Veganism, rights of animals, rights of women, pornography

Quote from https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach
An email I received: "I am a vegan but I have to confess that I like to look at porn. I read something where you said that porn was a form of violence. But if I don't hurt anyone or do anything wrong, what's the harm and why is it violence?"

My reply: I assume you are a vegan because you have recognized that it's morally wrong to consume nonhumans. Well, pornography is nothing more than the consumption of other humans; personhood is erased or ignored and only body parts are present. Pornography commodifies others. This is especially a problem with porn involving women because it's a patriarchal society that encourages men to think about women as commodities anyway.

I still remember that when, in 1984, I made this analogy (consuming animals and consuming women) to my students, many thought it was really far out. (And some feminists, notably Marti Kheel, were already talking about these issues back then and she must have really gotten criticized for being out there!) Many still think that the analogy does not work but I disagree. Our thinking of other humans as non-persons, as things, starts, as you might guess, in our heads. And I simply cannot believe that consuming pornography does not lead to thinking of others as things and that thinking of others as things does not lead to treating them as things even if you don't actually assault them. Remember, all physical violence starts in the mind.

Please understand that I am not in favor of government censorship. Governments always do a bad job when they start trying to determine what we can read or view. My point is that if we care about equality and nonviolence, we should not consume pornography. It's a moral point, not a legal one.



----------Some comments:



Deborah Garland Mr. F., I'm pleased that you are addressing this so clearly & consistently. There is no level playing field in patriarchy ~ the game is rigged, the deck is stacked, the dice are loaded. Those sentient beings with less voice socially & economically suffer greatly. Vegan abolitionism appears to be a very effective tool for creating needful social change, so that all beings have the opportunity to live free of suffering, free of being the property of another. This is not Pollyanna, & it is possible. Thank you for standing up & sharing this patiently, politely, & clearly on your Facebook Page. I appreciate it very much! 

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Caitlin Ahrens: First, women without economic dependence on men are the exception and not even they have the same sort of choice that most men have. Second, nothing is "innate" about patriarchy. We were gathers before we were hunters. We know about patriarchies and not matriarchies because men write histories. Third, poverty is a problem for everyone. But women who are poor have poverty and sex to deal with, unless they are women of color, in which case they have that too.

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Here's an article about Gail Dines' work that explores why porn threatens our relationships: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography

The truth about the porn industry

www.guardian.co.uk

Gail Dines, the author of an explosive new book about the sex industry, on why pornography has never been a greater threat to our relationships

33 minutes ago · Like

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Lavender Blue: Yes, I agree with the Adams quote you post. I liked "The Sexual Politics of Meat" in many respects. But as I say, the eating animals/consuming women idea was certainly not new with that book and at least several of us (female and male) were talking about this much earlier. Also, and this is not to lay the blame at Adams' door, but Feminists for Animal Rights was pretty late to the party in terms of stepping up and criticizing the sexism in the movement that was starting in the late 1980s. I am not saying that they could have stopped that trend if they had joined those of us who were taking positions against sexism right from the outset, but we may have a better chance. In any event, sexism is a feature of the "movement" these days and it is vile, reactionary nonsense not befitting a movement for social justice. But, in reality, the animal "movement" as it presently stands has nothing to do with social justice. Nothing whatsoever.

Pornography and sexism is morally wrong and hurts women

Good quote by Gary Francione:
A question I received from another academic:

"You argue that pornography is bad and should be abolished. Surely, then, you support censorship?"

My reply:

"I do not support censorship as governments have a bad track record of censoring the wrong things. Moreover, censorship will never change anyone's thinking; it just makes whatever is censored more difficult to get. Having said this, I did, some years ago, support the efforts of people like the late Andrea Dworkin, and others, to make illegal certain sorts of violent pornography (rape porn, torture porn, etc.). I still believe that the world would be *way* better off without that garbage.

My present view is that we need to educate men about why they should not consume pornography. My argument is straightforward and analogous to my position about animal exploitation: If we regard animals as having moral value (as most of us claim we do), then we cannot justify consuming them. Period. Similarly, if we think, as many of us claim to think, that women really are equal to men and that patriarchy is both unjust and unjustifiable, then we cannot justify consuming pornography. Period. Pornography is a primary propaganda tool used by patriarchy to perpetuate the objectification of women and reinforce their second-class citizenship. So if we mean what we say about equality and justice for women, pornography is no longer something we *can* choose to consume. It is no longer a morally defensible option.

Two further points:

First, I anticipate that you will reply and say that I am focused only on pornography depicting women and I am, therefore, using a double standard. That would be wrong. Although I think that all pornography is problematic in that commodifies others, I regard porn depicting women as more problematic and qualitatively so. In a patriarchal society, porn depicting men simply *cannot*, as a matter of social structure, have the same meaning or effect. This situation is similar (although not identical) to racism. In a racist society, racist views held by a minority are not the same as racist views held by the majority in terms of meaning or effect.

Second, I get a great deal of mail--often hostile and angry--from people who claim that participation in the "sex industry," including the production of pornography, can "empower" women. Frankly, I don't think that the "sex industry" does anything to "empower" anyone and I think we need to focus on how patriarchy harms and destroys women, and not on how patriarchy can "benefit" them. I also think that we must recognize that in a patriarchal society, *all* women are commodified to a greater or lesser degree and are offered choices that require that they self-commodify. That is a very great tragedy and a serious injustice."

------

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Ervin Phillips: I would suggest that in a patriarchal society, particularly one that is also racist and classist, the notion of "consent" is far from the simple idea that you seem to think it is. Let me ask you: do you think a poor woman of color in Newark or Detroit who engages in prostitution is "consenting" in any meaningful sense? I sure as hell don't.

 

----

 

 

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Linda McKenzie: My view is that is somewhat similar to asking about where I draw the line on sentience. There may be unclear cases but let's worry about the cases where there is no doubt about sentience. In the porn context, in discussing these issues with men, I have never had a man ask, "well, does this mean that I shouldn't read D.H. Lawrence?" There's soooooooooooooooo much that is clearly porn, let's worry about where porn ends and where literature begins later, especially since we are *not* talking about government censorship but only about voluntary behavior. I am not sure what you mean by "erotica," but one of my concerns is that in a patriarchal society, almost everything we find arousing is linked to hierarchy and that concerns me.

Yesterday at 6:16pm · Like · 5

Sarah K. Woodcock Gary, I agree with your views on pornography. After all, if we reject the commodification of sentient beings, we can't directly participate in their blatant objectification and say we are being morally consistent. Being vegan and being a feminist both necessitate rejecting the products of exploitive systems neither of which deserve our funding.

Nicole Monaghan I agree with your views on pornography. I am friends with a "sex worker" who does not comprehend the reality of internalized sexism and coercion. It's very sad that self-proclaimed feminists uphold to the belief that selling oneself for sex is empowering. I think a lot this confusion stems from current Women's Studies programs in universities, which have entire courses on "sex work" and how we should make the practices safer, etc, rather than abolishing the industries. I think more campaigns need to exist to help young women and men understand how they've internalized sexism, and how it harms them. It's unbelievable how we can get through our entire lives without realizing harmful social forces.