June 10, 2007

Wherein I use a rape analogy and contradict myself

Posted in abuse, animal advocacy, rape, rape analogy, vegan, veganism at 4:31 pm by nevavegan

So, yesterday was hectic and as I was running up the stairs with an armload of laundry some stuff knocking around in my brain came together into something resembling a coherent thought.

I’ve said for a long time that even as we bring more attention to issues like rape and domestic violence there are still people out there who don’t know as much as they should, or don’t understand the underlying issues. However, we have made significant progress in that most people do seem to recognize women as independent human beings who don’t deserve to be hurt. There are exceptions of course, but there is increasing understanding.

Then I thought about some old journals and stories that I read while in undergrad and how it had struck me then that as little as a 100 years ago many people didn’t think marital rape was possible. This was because rape wasn’t seen as a crime against a woman (though people might have sympathized with the woman); rape was seen as a crime against another man by dishonoring him or devaluing his property. To rape an unmarried woman was a crime against her father who then might not be able to marry her off, and must also endure the shame the rape brought upon his family. To rape a married woman dishonored her husband and devalued his property, his wife. But for a man to rape his own wife seemed impossible. She was his wife after all, how could he possibly rape her? No other man was being dishonored. He owned her body after all, you can’t steal what you already own.

Slowly attitudes in society changed and many people came to realize that women are human beings with their own will, their own needs, and their own rights. They came to see that some men terrorize their wives or partners through sexual violence and the threat of sexual violence. But none of these changes would have been possible without first recognizing that women belong to themselves. We own our own bodies; nobody else owns us.

Even today, there are some people who don’t understand the concept of marital rape, and it’s more difficult to prosecute than stranger rape, a crime people have a more ready understanding of.

But even as the attitudes about ownership and about rape shifted, a strange secondary prejudice slipped in that allowed many people to ignore just how widespread domestic violence and sexual violence were. People started saying “If it’s so bad why doesn’t she just leave?”

I encountered this attitude at work when two male co-workers discussed in front of me their opinion on a highly publicized domestic violence case, concluding that the woman had gone back to her abuser several times so she must like the abuse. I was so shocked and even hurt by these words that I wasn’t able to interject myself into the conversation to clear up that misunderstanding.

Connected to “why doesn’t she just leave” is an assumption that someone who has been abused will show it in obvious ways, which allows people to believe that their neighbors and co-workers aren’t at risk. I’ve heard people say of domestic violence cases “but she doesn’t look hurt” or “how can she be telling the truth when she seems fine.” We like to think violence is so rare and so horrible that we will be able to immediately tell victims from “normal people” and likewise that we should be able to tell who is an abuser, because they certainly won’t look like us.

These are problems with public perception that many groups are working tirelessly to combat and we do seem to be making some real progress on them.

However, and now for my dreaded hypocrite moment, I wondered if such blind spots also applied to our perception of animals. I really do think the same fallacies in thinking are huge problems in making people aware of how badly we treat animals in our culture. First there’s the problem of property. If you are raising chickens to produce eggs and someone else kills your chickens, that’s a crime against you and that person would be prosecuted, not for hurting the chickens but because hurting the chickens hurt you, a person, the owner. However, if some of your chickens die because you continue forced molting too long or the cages are too crowded, that’s not a crime, because you damaged your own property. Therefore, you’re a bad farmer, but not an abusive monster. See the problem?

(Oh, and see the recent Compassion Over Killing case for further evidence of this)

Many groups are desperately trying to make the public aware of the harm being done to animals and to tell people that animals matter and shouldn’t be made to suffer. So we start to make some slow progress with public attitudes, but we are far from the finish line.

Now the other fallacy comes in: “If it were so bad the animals would all die and the farms would fall apart.” This is what the industry tells us. Even though investigation after investigation shows nightmare conditions, egg-laying hens living on top of the dead bodies of their sisters, pigs that can’t ever turn around, cows with open bleeding sores, and so on… Even with all of that, the industry tells us “It can’t be that bad, if we mistreated the hens they wouldn’t lay eggs, if the cows were suffering they wouldn’t produce milk, the fact that you have a ham on your table proves the pig was treated well.”

Sigh, and yet we all know this isn’t true, and yet people buy into it. How do we fight this misinformation that allows people to feel good about their choices, and lets them keep living in a fog, blocking out the truth?



  1. Janine said,

    I’m the author of If I Am Missing or Dead, a memoir about me and my sister, two smart, attractive women who accepted abusive relationships. You are spot on about how hidden emotional and physical abuse are, and how we blame the victim. It would be great if you would read my book and then write about what you learn, because the national outcry is just beginning.

    Janine Latus

  2. Neva Vegan said,

    Janine, thank you for commenting. I have heard of your book and it’s been on my reading wish-list for a while, but I’m so far behind! I really do need to read it. From the reviews of it that I’ve read it sounds like a compelling story.

  3. Anonymous said,

    Marital rape wasn’t recognized as a crime much more recently than 100 years ago. I believe it was the early 90s before it became a crime in Texas, for example. Sickening, isn’t it?

  4. Neva Vegan said,

    Thank you for clarifying about the law! Actually I think laws were passed state by state and woefully late.

    The reason I picked the random figure of 100 years ago was that I was searching for a time when not only was marital rape not a legal crime, but also when the idea wasn’t even on the map.

    I remember reading in English class the journal of some historical figure and in it he bragged about marital rape (didn’t call it that) as a way he settled arguments with his wife… He called it “a flourish”, ie she was yelling or upset about something or asking for money or wanting to go along on a trip so he’d make her be quiet with “a flourish.” And it was something where he wasn’t ashamed and for the longest time nobody reading even thought it was an issue at all,

    I guess. And then you go forward in time and there’s a time period where people might have agreed in vague terms that men ought to treat their wives “well,” or shouldn’t be “cruel” but they wouldn’t have even understood the concept of marital rape. They would have said “how is it possible to rape your own wife?”

    Later there was a growing understanding of the concept as legal change was pursued. Of course, sadly, there are still people who just don’t get it!

  5. Rachael said,

    fabulous post…I wrote my undergrad thesis on the connections between animal abuse and domestic violence and it basically comes down to the fact that historically/socially/culturally/whatever, women, children and animals…anyone disempowered…. are property, are things. And until that changes on a deeper level, those in power can continue to abuse their own “property” with limited consequences. Raping or beating or otherwise abusing a woman, a child, someone of a disempowered group is, at a fundamental level, the same action as abusing an animal, destroying the environment, what have you. Just one more way our society is deeply flawed and sick.

  6. Gary said,

    Excellent comments.

    On this delusion that both the industry and meat and dairy eaters propogate:

    “It can’t be that bad, if we mistreated the hens they wouldn’t lay eggs, if the cows were suffering they wouldn’t produce milk,…”

    I know you and probably all vegans know this, but here’s how I explain it to the ignorant or skeptical:

    – Many of the animals do die; this is figured in as part of the “cost of doing business.” Every investigation of battery cage farms encounters hens who died a grotesque, slow death from dehydration; the other hens in the tiny cage are forced to step over the rotting corpse. Chickens and turkeys bred to be obese and top-heavy – their body shapes re-designed for human consumption – routinely die of heart attacks before they’re seven weeks old, or collapse because their skeletons cannot support their bodies, thus perishing sometimes within inches of food and water. And so forth.

    The ones who live long enough to make it to the slaighterhouse are not very old. 45-day old “broiler” chickens are sometimes still peeping. No animals in commmercial farms ever die of old age.

    But – in my view – worse than the death is the ongoing, day-after-day suffering. The confinement, the air saturated with ammonia, the utter lack of stimulation – it’s daily torture.

    Despite the horrendous conditions, the animals have been been intensively bred to produce flesh, eggs, and milk. As one enlightened poultry scientist said, today’s hens would lay eggs if you put them in a tin can.” Futhermore, “production” is often bboosted by hormones, drugs, and environmental manipulations. To claim that production of milk or flesh is evidence of good treatment is like saying that a child locked in a closet has obviously been treated well if he has a full head of hair; it’s like saying a woman who’s been beaten and abused but who has been given drugs – withougt her consent – that increase her menstrual cycles by a factor of ten (equivalent to what we’ve done with modern hens) obviously has been treated well if she’s having a period every three days.

    Sorry for the graphic analogies. Those are the only kinds that come to mind for something so horrific.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: