If you present yourself as a feminist, it’s very likely you have been perceived more than once as that person: someone who sucks the joy out of the room and ruins everyone’s mood. To the nuisance of many who see feminists as hysterical spinsters criticizing everything, I intend to burst the bubble of what is considered ‘normal’.  

What we put on our plate is not just food, safe and tucked away from any problematization. We need to further reflect on what we eat and why. We can and should “topple patriarchy with a fork” (Kheel 2004). Feminist studies and animal studies should interact with each other to shed light on the common violence that female bodies undergo, including non-human animals, and to claim veganism as an intersectional feminist practice. Let me just give you some food for thought here.

What about meat eaters?

Vegans or vegetarians are often confronted with a series of assumptions about their beliefs and values, whereas eating animal products is considered normal. Claiming that everyday behaviours carry internalized values is not the same as claiming they carry no values. We may act without a malicious intent while still contributing to a violent system. Eating meat means upholding certain beliefs regarding an animal’s worth: this invisible set of beliefs is what Melanie Joy (2020) calls carnism.

Nobody likes admitting they’re wrong, especially if it means giving up habits. Nevertheless, if we value critical thinking, we should inform ourselves about the values encouraged by our actions. Joy’s description of the three Ns, ‘normal’, ‘natural’, ‘necessary’ used to justify the status quo can be applied to many power structures: it is ‘normal’ to be heterosexual, it is ‘natural’ for a woman to be a traditional wife, it is ‘necessary’ to eat animals.

Isn’t the essence of feminist and gender studies to question societal norms and break down constructs and biases? That is why disrupting the way things have always been can be applied not only to the human sphere, but to that of non-humans as well. The naturalistic fallacy is a reminder that ‘natural’ can’t be used in an argument as a synonym of ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Even if eating meat were natural, it’s not like we are hunting when we buy a pre-packaged hamburger at the supermarket.

Are you an animal lover?

If so, ask yourself why you would never think of eating your cat or dog, but have no problem when it comes to a cow. Food preferences are culturally shaped. The line between animals we consider pets and those we eat varies from culture to culture. This is called selective speciesism. Carnists must end up justifying the killing and consumption of animals, instead of acting shocked when another culture cooks an animal they would usually cuddle with.

Using terms like beef instead of cow and pork instead of pig enforces a consumption that separates what once was a living being from the food on our plate. The way we consume animal derivatives without really thinking about it is exemplified by how frequently carnists are confused by what vegans can and cannot eat.

Oh, so you don’t even eat fish? Why can’t you eat ice cream? What about some honey in your tea?

This process is called opacification: the industry is interested in keeping the process behind the final product as blurry as possible. Food packagings and advertisements, feature idyllic pictures of farms and green grass or cartoonish depictions of smiling and happy animals, serving themselves on a silver plate for human consumption. Is this cognitive dissonance?

Where does your food come from?

Do you know the difference between cage-free and range-free on an egg carton? The latter might mean chickens have a small access to an outdoor area, the first simply indicates they are not in cages: they are most likely kept indoors, in an overcrowded and stressful environment (s. figure 1).

You’ll be surprised to find out how many people believe cows are always producing milk. In reality, they only do so when they are pregnant and have given birth. In mass production, a cow must be constantly artificially impregnated. These animals are exploited in a capitalist process that forces their bodies to produce as much as possible. Once they are no longer of use, they are slaughtered. A capitalist system only allows enough improvements to the living conditions to keep the machine going: the interest is to keep the gain high and the costs low. If you oppose intensive farming and claim to be an ethical carnist, the only coherent way of behaving is to eat mostly vegan when you can’t be 100 % certain of where the product comes from.

What does eating meat have to do with masculinity?

If you’re a man and you’re reluctant in giving up meat, ask yourself if veganism makes you feel like being threatened. The link between masculinity and meat has not gone unnoticed: insults towards vegan men are often aimed at their virility, accusing them of homosexuality. Carol Adams’ The Pornography of Meat provides photographic evidence of the common association between meat and masculinity, as well as the sexualization of animals and the objectification of women’s bodies.

Carnism, much like racism and sexism, is embedded in our society and all around us. We’re consumers who are presented with imageries we are taught to see as normal and to appreciate. These images combine the sexualization of animals with the reification and animalization of women. We feast with our eyes when we see a yogurt ad with a woman engaging in luscious smirks and sensuous poses; we devour images of half-naked showgirls, whose job is to stand still and be pretty.

When survivors of sexual assaults recall feeling like a piece of meat, this widespread metaphor exposes the underlying exploitation of both humans and non-human beings, the process of stripping away any identity from the individual, reduced to someone else’s pleasure. The market is oversaturated with images of dismembered or objectified female bodies, products tested on animals, corpses of the latter sold with a smiling cartoon on the package (s. figure 2). If we deem this treatment of women unacceptable, shouldn’t we oppose violence on animals as well?

A feminist perspective on animal studies

In her novel Tender is the Flesh, Augustina Bazterrica (2020) paints a gruesome picture of a world where cannibalism has been institutionalized due to humanity’s inability to give up meat. A virus has contaminated all animal meat, rendering it inedible. Humans bred for consumption are referred to as “heads”, mirroring the same process of opacification of the current meat industry. Women are used to produce offspring destined to be slaughtered, just like a cow exploited to the brim to produce until their body gives up.

The novel illustrates how the exploitation of women’s bodies is linked to the violence behind animal consumption. Not to be angry enough to fight for a cause is a privilege, but our safety and comfort are temporary illusions at the expense of other living beings. Any attempt to please those who look down on us will not grant us amnesty from being the next in line to be exploited.

Bringing down the Antroparchy

Ethics intellectualism is my weak spot: I always hope that people might change their behaviour after informing themselves on the harm of their actions. Still, I know that this is not always the case. A man weaponizing his incompetence has no interest in discovering the load of domestic work that is vexing his wife, because it serves him well. At the same time, even those who appear to recognize systematic oppression seem to fall short in engaging in actual change. The process of witnessing, which “involves a moment of recognition of non-human animals and require us to rethink our multispecies lifeworlds” (Guenther 2020, 21) is a crucial first step, but hardly the last. Researchers in animal studies often display racist or transphobic biases, while many streams of feminist studies fail to broaden the goal of liberation to non-human beings, calling for a cooperation between the two fields.

Feminist and animal studies can fill the gap by integrating and educating each other in bringing down the Antroparchy, a term that embodies the intersection of patriarchal violence and anthropocentrism. Being an intersectional feminist means engaging in the unpleasant work of deconstructing internalized values and privileges. If a feminist values care and non-exploitation, then carnism violates those principles. All oppression is connected: queer and marginalized groups can build a new alliance with animals because liberation must be for everyone.