basis for my decision, then that is relevant discrimination. Your academic achievement (or lack thereof) is relevant as to whether or not you deserve to be admitted. If, on the other hand, I choose to deny you admission because you are a girl, or becuase I don’t like your religion, then that is irrelevant discrimination – which is wrong. Your gender and religious beliefs have nothing to do with whether or not you deserve to be admitted.

Prejudicial discrimination, then, is the use of irrelevant criteria to deny (wholly or partially) membership in the moral community. Racism uses race; sexism uses gender; homophobia uses sexual orientation, etc.

Speciesism: Discrimination on the Basis of Species

Non-humans are not similar to humans in every respect. For example, they cannot use human language, or make informed choices about which political candidate is better suited to running the country. So there is nothing irrational or prejudicial about denying them the ‘right’ to an education, or the ‘right’ to vote.

Like us, however, non-humans are sentient, or subjectively aware. They are individuals (somebodies as opposed to somethings) with a sense of self and a capacity for suffering. If I kick a pig in the stomach, he or she will feel (and react to) the pain with the understanding that the pain is being imposed on him or her personally – that the pain is not happening out there somewhere. Whatever other characteristics he or she does or does not have, a sentient being, by definition, has an interest in not being subjected to violence. Sentience is therefore the only relevant characteristic when it comes to the capacity to be harmed.

Our current relationship with non-humans is predicated on the assumption that they are resources existing for our use. This allows us to disregard any and all non-human interests (no matter how vital) for any and all human interests (no matter how trivial). From the moment that we breed them into existence, to the various ways in which we rob them of basic comfort and autonomy throughout their short and miserable lives, to the final moment, when we sentence them to pre-mature death - the ‘domesticated’ non-human is stuck living his or her life on someone else’s terms.

The ownership of another sentient being is problematic precisely because it requires that a someone be treated as if they were a something. If I owned you, then every decision about your life (and death) would be made by me, to suit my own purposes. If I felt that whipping you would stimulate you to work harder, I could whip you to my heart’s content. If I decided that it would benefit me to have you constantly giving birth, I could have you raped repeatedly. If I decided that the cost of keeping you alive outweighed the benefit I derived from your work productivity, I could feed you to a bunch of hungry tigers. Of course, if I wanted to, I could also choose to be a ’kind’ or ‘merciful’ slave owner. But the economics of slavery (in both the human and non-human contexts) militates strongly in favour of brutal treatement – and more importantly, ‘gentler’ treatment would not resolve the basic injustice of being owned by someone else, which is what allows them to decide how to make the best use of their property in the first place.

Non-humans may not have a concept of ‘slavery’ or ‘exploitation’, but that is irrelevant. Because they are sentient, our ownership and exploitation of them, which involves torture and killing, harms them in various ways. The principle of equal consideration requires that we give equal weight to equal interests. Every sentient life is a self-contained world of subjective observations and emotions – an individual who cares about what happens to him or her, and to whom (by virtue of his or her sentience) torture and death (which are integral components of non-human slavery) are harmful. Granted equal sentience, the species of an individual is no a more a relevant criterion on which to deny relevant interests (such as the interest in not being owned by someone else) than is race, gender, social class, sexual orientation, etc. 

Killing Animals vs. Making Them Suffer

An oft-repeated fable in the speciest mythology is that, because non-humans lack human-like cognition, a death is not harmful for them in the same way that it is for a human. A comfortable life and relatively quick and painless death, it is said, would constitute a “humane” or “non-abusive” use of animals. Unfortunately, this idea is mis-guided on a number of levels.

First of all, the legal system of just about every country on the planet is based on a person-property dichotomy. There are moral persons (somebodies), whose interests are procted via ‘rights’, and there is property (somethings), which has no value other than its market value to its owners. Putting any sentient group in the ‘property’ category will always result in the interests of that group being traded away at the slightest whims of those in the ‘persons’ category. That fact, combined with the pressure on agribusiness to mass produce affordable animal products for the multitudes, means that our treatment of non-humans – even in the ‘happiest’ of humane delusions – will always amount to conditions that can only be described as a Descartian nightmare.

But even if, contrary to the fact, it were possible to use and kill animals painlessly, such use would still harm them. A sentient being can interact with the world around him or her, and have subjective experiences that he or she personally enjoys. Even in the absence of philosophical notions of ‘self’ or about what it means to be alive, depriving a sentient being of the opportunity to continue living deprives them of their interest in continuing to seek experiences that are personally enjoyable to them. A painless death is a harm to any sentient being, in the same way that going blind would deprive someone with eye-sight of their interest in continuing to see. Granted equal sentience, all animals (human or non-human) value their own lives immeasurably, even if no one else values us. For the purpose of being treated as someone else’s resource, or being killed, we are therefore all equal.

Lastly, it should be noted that our domestication and dominion over non-humans – even if it could be made painless and did not involve killing – is fundamentally abusive and exploitative at every step. We breed genetically-manipulated animals into existence and force them to live in a state of permanent vulnerability (they could not survive independently in the wild) so that we can exploit them. For example, we have bred sheep to have unnaturally wrinkly skin (which is bad for their health) so that they will “produce” more wool per animal. We have bred hens to lay a hundred times more eggs than they would in nature, even though laying an egg depletes her body of nutrients. Although non-human slavery involves torture and killing, the ownership and exploitation of vulnerable sentients is itself abusive and inhumane. Talking about “humane” or “non-abusive” animal use is like talking about “compassionate” or “non-abusive” child molestion - an oxymoron if there ever was one.

On Kinship

The claim that all sentient beings have equal inherent value is likely to raise some eyebrows. Surely, if I were in a lifeboat and could only save one of either a family member or a non-human, I would choose my family member over the non-human?

That is, of course, a no-brainer. In a situation of genuine conflict, I would choose my mother over a chicken. Although killing a sentient being is always problematic, no choice made in such a scenario could ever be perfect. I could only save one individual, and I have kinship ties with my mother that I do not share with the chicken. However, if the chicken were replaced by a human that I didn’t know, I would still choose my mother over him or her. Most people, if they are honest, will admit to choosing their mother (or child, spouse, etc) over ten other humans.

If, however, a decision had to be made about whether to use my mother or a chicken (or another human being) as someone else’s resource, then my personal bias would become irrelevant. The fact that I prefer my mother over someone else (whether that ‘someone’ is human or non-human) does not make it OK to kill and eat the second party, or to use them in a painful bio-medical experiment. Like my mother, they value their own lives immeasurably, irrespective of whether or not anyone else values them. For the purpose of being treated as some else’s resource, all sentient beings are therefore equal.

Let’s look at another example. Suppose that I am in a lifeboat, and I can only save one of either an elderly person, or a young child. No choice made in such a scenario could be perfect – someone would have to die. All other things being equal, I might decide to save the child, given that he or she theoretically has a longer life ahead of them than the elderly person. But even if I have a policy of choosing young people over the elderly in such scenarios (for precisely that reason), it would not make it OK to kill elderly people and make leather jackets out of them, or to use them as unconsenting subjects in biomedical experiments.

If I am in a lifeboat scenario and have to choose between a human and a non-human, and I do not know (or have emotional ties) to either one of them, I can choose either one of them. I may nevertheless choose the human over the non-human because I decide, being human myself, that I know what death would mean for the human in a more accute way than that of the non-human. But even if that were the case, it would not say anything about the (im)morality of treating non-humans as resources for humans in non-lifeboat scenarios.

The institution of non-human slavery fabricates unnecessary conflicts between humans and non-humans. We breed animals into existence to use as our resources – we drag them into the lifeboat scenario - and then we sit around scratching our heads, wondering what morality requires of us. Hint: morality requires that we give equal weight to equal interests. It requires that we recognize the right of every sentient individual to not be the property of another. The recognition of this one basic right would lead to the abolition of all animal use.

Towards the abolition of non-human slavery 

In his book, Introduction to Animal Rights, lawyer and animal ethicist Gary Francione introduces a character called Simon the Sadist, who enjoys blow-torching dogs. Simon is otherwise a nice, law-abiding guy; he just has this kink. He has no real reason for doing this, other than his personal enjoyment.

Any sane human being on the planet would agree that what Simon is doing is wrong. Why? Because we all agree that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals – and that personal enjoyment, convenience, or habit/tradition don’t cut it.

But our uses of animals are not necessary. We don’t need to eat animal products:

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”

We eat, wear, and otherwise exploit animals because we enjoy it, and because it’s convenient and traditional. Anyone who is not a vegan is participating in the unnecessary and killing of animals that, by their own admission, is no different from what Simon does to dogs.

Veganism is the only the rational, coherent response to accepting that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals. More to the point, embracing veganism – not as part of a 9-5 flexitarian lifestyle, but as a moral and political act - represents the principle of abolition applied to your own life. It is your recognition that animals are somebodies rather than somethings – and that they should be treated as such. It is the refusal to participate in violence against the vulnerable.

The road to abolition is paved with veganism. Go vegan, and educate those around you in creative, non-aggressive ways about why they should do the same. They will convince and influence others, who will convince and influence more people yet, and so on.

Together, we can change the world.

In his book, 1984, George Orwell depicts the struggles of one man - Winston Smith - who dares to remain free in spite of the relentless propaganda and brainwashing that his dystopian society subjects him to. In one part of the book, he remarks:

Always the eyes [of Big Brother] watching you and the voice enveloping you. Alseep or awake, working or eating, indoors or out of doors, in the bath or in bed – no escape. Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull.

Although nobody reading these words is likely to be living in the kind of totalitarian society depicted in 1984, virtually every human on the planet has been every bit as aggressively subjected to indoctrination in the ideology of violence as Winston Smith was in the ideology of his Orwellian society. The human race is presently intoxicated on the drug of violence, relishing in a sort of drunken stupor that fetishizes oppression, or worse, is indifferent to it.

When we go against the grain by taking a principled stand on anything, we often encounter hostility and social ostracism. No doubt the sober idea of peace is threatening and perhaps even downright offensive to many. But it is not because some take offense at the truth that it ceases to be true, or that we need not be every bit as ardent in embodying it.

All sentient beings – regardless of their sex, race, social class, sexual orientation, or species – care about their lives, and have an interest in not being subjected to gratuitous violence. Speciesism is wrong because, like sexism, racism, and other forms of irrational prejudice, it uses an irrelevant criterion (in this case, species) to deny membership in the moral community. And while all forms of discrimination are unjust, speciesism is particularly problematic because it is used to justify the most hideous violence against the most vulnerable among us. Bred into existence for the sole purpose of being exploited as chattel, ‘domesticated’ non-humans exist in a social contract in which they did not sign up and which allows (nay, demands) that their every interest – including the interest in life itself – be traded away for some frivolous human benefit. We do things to non-humans (under the most “humane” of circumstances) that constitute an unimageinable degree of torture.  

The institution of non-human slavery is not only ubiquitous, but it is also in many ways the most radical form of injustice on the planet – the one that legitimizes all of the others. Genocidal maniacs speak of ‘slaughtering’ nations ‘like pigs’. The word ‘chattel’ (as in, ‘chattel property’) even shares an etymological root with ‘cattle’, perhaps explaining why human slavery did not proliferate until after we started ‘domesticating’ non-humans. Our violence against non-human animals serves as a model for the most vile and barbaric forms of violence against human animals.

But the pervasive and deeply entrenched extent of our violence and subjugation over (human and non-human) animals is rivaled only by our capacity for non-violence. Indeed, the ability to make moral choices is arguably the only meaningful difference between us and other animals. It is what makes us human.

When we embrace ethical veganism, we are not simply expressing a lifestyle preference, or reducing animal cruelty. Veganism is a principled rejection of the commodity status of non-humans; a lived protest against massive violence committed against the most vulnerable among us. In a world so intoxicated on hierarchy that the infliction of violence is promoted – or worse, met with indifference - our individual veganism resonates with a simple yet profound truth: that might does not make right. Your ability to embody that truth, and to live it to fruition is the highest expression of not only your own humanity, but also of your unshakeable ability to remain free in a world that has done everything it can to take that freedom away from you.

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” – Albert Camus

So be loud and proud, and shout it from the rooftops. Wear your non-violence on your sleeve, and never apologize for refusing to co-operate with injustice - for not only is it the right thing to do, but it is also social change on the individual level. It is your individual endorsement of – and demands for – a different world. As long as there is even a single ethical vegan on the planet, the intoxicated haze of violence will always have at least that one wall of sobriety against which it will invariably find itself smashing into head-first.

Social attitudes come and go, like waves passing on the surface of water. But underneath their transient rise and fall lies the timeless and unshakeable truth of non-violence. One day, when we near the end of our lives and we look back, it will not be our not having chased after enough fleeting ripples on the surface of eternity that we will come to regret. If we regret anything whatsoever, it will be that in the face of radical injustice, we stood by and did nothing.

According to Statistics Canada, the average woman still only makes 71% of what the average male makes, and that gap has not changed substantially in the past decade. The overwhelming majority of spousal abuse victims – 8 out of every 10 – are women, and 1 in every 4 women in North America can expect to be sexually assaulted as some point in her life.

Although men who commit sexual assault are in the minority, their actions occur within the larger context of a culture that relentlessly commodifies the female body at every possible turn. From bikini contests to strip clubs to the use of supermodels to “sell” consumer goods, the message is clear: the female body exists for the sexual gratification of men. Thinking, breathing, feeling human beings are reduced, in our consumer culture, to a means to someone else’s ends. This hypersexualization of our bodies creates a tremendous amount of pressure on us to look and act sexy all the time, because we are told (implicitly and explicitly) that our primary measure of worth lies in our ability to please men.

The idea that some bodies exist for the gratification of others is, of course, obscenity. Yet all of us – male or female, feminist or not – subscribe to that very idea, not only through our constant pornification of the female body, but also through something else, as well: our consumption of animals and animal ‘products’.

By virtue of their sentience, all animals – human or not – care about their lives, and wish to avoid suffering and death. Despite having no nutritional need to consume animal ‘products’, and for the sole sake of our gastronomical pleasure, we sentence 665 million ‘farm’ animals (not counting fish) to miserable lives and hideous, premature deaths every year in this country alone. As we pause on this day to challenge the obscenity of men presuming ownership of the bodies of women, how many of us will challenge the equally obscene (and mutually reinforcing) notion that the bodies of non-humans exist for the gratification of humans?

When a sense of ownership over someone else’s body is presume from the get-go, it results in a power balance that invariably favours the ruling group at the expense of the disadvantaged. We’ve all heard of cases where men have walked out of sexual encounters feeling that all was fair and consensual, while their female partners were left feeling abused. A possible conclusion to be drawn here is that at least some men have a sense of entitlement when it comes sex, acquired over a life-time of indoctrination that equates masculinity with aggression and power – the latter being defined, in our patriarchal culture, as the capacity for violence and subjugation. And that’s exactly why it’s absurd to claim, as some do, that women can empower themselves by participating in their own commodification. Sure, the woman at the strip club ‘chose’ to work there. But that ‘choice’ was made in the context of a culture in which women do not have the economic resources that men have; in which she was taught, from a young age, that it is her job to please men; and in which the men who pay to watch her degrade herself have been taught, from a young age, that they are entitled to sexual privilege over women. Victim-approved exploitation is still exploitation.

The same thing applies to our relationship with non-humans. “Humane” exploitation – which is a misnomer, because all animal use involves unspeakable violence – is a delusion that ignores the structural dimension of said exploitation. That is, ‘domesticated’ non-humans are genetically manipulated freaks of nature who exist in a permanent state of vulnerability. Bred into existence for their utility to their human owners, non-human individuals – who are nothing more than chattel property in the eyes of the law – are continuously tormented and abused for the duration of their short and miserable lives, right up to the moment of slaughter. That last moment – at which point we rob them of their lives – amounts to a brutality that no words could condemn strongly enough. The idea that hideous violence inflicted upon vulnerable beings can be reconciled with anything that can be coherently described as “humane” is sheer fantasy. Along with the ‘choice’ of women to self-commodify in a patriarchal society, or the ‘choice’ of workers in a capitalist society to toil in an exploitative work environment, “humane” non-human slavery seems to be the latest in a series of moral delusions serving to reassure an oppressing group of the supposed legitimacy of their oppression over others. 

The connection between patriarchy and non-human exploitation becomes especially obvious if we look at the use of female animals. Hens, who would only lay a few eggs a year in nature, have been genetically manipulated by humans to lay several hundred per year. Since laying an egg depletes nutrients from her body, her utility to humans is dependent on the extent to which her female reproductive system can be exploited, and her body harmed. And once her productiveness ends at a fraction of her natural lifespan, she is slaughtered.

Similarly, ‘dairy’ cows are exploited for their ability to lactate. Because cows, like all mammals, need to give birth before they can lactate, they are restrained annually on something called a “rape rack”, where they are artificially inseminated. When their baby is born, he or she is taken away, and the mother’s milk that was meant for that baby is instead stolen by humans. The horrific grief that this separation causes both mother and calf, and the agony of the aggressive milkings that follow, are far beyond anything to which mere words could do justice. Interestingly, this milk – meant to help a calf gain several hundred pounds in the span of a few months – has a high fat and hormone content, which is linked to increased estrogenicity and breast cancer tumor growth in women. We exploit the breasts of bovine women to obtain a “product” that harms the breasts of human women.

If you’re a feminist, and you’re not a vegan – why not? If you’re against exploiting the vulnerable, and you’re not a vegan – why not? If you care about justice and non-violence, and you’re not a vegan – why not?

Condemning gratuitous violence against a disempowered group is easy to do when it’s someone else that’s doing it. But if we’re ever going to sort out the chaotic mess that is our world, the onus is on every single one of us to re-evaluate and ultimately reject the “might makes right” paradigm of violence and domination that we have come to accept as being “in the natural order of things”.  All forms of injustice are related and mutually re-enforcing. As long as we tolerate oppression of any kind, we will necessarily be tolerating – and re-enforcing – oppression of every kind.

This December 6th, say “no” to violence against women by rejecting the notion that some bodies exist for the gratification of others. Say “no” to patriarchy by rejecting patriarchal violence at its root.

Got feminism? Go vegan.

As long-time fans of yours, we would like to thank you for your participation in the struggle against Lord Voldemort, and, by extension, your struggle against the ‘might makes right’ paradigm for which he stood. Your firm and unrelenting stance in favour of social justice has invited us (muggles) to examine the goings-on of our own world. As fans of you personally and even bigger fans of social justice in general, however, we would like to draw your attention to what we feel has been a recurring blind spot throughout your life thus far: your inconsistency in opposing unjust exploitation.

Beginning with the appearance of Dobby in your second year at Hogwarts, we are introduced to ‘house-elves’: domesticated elves that wizards (humans) exploit as forced servants. To the extent that house-elves are forced to do labour for which they are not compensated, they are, in effect, slaves. Robbed of all and any power (they cannot be ‘wand-carriers’, for instance), the domestication and subsequent exploitation of elves is so deeply ingrained into the social landscape of the wizarding world that both wizards and house-elves alike take it for granted as the ‘natural’ order of things. Centuries (if not millennia) of servitude and slavery have bred the independence out of house-elves. Indeed, the proper house-elf is so docile and subservient that he will do anything his master asks of him – no matter how harmful it is to the elf.

Yet even as you and Dumbledore (among others) acknowledge the injustice of elf slavery, you fail to see your own complicity in non-human slavery elsewhere: along with Dumbledore, you and other well-intentioned wizards and witches wear wool that comes from exploited sheep. That is, the domestic sheep is an animal that, through selective breeding, has become entirely reliant upon human control for survival. Like all domesticated non-humans, the sheep has evolved, over several millennia of human subjugation, to be so utterly at our mercy that they are no longer capable of independently living natural lives in the wild. And like wizards, who take advantage of the docility of house-elves in order to exploit the latter group, we all (warlock and muggle alike) take advantage of domestic animals (including sheep) in order to exploit them for our purposes – even when it is harmful for them that we do so.

Humans have bred sheep to have unnaturally wrinkly skin and thereby have excess amounts of fleece on their body, creating an artificial ‘need’ for shearing – an activity that itself is often stressful and traumatic for the animals. But by virtue of being so vulnerable and dependent upon us, domesticated animals, like house-elves, have no choice but to endure any and all use that we make of them. There is something eerie about Dumbledore telling Harry (at the end of your fifth year at Hogwarts) that house-elves deserve more respect (i.e., that we ought not to prey upon the vulnerable simply because we can) when he himself wears wool sweaters in the winter.

One of the defining characteristics of slavery throughout the ages has been the treatment of slaves exclusively as means to somebody else’s ends, with the life and welfare of the slave having no inherent value – a point that was rather artfully illustrated to you just before your fifth year, with the wall display of the severed heads of retired house-elves at the House of Black. Cruel though it may undoubtedly be to rob a sentient being of their life, what use would it be to anyone to keep alive a slave that is no longer useful? Property, after all, is that which has only external or extrinsic value. Yet this reality seems not to perturb you too terribly much, for, as you preach about elf rights at the Hogwarts breakfast table, give nary a thought to the dairy cows upon whose exploitation was obtained the butter you spread on your toast!

Of course, like all mammals, dairy cows must give birth in order to lactate – a fact that dairy farmers take advantage of by artificially inseminating their cows annually. When the calves are born, they are quickly taken away from their mothers (an act that results in tremendous stress and trauma for mother and calf alike), and the milk that was intended for them is instead stolen by humans. Her daughters will replace her as milk machines, and her sons (because they can neither lactate nor produce offspring) will be sent prematurely to the slaughterhouse, where they will be ‘processed’ into veal. After repeated cycles of traumatic pregnancy, forced lactation and bereavement, the ‘spent’ mother will likewise be sent off to slaughter. The life and welfare of the dairy cow, then, like that of the house elf, has no inherent value and is not taken into consideration beyond her utility as a milk machine, even though such treatment invariably deprives her of the liberty, comfort, and autonomy which she, like all sentient beings, so very desires. Once again, the injustice of treating a sentient ‘other’ as our property is made clear. How ironic, then, that in decrying the enslavement of elves, you seem to miss this crucial connection and do not also renounce the exploitation of all sentient non-humans!

In addition to the economic and legal similarities shared by all unjust institutions, elf slavery and animal exploitation share yet another characteristic: the social psychology under which they are both perpetuated. House elves, after centuries (millennia?) of servitude and brainwashing, have lost all semblance of independence and desire for autonomy, taking for granted their property status as ‘normal’ and even desirable. Wizards and witches, who benefit  from such discrimination, often point to the contentment of elves as ‘evidence’ that such practices are not unjust. How could it be ‘slavery’ when the elves themselves like it?

It is interesting to note that when Ron makes this very observation in your forth year, you immediately snap back, “That’s because they’re uneducated and brainwashed!”  In other words, you can see that the oppression of elves is far more complicated than simply determining whether or not they are ‘happy’ or complicit in their exploitation.

The past decade or so has witnessed the growth of the ‘humane’ animal exploitation movement: free-range eggs, organic milk, and other ‘feel-good’ labels. Putting aside the fact that these words are marketing schemes which do not translate into better welfare standards for animals, the reality is that even if it were possible to exploit animals ‘humanely’, it would not resolve the basic question of what justification we have for using them as means to our ends in the first place. Like the complicity of house elves in their own slavery, ‘humane’ animal exploitation fails to take into consideration the subjugation and violence upon which our entire relationship with domestic non-humans is based upon in the first place. Whether it’s the complicity of house elves in their own slavery, the ‘humane’ exploitation of domestic non-humans, the ‘choice’ of workers in a capitalist society to toil in demoralizing factory conditions, or any other unjust institution about which we lie to ourselves, such schemes ignore the structural inequalities that render ‘choice’ and ‘happy exploitation’ meaningless. True justice, then, comes not from putting a happy-faced sticker on exploitation, but from dismantling the underlying hierarchal structures that create and perpetuate injustice in the first place.

Though your early efforts to raise awareness about the plight of house elves are met with ridicule, at least some witches and wizards recognize that something is fundamentally wrong with the whole ‘house elves as property’ paradigm. Those who took Dumbledore’s (and Harry’s) side in the struggle against Lord Voldemort recognized that the whole hierarchal paradigm of wizard over muggle, man over creature was fundamentally unjust.

Likewise, we all (wizard, witch or muggle) agree that it is wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ harm on animals. Yet our most numerically significant uses of animals (e.g. for food) cannot be deemed as ‘necessary’ under any coherent definition of that word. The American Dietetic Association (one of the largest nutritional science organizations in the world) states:

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”

The best justification that we have for inflicting suffering and death on billions of sentient non-humans is that they taste good, and that is convenient and habitual for us to do so. There is no necessity involved. Like well-intentioned wizards who maintain that house elves ‘enjoy’ being enslaved, we fail to take our own moral convictions to their logical conclusion: we continue to eat, wear, and use non-humans when it is not necessary for us to do so, and we tell ourselves all sorts of stories about why it is supposedly alright.

As devoted fans of yours, and earnest seekers of social justice and non-violence, we would like to make an offer: we ask that you consider going vegan. Veganism means that one no longer eats, wears, or otherwise exploits non-human animals for human benefit. More than a matter of diet or lifestyle, veganism is a principled rejection of the property status of non-human animals – a lived form of protest against massive violence committed against the most vulnerable among us. Being vegan is incredibly easy to do, and it is the minimum standard of decency that we owe to non-humans in light of our assessment that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on them.

Living one’s life as a vegan and committing oneself to the abolition of animal exploitation is neither misanthropic nor myopic. Speciesism (discrimination on the basis of species) is inextricably intertwined with various other forms of violence, and like house-elf exploitation, non-human exploitation is itself symptom to a hierarchal world in which injustice takes on myriad forms. As long as we are slaughtering billions of defenseless beings simply because we can, we are not going to treat our fellow humans any better, and any talk of ‘justice’ or ‘world peace’ will remain just that – empty words in the wind.

Intelligent and well-intentioned though you undoubtedly may be, you too seem to fall victim to the confused and clouded thinking that often comes as a result of living in a violent world. Perhaps, had you stepped back and looked at the picture more clearly, you would have made the connection: if it is wrong for wizards to exploit magical non-humans, then it is wrong for all of us (muggle and warlock alike) to domesticate and exploit sentient non-humans as a general matter.

We hope that this letter finds you in good health, and that we have stimulated you into thinking critically about a serious social justice issue. We invite you to visit us online to learn more:

www.abolitionistapproach.com

          Sincerely,

The Abolitionist Animal Rights Movement

For those who may not know, a ‘pensieve’ is a fictional object – appearing in the ‘Harry Potter’ series – used to collect and store thoughts and memories. Witches and wizards use pensieves to set aside certain brain waves, in order to be able to retrieve them later and examine them objectively.

The purpose of this blog is to present a collection of thoughts, quotes, essays, and other musings that dare to demand a just and non-violent world. Such a world is not an unattainable fantasy;  on the contrary, it can be an inevitability, if only each and every single one of us is willing to accept nothing less.

Indeed, when we cast off the delusions of hierarchy and violence that society has taught us to accept as ‘natural’ and normal, we find that it already exists – in our hearts. It is our essential nature.

Welcome home.