- Dec
- 29
Speciesism: Anti-Animal Bias
Posted by Lisa Towell at 6:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (22)
Recently, I’ve been thinking about how entrenched the use and abuse of animals really is. From grocery stores to clothing to the very words we speak, evidence of bias against animals is everywhere.
Speciesism is the belief that humans are superior to other animals, used as a justification for any kind of discrimination against nonhuman animal species. Of course, humans do have some unique characteristics, like written language, but we also have a lot in common with our animal cousins, like the ability to experience pain and fear, and the capacity for love. It is normal for the members of any group to look out first for themselves, and the most powerful groups do so with great success. But as humankind has evolved ethically, we’ve come to believe that the needs of disempowered groups have moral weight as well. Over time, we recognized the biases of racism and sexism, and we are fighting to eradicate them. But speciesism has yet to gain widespread attention. Even though a cow or a rat feels pain just like we do, many people believe that we have no moral obligations toward them.
The battle against species bias is still in its early stages. Humans use billions of nonhuman animals every year for food, clothing, experimentation, and entertainment. This relationship is usually viewed as beneficial and profitable for humans, and this makes the human players highly resistant to change. Most people are uncomfortable with cruelty to animals, but it’s very difficult for them to envision a world without animal-derived foods on the plate, despite the terrible abuses inherent in factory farming.
Speciesism can be reinforced–or challenged–by the language we choose. The words and phrases we use every day say so much about our attitudes toward animals. Species bias is still widespread in our language, and I’m embarrassed to say that I’m an occasional offender myself.
A lot of figurative language is not very flattering to animals. “That was a bird-brained thing to do.” “I wouldn’t treat a dog the way she treated you!” Many of our favorite insults are simply the names of animal species: snake (deceiver), chicken (coward), pig (glutton). And some common phrases are pretty awful if you think about them: “Stop beating a dead horse.” “I was bleeding like a stuck pig.” “Let’s kill two birds with one stone.”
Animal-related euphemisms abound, enabling people to conveniently ignore what they don’t want to see. Meat is what’s for dinner, not dead animals. People eat beef, pork, and cheese, not cow and pig flesh, or mother’s milk stolen from a calf. Footwear and wallets made from the skin of dead cows? “Leather” sounds so much better. Cattle are “processed” in the slaughterhouse, not dismembered. “Domesticated” animals sound quite happy, but aren’t words like “enslaved” or “subjugated” a bit nearer the mark? Is that hunter harvesting some game? Or is a human killer shooting some defenseless ducks and deer? Most fundamental of all is when we call animals “it” rather than “he” or “she,” implying that they are just objects and not deserving of our compassion.
A great example of positive change is the movement to change us from “owners” to guardians of our companion animals. Many cities have already made this change in their ordinances. By the alteration of a single word, a dog or cat is no longer a piece of property on par with the sofa, but instead is a family member.
Do our language choices really matter? I think they do. Speciesist words reinforce the status quo, but every time we use nonspeciesist language, we create the possibility of change for anyone who’s listening.
Look here for more on species bias.
Have you come up with any animal-friendly replacements for phrases like “kill two birds with one stone”? Let me know in the comments.
Posted to Family & Friends | Posted to Tags: Lisa Towell, speciesism, vegan
- Post this story to:
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- Newsvine
More:
Myshkin says...
December 29th, 2008, 12:36 pm
I like to say “rescue two birds at one time!” What an awesome post. Very well-written, I like how you added your personal warmth to a very serious topic. I’ll be forwarding this around!
Dr Barry Kipperman says...
December 29th, 2008, 7:52 pm
Nice job. Whenever I order myself a veggie sandwich at Whole Foods, after I recite the ingredients, I’m asked “No meat?”. This tells me we still have work to do. I’d like to see the day when someone ordering a meat sandwich, is asked “No veggies?”
rrneal says...
December 29th, 2008, 8:08 pm
I agree with your posting on species-based bias.
“Re-tooling” Idioms is an especially hard task due to the original sayings ingrained nature in our everyday vernacular. I usually respond to the seemingly innocent utility of harsh animal-in-harms-way euphemisms with a reflective comment, such as, “Wow, did you ever think what those two innocent birds did to deserve that?”
Laura says...
December 30th, 2008, 2:20 pm
Hi Lisa,
What really drives me nuts- and you hear this all the time - is when someone refers to a really bad person as an animal. “He’s an animal” is constantly said in movies. I always wonder why a psycho killer, or anyone who is an extremely bad person, is always described as an animal. All the animals I know are sweet!
Tove PisaRelle Reese says...
December 30th, 2008, 6:17 pm
I’ve been thinking about our little “sayings” also for the last year or so because of how insulting it is to the animals! So, when my Dad is eating without any manners, instead of saying to myself,”Gosh, he’s eating like a pig” I simply think to myself “He has no manners!” I simply call ‘em like I see ‘em now. And as for sayings like “Kill two birds with one stone” I say something like “Hey, it’s a two-fer” as in a two for one deal or “I just pulled two carrots for the price of one.” I think people just need to call things what they are, for example I bled “like crazy” this summer when I cut my finger rather than I bled like a stuck pig. Anyway, great article that many people should read, Thanks!
Dr Renata Bartoli says...
January 2nd, 2009, 5:37 pm
Hello Lisa,
First of all I want to compliment you for your excellent article.
I am Italian, but live in London (UK), I am vegan of course (as well as my husband). Last year I started a practice of hypnotherapy and I have two websites: one general and the other specialised in Past-Life Regression. So far the two websites are really basic but I am working on preapring a full version of each of them. In the specialised one (for Past-life Regression) I want to write a chapter about our relationship with animals because in this field too there is still a lot of discrimination. Although there are many publications about the souls of animals, many people continue to think we are apart, superior. Five centuries ago they discussed whether women had a soul or not and now the same type of people are discussing the same thing about animals and I am quite fed up. Would you mind if I used some parts of your article in my website? It’s so well written that I think I couldn’t say it better. Many thanks.
Sandy Cull says...
January 2nd, 2009, 5:53 pm
Great article!! Although I believe I am generally viewed as a very well-respected professional in my work environment, it has been brought to my attention that I really shouldn’t be “so sensitive” when animal reference such as those you have described above are used. I simply can’t not react when I hear people saying things like “well there’s more than one way to skin a _ _ _”. I don’t even want to write the phrase out but I hear it and other violent/derogatory terms in professional meetings on a regular basis. Outside of work my friends don’t tend to talk that way but in a work setting it’s still seen as acceptable. I’ll keep my eyes posted here for more tips on how to deal with this. As it is all I do now is quietly but firmly state that I find the term offensive for obvious reasons and ask they fine another way of communicating their point. They often acquiesce but it’s always uncomfortable and I’m the one labelled as difficult. Still, it’s too important not to do and my hope is that people’s understanding will grow over time. Sigh..
Gary says...
January 2nd, 2009, 6:01 pm
Excellent Post…!
Words do carry values beyond their literal meaning, and it is important to think about the messages we convey thru the use of specific words. It is equally important to avoid creating the appearance of elitism in our choice of alternate words.
I like the term “Companion Animal”, but it is a bit wordy and in Rural Culture it just doesn’t work. I usually use the Animal’s name, and if someone asks “who” I am referring to I say something like: “Oh, that’s one of my Critter Pals…”
Thank You for reading…
Gary
Natalie says...
January 2nd, 2009, 6:27 pm
Wow, thank you so much for this article! I have thought about our poor animal euphemisms over the past couple years, and am so glad this article was written and will reach so many people. We may think that calling somebody a ‘disgusting pig’ is not a big deal, but we must realize that it does reinforce the idea (to the speaker and the listeners) that the animal is below us and therefore unimportant/ bad/ filthy/ expendable/ evil/ stupid/ you name it.
We all do it; how many times have you called someone chicken, a cow, a pig, a rat, swine, or a bitch? (The last one is a bit different, calling a woman that implies that she is as “bad” as a female dog, which is just horrible. This is not only speciesist, but sexist as well. I wish the term for female dog was changed altogether).
Really now, what have these wonderful animals ever done to deserve such cruel condescension? Let’s spread the love instead
Happy 2009! Go Vegan!
Natalie
Ana says...
January 2nd, 2009, 6:51 pm
Semantics is powerful and animal advocates need to take especial care when speaking and try to set the tone and example to the majority of human animals. Pig is used to describe sloppy people or slobs so why not just use those words. Pig is used to describe a man that treats women in a horrible manner so describe him as such. I hate the there is more ways to skin a cat one also. It is imperative to make others more sensitive to the plight of animals. I have gotten into the habit of simply saying “I don’t eat animals” as opposed to saying meat; the visual of my words takes on a different tone.
Vasu Murti says...
January 2nd, 2009, 7:01 pm
On what basis have we arbitrarily decreed that only humans can have rights and other animals cannot? Is it because most members of the human species possess a higher level of intelligence than most animals? Then why do we protect mentally defective humans? Isn’t this a personal, or rather, an anthropomorphic prejudice?
In his book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, writes:
“It does seem somewhat disingenuous for Christians to speak so solidly for human rights and then query the appropriateness of rights language when it comes to animals. The most consistent position is that of Raymond Frey, who opposes all claims for rights from a philosophical perspective, or that of Christians who consistently refrain from all such language.”
According to Reverend Linzey:
“Raymond Frey, that dedicated opponent of rights theory, has sadly to conclude that ‘we cannot, without the appeal to benefit, justify (painful) animal experiments without justifying (painful) human experiments.’
“Frey accepts this even though he justifies experimentation on animals. Again, ‘The case for anti-vivisectionism, I think, is far stronger than most people allow,’ he writes. Alas, Frey does not seem to regard it as sufficiently strong to oppose experiments on animals or humans.”
“Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles,” writes pro-life activist Karen Swallow Prior, “there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement. Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to ‘Get a life!’
“Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience and, in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and non-violence.”
Kathleen Marquardt, founded Putting People First, an anti-animal rights group. In her 1993 book, Animal Scam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, she says:
“The real agenda of this movement is not to give rights to animals, but to take rights from people—to dictate our food, clothing, work, recreation, and whether we will discover new medications or die.”
Identical assertions could have been made about the abolition of human slavery, the crusade to end child labor, the liberation of concentration camp prisoners from Nazi physicians or an end to the experimentation upon black humans by white humans.
Marquardt writes that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) “now encourages vegetarianism, the banning of fur, and the eventual end to all animal research, not just ‘cruel’ animal research.” Marquardt writes that the Humane Society now supports vegetarianism.
According to Marquardt, “The typical animal rights activist is a white woman making about $30,000 a year. She is most likely a schoolteacher, nurse, or government worker. She usually has a college degree or even an advanced degree, is in her thirties or forties, and lives in a city.”
Marquardt cites studies indicating that animal rights activists tend to identify with liberal causes such as feminism and environmentalism.
“Every year,” writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey, “I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so.”
It is not surprising, therefore, that Marquardt reports that “Most activists share a bias against Western civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundations.”
According to Marquardt, the “political clout” of the animal rights movement “is surprisingly bipartisan. But most of the leading politicians working with the animal rights movement are liberal Democrats.” Marquardt mentions Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Nevada Congressman Jim Bilbray, Charlie Rose of North Carolina, Tom Lantos and Gerry Studds.
Marquardt admits, however, that “some Republicans are animal rightists, too. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas often supports animal rights causes—except, of course, those pertaining to cattle, a major business in Kansas. Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire was a founder of the Congressional Friends of Animals. Bob Dornan of California, one of the most conservative House members, is an animal rights advocate—he cosponsored legislation banning the use of animals in testing cosmetics and received a PETA award. And Manhattan Congressman Bill Green promoted legislation that would have shut down over 90 million acres of federal land to hunting, fishing, and trapping.”
Marquardt states further that “Although he’s not an elected official, a conservative political figure who, surprisingly, is on the other side is G. Gordon Liddy, author Will and a key figure in the 1972 Watergate uproar. When I went on Liddy’s radio show, he and PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk greeted each other with hugs and kisses and lots of warm words.
“With allies in both political parties and across the ideological spectrum,” concludes Marquardt, “the animal rights movement has been able to score some great successes, regardless of which party controls the White House or Capitol Hill.”
Kathleen Marquardt unsuccessfully tries to equate animal rights with Nazism in Animal Scam. She claims that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, and that he suffered from depression, mood swings, irritability, and agitation, all of which are symptoms of a vitamin B-12 deficiency, and that animal products are the only dietary source of vitamin B-12.
According to Carol Orsag, in Irving Wallace and David Wallechinsky’s The People’s Almanac (1975), however, Adolf Hitler consumed animal products in the form of eggs and dairy products, and enjoyed eggs “prepared 101 different ways by the best chef in Germany.” He “became vegetarian because of stomach problems” rather than out of compassion for animals, and “was criticized for eating pig’s knuckles.”
In a 1996 article, “Nazis and Animals: Debunking the Myths,” Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights states that Hitler “had a special fondness for sausages and caviar, and sometimes ham,” as well as “liver dumplings.” Kalechofsky states further that the Nazis experimented on animals as well as humans in the concentration camps:
“The evidence of Nazi experiments on animals is overwhelming. In The Dark Face of Science, author John Vyvyan summed it up correctly: ‘The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: all were in continuation of, or complementary to, experiments on animals. In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence, and at Buchenwald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme.’”
According to Marquardt: “Having equated animals with man, the Nazis proceeded to treat men as animals.” Marquardt wants to have it both ways. She wants to show that the Nazis’ “respect for life” somehow led to a devaluation of human life. But would not a genuine reverence for life—elevating animal rights to the level of human rights—have had the opposite effect? Compassion for every living creature? There is no evidence that vegetarianism (for health or ethics) will make people saints or give them Gandhian compassion, but neither is there any evidence that it will make people Nazis.
Professor Henry Bigelow observed: “There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of science as they do now to burning at the stake in the name of religion.”
Harming or killing other animals for food, “sport,” or clothing, or even owning other animals as property must become as unthinkable to us humans as owning other human beings as property, regardless of one’s religion or belief in a god or gods. The animal rights movement is not a “front” for a religious minority attempting to impose its “dietary laws” upon the rest of secular American society. Is the right-to-life movement, however, a “front” for Catholic, Fundamentalist, or “born-again” Christianity?
Animal rights, as a secular, moral philosophy, may appear to be at odds with traditional religious thinking (e.g., human “dominion” over other animals), but this is equally true of democracy and representative government in place of the divine right of kings, the separation of church and state, the abolition of human slavery, the emancipation of women, birth control, the sexual revolution, lesbian and gay rights, and perhaps every kind of social progress since the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment.
Some of the greatest figures in human history have been in favor of ethical vegetarianism and animal rights. These include: Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, Alice Walker, George Bernard Shaw, Robert Browning, Percy Shelley, Voltaire, Thomas Hardy, Rachel Carson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Victor Hugo, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pythagoras, Susan B. Anthony, Albert Schweitzer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Gertrude Stein, Frederick Douglass, Francis Bacon, William Wordsworth, the Buddha, Mark Twain, and Henry David Thoreau.
Jan says...
January 2nd, 2009, 8:02 pm
This is extremely thoughtful and accurate. It gives me hope that one day we will actually have some reduction in the horrible behaviours humans display if we become more sensitized to animals as beings with feelings and rights. Keep up the philisophical flow. It makes so much sense.
Jan
Chantal says...
January 2nd, 2009, 8:54 pm
I, too, am becoming more and more conscious (and uncomfortable with) how our human species thinks we are so much more important than any of the other species that share this planet with us. We are only one piece of the puzzle, not the whole image. I am going to be extra vigilant not to use these abhorrent expressions!
Amrita says...
January 3rd, 2009, 12:57 am
I just love your post! The anti animal bias is so prevalent in all cultures and your article captures the sentiments so beautifully. Also you have written with so much of compassion that people are bound to give a thought. I want to forward your article to many. Thank you!
Lori says...
January 3rd, 2009, 12:59 am
“Vegan Vittles”, a cookbook by Joanne Stepaniak has strung throughout the book, these animal-friendly phrase replacements to replace the more cruel sounding versions. Such as “Separate the wheat from the oats” instead of “…sheep from the goats”; or “There’s more than one way to peel a potato” than to “…skin a cat;” “It’s no use watering a dead rose” than to “…beat a dead horse;” “Pull the hat over one’s eyes” instead of “wool”; “Can’t make granola out of gravel” vs “make a silk purse out of sow’s ear;” “Peel two carrots with one knife” instead of “…kill two birds with one stone,” and a lot more!
Steven Campbell says...
January 3rd, 2009, 5:31 am
Speaking specifically of the insults often used in our language referencing animals, I find that they are largely undeserved. Chicken - for example, I mean, chickens aren’t afraid of anything! Birds are also extremely intelligent and able to adapt to their environment and changing weather conditions in ways that humans would find quite difficult. Pigs I have been around are not filthy or bad-mannered and they certainly seem to take their time and enjoy their meals. Wolves seem to have more of a tendency to really swallow large chunks of food quickly without much chewing, but not pigs. Humans on the other hand, well, you’ve seen it. Another one that gets me thinking is “humane” which is often used to mean “with a thoughtful gentleness” but “humans” are often anything but. I agree that it is high time for people to use words correctly and to say what they really mean.
Mike Catapano says...
January 3rd, 2009, 11:59 am
Hi Lisa,
Great article! Even going beyond the specific language that is used to try and justify the horrific cruelty to our fellow animals on this planet we forget that language itself is a social construction. There is nothing in the real world that is “human” or “animal”. These are concepts that we’ve created and labeled with these words. Now that we’ve created them we think these words are in fact the reality, and we behave as is there is a division between “humans” and “animals” that somehow exists in the real world. This process, of course, is political and has evolved because we have been able to dominate and exploit these “animals” and need a language and ideology to justify the horrible cruelty. We can do anything we want to them because we are “human” and they are just “animals”. This process is taken to its most absurd manifestations with “creationism” where some manufactured deity has created us and given us permission to “dominate” (kill, torture and abuse) the “creatures” of the earth. Thanks again for a great article.
Dianne says...
January 3rd, 2009, 12:44 pm
Thank you for the great article! I was just relaying the same message in an email to a fellow animal crusader earlier this morning! Education is the key! If we can educate at an early age to bring in a new generation of thinkers and educate those who already think they are the more intelligent species into realizing that we are no more special than any other, we can make a change. Articles such as yours help to bring about a more humane way of thinking as well as keeping the topic in the spotlight. Thank you again!
Pamela says...
January 4th, 2009, 8:53 pm
Thank you for bringing up this topic. I have noticed that people tend to respond with the first thing off the top of their head, often an oft-heard childhood saying. Many of these have roots in a rural background which was full of animals and so refer back to them, albeit in an ignorant and superior way.
I like to stop myself when I hear such a phrase coming out of my mouth and correct it, such as “He’s such a pig. No, wait a minute — pigs are naturally clean and intelligent. Okay, he’s no pig. He’s just dirty and thoughtless.” By correcting myself, it doesn’t sound elitist and I like to think it sets an example to question the assumptions that slip so easily off the tongue without reason. Even if the people around you make fun of you at the time, your comment will stay with them and, hopefully, plant a pro-animal seed for the future.
Bonnie Shulman says...
January 8th, 2009, 4:25 pm
Great article. This brought to mind a very offensive and tasteless magazine ad that I’ve seen recently. It’s for condoms — and it shows ladies at tables in a nightclub, each being courted by a pig (the pig representing a man who doesn’t wear a condom). The caption reads something along the lines of, “Don’t be a pig, wear a condom”. Well, personally, I’ve never been taken for granted by a pig (the real kind, with the cute snout), and I find the comparison utterly disgusting and vile, being a person who loves pigs.
Kathryn says...
January 8th, 2009, 8:31 pm
I am so happy that an article has been written about this!! For years, when people say things like “What a cow!” or “He’s such a pig!”, I will say “Don’t insult pigs” or cows, etc. I also came up with an alternative to “Kill 2 birds with one stone”. I like to say “Feed two birds with one scone”.
Kathryn
JT says...
January 8th, 2009, 8:49 pm
I coined the term “feed two birds with one seed” as a replacement, and it always makes people stop and think.