write away

Just another WordPress.com site

Animal agriculture: a triumph of marketing over morality

with one comment

I don’t really like the word ‘morality’. Like ‘evil’, its religious overtones just make me uncomfortable. Both words are often used in a way I feel removes culpability and responsibility from humans and places them firmly in the hands of a higher power. But sometimes, the word just fits better. A triumph of marketing over ethics just doesn’t have the same ring to it. But generally, when I say ‘morality’, I mean ‘ethics’. Just like, when I say ‘evil’, I mean reprehensible action/s by a human being. Because let’s face, in this world at least, only humans are truly ‘evil.’

But I digress. Look at this picture of some egg cartons I took in a local supermarket:

Town and Country eggs. What lovely, lush green farmland. Eggs hand-collected by the basketload by the farmer herself. Free, healthy hens roaming around. I think at least one of those chooks is a rooster. The cozy homestead in the background. This image has it all. This is the idyllic country farm many Australians still like to imagine their food comes from.

But look again. Look at the orange front panel.

12 CAGE EGGS.

Cage eggs. Cage. As in eggs taken from chickens (not by the basket-load I assure you) who spend their entire lives in cages. Chickens that look like this:

Battery hens

There are no roosters in those cages. They are disposed of as soon as they are born.

Why do we continue to fall for the advertising lie? Is it because we know, deep down, when we realise the truth, we will have to act on it?

Written by Ruby

July 12, 2012 at 4:04 am

Snow White not much of a feminist after all

leave a comment »

I suspected, going into Snow White and the Hunstman that it likely wouldn’t live up to its promotional bill as a feminist reboot. Gone, we were expected to excitedly believe, is the helpless princess waiting for the kiss of life from her handsome prince and in her place, a serious ass-kicking heroine.

Snow White and the Huntsman promised big and got many feminists excited in the process. Some feminist writers have praised the film for its so-called feminist sensibilities. Time’s Erika Christakis calls it an ‘a triumph of feminist storytelling’ because of its ‘fully dimensional’ female leads.

But does it deliver? Short answer: No. The screenwriters get credit for allowing Snow White (Kristen Stewart), to lead an army into battle against her evil stepmother Ravenna (Charlize Theron), who wants to eat her heart, thereby killing two birds with one stone; disposing of the only woman more beautiful than she is, and securing herself everlasting youth in the process. And beauty.

What had feminists excited was the rejection of the part of the original tale where the passive princess is saved by her prince. Rather, our 21st century Snow White, battles the evil queen literally to the death.

Except this is not really what happens (warning: serious spoilers ahead). Whilst Snow as she is affectionately called, does indeed don a suit of armor in order to take on her evil (aren’t they all?) stepmother, the skills she applies to destroy the queen (thrusting a dagger into her heart) is one taught to her by the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth).  This would be the same Huntsman who shares the film’s title despite being a smaller character than Ravenna who shares equal screen time with Snow. A nod, perhaps, to all the male moviegoers that there’s something in here for them too? Cant be real action movie without a hero.

Then there’s the fact that Snow would not even have been able to engage in this bitter duel on account of being unconscious and all after taking a bite of the queen’s poison apple.  So in actual fact, Snow White was saved by a man, not once but fully two times.

But none of this is as irritating –or damaging- as the film’s treatment of feminism and the beauty, purity and aging (horror of horrors) of women.

First to the feminism. In short feminists are expected to approve of the film because Snow kicks some evil witch butt. But who is this evil with whose butts gets kicked? Charlize Theron’s Ravenna is a Male Rights Advocates (MRA) wet dream, or worst nightmare depending on how you look at it. The quintessential ‘man-hating’ feminist (sample line: ‘Men use women!) who uses her past mistreatment at the hands of nameless men to destroy other men, and women too, because why not?

A favoured claim of MRAs is the ‘feminists don’t want equality they want to be superior to men’ argument and, unfortunately this film does nothing to dispel that. Ravenna hates men. Really, really hates, them. Not just powerful men, or evil men, or the specific men who wronged her. No, like all good angry straw-feminists Ravenna hates all men. She hates them so much she even killed a young, handsome man who was just the type she would have fallen for in her youth and who no doubt ‘would have broken (her) heart’.

Snow White, on the other hand, is as pure of heart as she is of body. In fact, the film goes to great lengths trying to flex its feminist credentials by informing us that Snow is loved ‘as much for her defiant spirit as her beauty’.  Animals are drawn to her. Bridge trolls are placated and humbled by what can only be described as her feminine mystique.  But still the fact remains, she is only a threat to the queen, and therefore of interest because of her physical beauty. Because the queen cannot stand not being the fairest in the land.

And what exactly is meant by ‘fair’? This is not just a reference to physical beauty but purity. Snow White has what the Queen can never regain, no matter how many souls of virgins she inhales- her virginity. ‘Only by fairest blood is it done, and only by fairest blood can it be undone.’ Indeed.

But all this pales in comparison to the film’s treatment of aging, which, frankly it seems to regard as a fate worse than death. But only for women, of course. There are many men depicted in various stages of their life cycles, but this warrants not a mention. Men are permitted to age. Women cannot for fear of being portrayed as ugly and haggard.

The irony of Hollywood making a commentary about the perils of aging for beautiful women should not be lost on anybody. Still, director Rupert Sanders valiantly tries to give Ravenna a back-story that implies her evilness stems from her correct realisation that an aging woman is worthless in a society that values women only for youth, virginity and beauty, but he does all of nothing to dispel this notion. Once the film has established Ravenna is a product of a sexist world that disparages women for having to audacity to age, he sets about destroying her.

As she lays dying, the blood draining from her wretched heart, her face dries up, her wrinkles deepen and multiply and we are forced, oh horror of horrors, to come face to face with the despicable sight of…an old woman.

Despite its new ‘feminist reboot’, what Snow White and the Huntsman tells us is neither new nor feminist. It is, as one astute blogger put it, “an attempt to gloss over the fact that at the heart of the original tale the message is that the aging vain woman should step aside in favor of youth and beauty.”

In the end, 36-year-old Charlize Theron is killed off by 22-year-old Kirsten Stewart. And if that isn’t the ultimate metaphor for the fate of Hollywood’s female actors, I don’t know what is.

Written by Ruby

July 6, 2012 at 2:08 am

Patriarchy, misogyny, and Julia Gillard

leave a comment »

It’s a great feeling when another writer quotes your work. Even better when they begin their entire piece with your name. Best of all is when it is in an article that is as insightful and important as this piece in today’s Age. Written By Eve Mahlab, co-founder of the Australian Womens Donor Network. It is definitely time to shift the paradigm from ‘men oppress women’ to ‘patriarchy oppresses women.’ And patriarchy needs women to perpetuate itself. The sooner we acknowledge that, the sooner we can overcome it.

RUBY Hamad is right when she claimed on this page that hatred of women exists in the West. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the Australian witch hunt for Julia Gillard, the first woman who has dared to become Australia’s prime minister.

Hamad is also right when she writes that patriarchy (usually defined as a system of society in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it) isn’t just men oppressing women, but requires the participation of women. This explains why some of the Prime Minister’s severest critics are women.

Women will recognise the symptoms of patriarchal hatred.

Written by Ruby

May 8, 2012 at 8:22 am

Misgoyny in the West versus the Middle East

leave a comment »

This piece was published in The Age last Thursday (May 3) and was a response to this essay by the incomparable Mona Eltahawy, who, unsurprisingly, has copped a huge amount of flak for her trouble. But back to me, it never ceases to amaze me how angry people get when I dare compare the treatment of women in the West to those in the Arab world. To be clear, I do not mean to suggest that we have it just as bad. In fact I clearer state within the article that we do not. But, our own marginalisation and the oppression of Arab/Muslim women stem from the same place: the fear of female sexuality.

My only regret in this op-ed is that I fell into the trap of using the word ‘hate’ without clarifying what that word means to me. I think misogyny, and any sort of what we call ‘hate’, is really a manifestation of fear and a desire to control. Women’s sexuality is feared, both here and in the Middle East, and there exists in both realms, a desire to control it (often at all costs).

Anyway, here it is.

Misogyny has reduced women to headscarves and hymens.

‘WOMEN have very little idea of how much men hate them,” wrote Germaine Greer in The Female Eunuch. So outraged were men that wives reportedly took to concealing their copies by wrapping them in plain brown paper.

More than 40 years later, Egyptian-American commentator Mona Eltahawy has caused a storm with her Foreign Policy essay, Why Do They Hate Us? ”They” being Arab men and ”Us” Arab women. Forget America’s so-called inequality, Eltahawy implores, ”The real war on women is in the Middle East.”

Women, she writes, have not benefited from the Arab Spring because they remain oppressed by the men in their lives who consider all is ”well with the world as long as women are covered up, anchored to the home”. ”Until the rage shifts from the oppressors in our presidential palaces to the oppressors in our homes, our revolution has not even begun.”

Advertisement: Story continues below

Not surprisingly, Eltahawy has also sparked outrage. What is surprising is that so many of her detractors are Arab women. Gigi Ibrahim, a blogger and activist who came to prominence in the Egyptian revolution, called the essay ”disgraceful”. Samia Errazzouki, a Moroccan-American writer retorted, ”Dear Mona Eltahawy, You Do Not Represent ‘Us’.”

The consensus is that Eltahawy uses simplistic, Orientalist arguments to ”otherise” Arabs and drive a wedge between Arab men and women. ”Women in the Middle East are not oppressed by men out of male dominance,” writes Ibrahim. ”They are oppressed by regimes (who happened to be men in power).”

This is a facile argument. Men do not just ”happen” to find themselves in power. Men are in power because the patriarchal system that dominates the world favours men by systematically demeaning and marginalising women based on sex and sexuality.

Astonishingly, Eltahawy’s critics have managed to miss her central thesis: men hate women out of a deep fear of female sexuality, which has reduced women to ”their headscarves and hymens”, and it is up to women to wrestle control of their sexuality back from men.

Eltahawy made two vital errors leaving her open to those claims of Orientalism. The first was her decision to ”put aside what the United States does or doesn’t do to women”. The second was her failure to explore how women themselves also perpetuate patriarchy. Consequently, she divorces the struggle of Arab women from millions of others around the world, thus making misogyny appear a peculiarly Arab problem. In doing so, she unwittingly adds fuel to the myth that Arab men are more monster than human.

As an Australian woman of Arab Muslim background, I have often been struck not by how different but by how similarly women are treated in the West and in Arab/Islamic cultures. In both societies women’s sexuality is treated with suspicion and distrust.

Muslim women are required to dress ”modestly” to ward off attention from men. With the onus on women to alleviate male desire, victims of sexual assault are likely to find themselves blamed for their attack.

So too in the West. How many rape victims have had their sexual history and choice of clothing called into question? How many times have we wondered if ”she asked for it”?

They may not be required to cover their hair or faces, but Western women are derided for being sexually active in a way men never will be, as Sandra Fluke, the US college student who testified before Congress about the necessity of including birth control in health insurance, can attest. Fluke was called a prostitute and a slut by shock jock Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh is not known for his reasoned commentary but, sadly, women also joined in the attacks. Political pundit Michelle Malkin called Fluke ”a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby”, while Everybody Loves Raymond actress Patricia Heaton tweeted: ”you’ve given yer folks great gift for Mother’s/Father’s Day! Got up in front of whole world & said I’m having tons of sex – pay 4 it!”

The Fluke saga demonstrates how patriarchy isn’t just men oppressing women. It’s a system so entrenched in our collective psyche that it demands and acquires unconscious participation of both men and women in order to perpetuate itself.

Moroccan teenager Amina Filali swallowed rat poison after being forced, by the courts and her mother, to marry her rapist. Shortly after her death her mother pleaded, ”I had to marry her to him, because I couldn’t allow my daughter to have no future and stay unmarried.”

This mother is not a monster. She has simply internalised misogyny to where she honestly believed her daughter, no longer a virgin and thus doomed to a life of spinsterhood, would be better off married to her rapist.

Yes, the magnitude of Arab women’s suffering is greater because of the lack of laws protecting them. But, while their oppression is different in degree, it is the same in kind. It all comes down to sex. How can women ever hope to attain equality when an act as natural, and vital, as sex is regarded an acceptable means to devalue them?

Both Greer and Eltahawy are correct. But I would change ”men” to ”patriarchy”. Patriarchy hates women.

That some of Eltahawy’s fiercest critics are female only serves to show that many women continue to have very little idea of just how much.

Written by Ruby

May 7, 2012 at 12:45 am

Feminism and animal rights: not antithetical

with one comment

I’ve just started as an associate editor on alternative, progressive website, The Scavenger. Since my profile there links back to this blog, I guess I’d bet start using this a little more. Let’s start with my first piece for them, ‘Feminism must stop ignoring animals.’ Which is pretty much what the title says it is about:

 

2011 will go down as the year when animal advocacy, long considered a fringe issue, blasted into the Australian mainstream.

Such was the impact of A Bloody Business, the explosive Four Corners investigation into the live cattle export trade to Indonesia that the team picked up the Gold Walkely, a prestigious journalistic award .

Lyn White, of Animals Australia, who provided the ABC with the raw footage of the abuses in the Indonesian abattoirs, was a state finalist in the Australian of the Year awards. She was also crowned Crikey’s Person of the Year and ABC News Radio’s Newsmaker of the Year.

Already 2012 is shaping up to be an even bigger one for the animal rights movement.

Voiceless, the animal protection institute, and vocal critic of intensive, ‘factory’ farming methods, recently announced a literary prize for writers willing to ‘give voice to the most vulnerable amongst us’.

In a move which signifies just how far into the mainstream animal welfare concerns are edging, the prize is being sponsored and spruiked in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Never has the plight of animals occupied such a prominent place in the public consciousness.

However, whilst some improvements are slowly being made in their welfare, their status as commodities means animals remain vulnerable to shocking abuse.

At one point or another, many of Western society’s most marginalised groups have suffered the indignity of being regarded as property. It is to the credit of feminists and slavery abolitionists that, in a legal sense at least, this is no longer the case.

The slow road to abolition and women’s enfranchisement demonstrates how society rarely progresses on its own and often needs to be pushed. Animals cannot resist their conditions so any change to their circumstances is dependant on human intervention.

The link between feminism and animal rights

Animal rights activism is often dismissed with the admonishment that we need to ‘sort out’ human problems first. However, as both a feminist and animal rights advocate, I do not see these issues as distinct.

First, let’s be clear about what animal ‘rights’ actually means. Animals don’t have the same interests as humans so they don’t require the same rights.

What animals, as sentient beings, require and deserve, is the right not to be the property of another, but to live, as Jeffrey Masson, author of The Pig Who Sang To The Moon, a key book on animal emotions, writes, “the way in which evolution intended them to live”.

This is where feminism comes in. It is not a coincidence that women dominate the animal rights movement. As the victims of long-term historical oppression, women can readily empathise with the plight of animals because they recognise oppression when it occurs. However, mainstream feminism is yet to acknowledge how animal and women’s oppression are linked.

The goal of feminism is to dismantle the hierarchical system that values certain groups over others: men over women, whites over blacks, straights over gays and so on. This false hierarchy permits the exploitation of those at the bottom by the powerful at the top.

How does this relate to animals?

In order to eliminate exploitation, feminism must seek to protect those most at risk. It is not an exaggeration to say that our society is built on the exploitation of animals.

They are the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the medicine we take, the products we use, the entertainment we watch, the sports we bet on.

Furthermore, feminism and animal advocacy make natural allies given that it is the abuse of the reproductive capacity of female animals that perpetuates animal exploitation.

Egg-laying hens are crammed into battery cages for up to two years until they are ‘spent’ and slaughtered.

Sows, whose entire lives are spent in a continual cycle of pregnancy and birth, are confined in gestational stalls barely bigger than their own bodies.

Dairy cows are artificially inseminated every year of their lives until their milk dries up. The apparatus in which cows are restrained during insemination is known in the industry, particularly in the US, as a ‘rape rack.’

Unnaturally forced into the reproductive role, these female animals are then denied the opportunity to nurture their young. Their milk, eggs and offspring are subsumed into the industry cycle, marketed and sold for human consumption, much as women’s bodies are marketed and sold for male consumption.

Discrimination versus dehumanisation

When animal advocates make these comparisons they are often accused of dehumanising historically marginalised groups. However, as Marjorie Spiegel wrote in The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery, such comparisons are not intended to equate humans and animals so much as highlight the ways in which discrimination against one group opens the door to the discrimination of others.

Those who benefit from animal exploitation also take offence because it highlights their dubious practices.

The treatment to which we subject billions of animals would be considered a holocaust if applied to humans. Yet, it is normalised because animals are considered so ‘other’ that their suffering is tolerated.

Simply speaking, it is in their interests to expound on the so-called differences between human and non-human animals because it is these very differences that justify animal abuse and exploitation.

It is important to note here that the reasons cited for denying rights to animals are the same that were used to do the same to women and black slaves. Deemed soulless, women and blacks were said to lack sufficient intellect to deserve autonomy.

Baby animals continue to be taken away from their mothers with the same assurances given when black women suffered the same abuse. They don’t love them like us. They won’t remember them like us. They are not us.

‘They are not us’ is, of course, the claim on which all discrimination is based. Animals differ to us, but if we accept difference as permission to exploit them, then we undermine one of feminism’s essential tenets.

Fighting women’s oppression whilst simultaneously perpetuating animal oppression is a contradictory and self-defeating stance feminism must reconsider.

Second wave feminism was rightly criticised for being centred on the struggles and interests of white, middle class women. The third wave responded by recognising how different forms of oppression intersect (although second wave eco-feminists such as Carol Adams and Josephine Donovan were making these connections in the ’70s and ’80s) and broadened its scope to encompass class, race and sexuality in its vision.

The fourth wave of feminism must include the intersection of animal and human oppression. If feminists are serious about fighting discrimination in all its forms then they must consider animal rights as equally worthwhile as human rights.

To do less is to keep the door to ‘otherisation’ wide open and give tacit support to the concept that some groups are entitled to the ownership and control of others.

 

Written by Ruby

February 25, 2012 at 5:28 am

Today in unintentional irony, David Cameron edition

leave a comment »

David Cameron, the British PM, is in Saudi Arabia, otherwise known as one of the worst places in the world to be a woman. Despite this, Cameron is seeking to ‘strengthen co-operations’ between Britain and the Kingdom. Cameron took this important opportunity to ignore Saudi Arabia’s own repressive rule, as well as its involvement in the crushing of public dissent in nearby Bahrain, and instead lambast Russia for its own co-operation with Syria:

I would urge the Russians and the Russian Government, even at this late stage, to look very carefully at why it keeps doing what it’s looking to do on Syria.

“This is appalling bloodshed, appalling murder on the streets of Syria. The whole Arab League has come together and said it’s unacceptable and others need to listen to that and act on that at the UN. Britain stands ready to do that”.

Considering how brutal much of the ‘whole Arab League’ has been to their own people during the Arab Spring, I’m not sure how much of a position they are in to cast judgement on Syria. Not to condone the Assad regimes handling of the crisis, but surely Cameron can see how hollow his statements are considering where he is saying them?

Can’t he?

Can’t we?

Written by Ruby

January 14, 2012 at 10:14 am

Syria: democracy or civil war?

leave a comment »

The situation in Syria is getting evermore chaotic. Today’s Guardian reports that the United Nations is warning that the country is headed towards a full-blown civil war. Whilst the protestors vow to never give up until the regime is overthrown, one question we must all ask is, what will become of the minorities if the Assad regime does fall?

It’s a rather ironic fact that minorities tend to get more protection in despotic regimes than in democratic ones. That’s not to say Syrian protestors should be denied the chance at political freedom, but if the will of the people topples Assad, what will happen to the Alwaites, the religious minority Assad belongs to? Will a revenge attack against them be the price of freedom?

My latest piece, published in Eureka Street yesterday.

Syria’s hopeless democracy dream

 

The conflicting stories surrounding the case of Syrian teenager Zainab al-Hosni epitomise the confusion inherent in that country’s six-month-old uprising. Seemingly certain at times to topple the Assad regime, and at others, to strengthen it, the situation has reached a point where it is almost impossible to predict the outcome

Believed to have been tortured and beheaded by the government, the teenager made a surprising appearance on Syrian television late last week. Family confirmed it was indeed al-Hosni although they expressed doubts as to whether the images where captured before or after her alleged killing.

Meanwhile, Syrian officials, in the words of the Sydney Morning Herald, have ‘sought to score a propaganda coup’ with her appearance, where she claimed to have run away from home because of physical abuse at the hands of her brothers.

Who is telling the truth? Even for those of us with family in Syria, it is virtually impossible to determine what is actually happening. Talking to those inside by telephone can be dangerous, with even Assad supporters conceding phone tapping is widespread and endemic. With travel restricted by roadblocks and safety fears, many turn to state television for news.

Authorities, aided by a compliant media, have local residents claiming anti-government protestors are ‘troublemakers and terrorists’ bent on bringing chaos and Islamism to the secular state. Rumours of weapons smuggled in from Salafists groups in Saudi Arabia are rife. Meanwhile, opposition groups accuse authorities of detaining and torturing family members of activists operating from abroad.

The protests, which two months ago were spread across the country, have largely flagged. However, that’s not to say the uprising is quashed, yet.

Recently, The New York Times reported that the flashpoint city of Homs, in the country’s southwest, had descended into a civil war-like state with both sides carrying out ‘targeted killings’ and ‘rival security checkpoints’ resulting in a ‘hardening of sectarian sentiments’. For Syrians themselves, the prospect of a full-blown civil war comes as no surprise, particularly one starting in Homs.

Homs, in the country’s south, is a microcosm of the nation. A Sunni majority town, it is also home to several minority groups including Christians and Alawites.

The latter is the Shia offshoot sect to which Assad and most of his cabinet belong. The animosity between Sunnis and Alawites goes back centuries and has only been exacerbated by the strong-armed rule of the Assad family, beginning in 1970 with Bashar’s father, Hafez.

So despised were the Alawites that many Sunnis refused to accept them as true Muslims. With the Syrian constitution mandating that only a Muslim could be president, it took religious decrees by prominent clerics, declaring Alawites part of the Shia creed, to allow the elder Assad to take power.

Unlike the largely homgoneous populations of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, Syria is, like Iraq, fiercely sectarian. Under the stifling Assad regime, which allowed no room for dissent, they have managed to live together, perhaps artificially, more or less at peace.

There have been occasional outbreaks of dissent such as the Muslim Brotherhood-led uprising in the city of Hama in 1982. The elder Assad’s ruthless response left more than 20,000 dead.

The current regime’s increasingly violent response to the protests is fuelling resentment towards the Alawites, who fear reprisals on an unprecedented scale should the revolution succeed. As Edward Walker, a former US ambassador to Israel and Egypt, remarked, they are a ‘reviled minority … and if they lose power, if they succumb to popular revolution, they will be hanging from the lamp posts’.

Homs is now the scene of midnight gun battles, armed revolutionaries and assassinations, reinforcing fears that a post Assad Syria is more likely to sink into civil war rather than sail into democracy.

A few months ago, Assad looked to be all but gone. That brought mixed feelings to those of us who dare to dream of a free Middle East, and who had feverently hoped Assad would make good on his promises of reform.

Those who desire (and are willing to die for) democracy surely deserve democracy. But in a country as sectarian as Syria, the reality may not match the dream. Like neighbouring Iraq which continues to suffer tit for tat attacks, the foreseeable future of Syria, with or without Assad, looks grim.

Written by Ruby

October 14, 2011 at 11:32 pm

Posted in Uncategorized