Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts

07 December 2014

The Sexual Politics of Meat in Action

*****TRIGGER WARNING: mention of sexual and carnist violence.*****

The picture below ahows an advert for a food truck in Cambridge (near the train station), depicting a male chef hugging a sausage in a seemingly flirty way. The sausage is given seductive traits such as long eyelashes and red lips. At first glance the image looks harmless, jokey and perhaps ironic. If we dig a little deeper with our understanding of what carol Adams calls 'the sexual politics of meat', we soon realise the danger of this image.

The animal whose body was butchered to become a sausage has become an absent referent, deprived of their identity and individuality. Further the sexualisation of the reappropriated animal body and her flesh implies femininity through the use of anthropomorphic -and specifically feminised- symbols. The end result portrays femininity as readiness to be consumed by the (hu)man. This depicts perfectly how eating meat is perpetuating masculinity as well as rape culture.

An Attempt at an Anarchafeminist Pedagogy in a Neoliberal School Environment

Within the past two years my politics have become more radical, less compromising and less apologetic. This has been reflected in my curriculum and class room facilitation. I have learned new words to describe different parts of my ideology and I have met people who also subscribe to these aspects of my beliefs, which makes me more confident and more capable to enunciate my ideas properly to others. This does sound as if I am saying: 'I acquired new tools to push my agenda more effectively'. I guess to a certain extent this is right, considering that my agenda is total liberation. I just want everybody to be free and happy. Nothing wrong with that, right? I am not claiming though, that I have the one and only solution to emancipating everybody. In fact, this is what I hope my students will take out of my course: there is no one way of making the world a better place.

Two weeks ago I started facilitating an International Relations module at a private school that prepares international students for a university education in the UK. This is the third time I am facilitating this course. Both, as an activist and as a learning facilitator, I try my best to empower people to make informed decisions, act autonomously and resist.

Laying the Groundwork



Introductions

The first thing we did was introduce ourselves to one another. I asked them to tell us their names, their preferred pronouns and why they picked International Relations or what they want to study at university level. I made sure to write this on the board, so that they wouldn't forget what I am asking for:

Name, Preferred Pronoun, Why are you here?

I also made sure to clarify what a pronoun is and I introduced myself first, so as to lead by example. I did anticipate that typically some people would just skip the pronoun bit (this could be simply due to their cis-privileged inexperience of stating pronouns, or perhaps also due to previous experiences of discrimination against their personal choice of pronouns). What happened this time however, was that two people stated: 'I don't mind how you refer to me', 'Anything is fine'. I quietly smiled and continued to listen to their introductions, but inside I was angry with myself for not being able to deal with the situation properly, and failing to point out the injustice and what I assumed to be cis-privilege inherent in their statement. I had no idea how to even begin explaining what happened in that instance, especially considering that most, if not all of them, have never consciously considered any sort of privilege. I am really bad at spontaneous witty reactions, but later on, a friend of mine advised me to simply refer to them with a different pronoun to the one I would guess they actually preferred. I will definitely try this at the next best opportunity.

Safer Space Agreement

The school I work at is for international students and the module I am facilitating examines political, non-governmental, charity and grassroots work. This means that most of the students who pick my module voluntarily, have an interest in social justice of some sort. They are all very liberal, open minded, tolerant and respectful many times to the extent that they don't see race or gender! This has proven difficult with my previous classes, but this time I was going to make it clear from the start that our class room won't have space for post-race, post-gender nonsense.

Everything I say is aimed at making them talk, telling us their opinions, experiences and feelings. More often than not, it is a very intimate class environment (we are only 12 people, which makes it easier to facilitate a very personal dialogue). To create an environment where sharing, contributing, asking and questioning is possible we all need to agree on which modes of expression are OK and which ones aren't. Before drafting an agreement, I first wanted them to think about the different factors that might influence the way we perceive others and are perceived by others in the class room and outside. This was going to make it easier for them to come up with a set of guidelines for all of us.

To start thinking about difference I encouraged them to tell me what Identity means. What are the dimensions that make up our identities?

The board work for that looked something like this:

Identity

  • Culture
  • Religion
  • Ability/Disability
  • Language, accent and dialect
  • Education
  • Appearance
  • Socio-economic background
  • Class
  • Family
  • Sex
  • Gender
  • Sexual orientation
  • Species
  • Name
  • Race
  • Ethnicity
  • Nationality
  • Citizenship
There was a lot of confusion about the distinctions between many of these identity dimensions, so it was up to me to clarify and talk about overlaps and intersections. Most of the items were named by the class, but when I felt that something essential was missing (like species) I tried to lead them towards it with questions.

The next task we undertook was 7 minutes silent work with a sheet of paper in front of us divided into three parts:

Myself                    My Classmates               Class Facilitator

What am I prepared to bring to the class?
What do I expect of my classmates?
What do I expect of the facilitator?

After 7 minutes we fed back to the class, whilst I wrote their comments on the board. The most basic tasks came first, e.g. coming on time, being prepared for the class, explaining vocabulary. Every time a suggestion was made, I asked why it is important. I want it to be pronounced that being late is disruptive to my lecture and that it distracts other students. Being prepared for class is essential for smaller group work where if one person hasn't read the text it can not only impair that persons quality of dialogue but of course, also diminished the group's experience. I always make sure to actively listen when someone contributes, by which I mean that I keep an open body language with eye contact and when they finish their thought, I make sure to repeat their statement in my words and ask if I understood correctly. I make sure to value all contributions, even if they are placed inappropriately, perhaps better fitted to a different topic, which I make sure to point out. This is also something I tried to convey to the students.

A big key word they kept throwing at me was RESPECT.
I had to ask many times what respect actually means before we came up with a deeper understanding of how to interact respectfully with one another. Here are some of the things we noted on the board:


  • We will only speak for ourselves and not for anybody else.


  • We will not make assumptions about anybody else's identity dimensions (for example, introducing ourselves with our preferred pronouns and asking for people's pronouns instead of assuming).


  • If we are uncertain about somebody's view point we will ask them about it.


  • We will not use any derogatory language that could offend anybody based on their identity.


  • We will become aware of how much space we take up with our voices and bodies.


  • If we are being made aware of being insensitive, we will learn how to apologise.


  • If we see that we are taking up a lot of space, we will take a step back and try to give a platform to others, who might have not had the possibility to voice their opinions.


  • We will learn to give trigger warnings.



  • One thing in particular needed a lot of work during the draft of this agreement. Two of the more confident masculine students, brought up that we should 'not get too emotional' when discussing controversial topics. The phrase 'suppressing emotions' was also dropped as a favourable method for class conversations. I am glad they did bring this up because it gave me a chance to dismantle this myth, or misconception surrounding emotions and rationality.

    So I gave them space to express their thoughts, however I said that I found that very problematic. I agreed that it will inhibit our dialogue in class if we all get really angry and start screaming at each other. I also said that of course, it is not beneficial to anybody if I came in crying my eyes out, hardly able to speak, as nobody would understand anything I would say. So in that respect, I said, we need to come to an agreement what to do about those emotions. I made it clear, that there is nothing wrong with being angry, being upset or very happy. All emotions are legitimate and valid and instead of suppressing them, we must express them (I did get a few nods from some of the girls for that). So this is what we added about emotions to our safer space agreement.


  • We will learn to express our emotions by speaking about how things make us feel, without pointing a finger and placing blame.


  • We won't discredit others' opinion for being emotional, and we will learn to accept emotional expressions as valid forms of expression.


  • Understanding Privilege

    Understanding privilege is the most important thing we can teach anybody and it is relevant to any and all classes, even -or perhaps, especially- in the sciences. In my class, where I have the most privileged bunch of young people sitting in front of me, who all want to go into positions of leadership and political power, it is very important to me that they critically engage with the opportunities they are given in life, as well as with the opportunities they are denied.

    Before going into much depth on the concept of privilege we did a little exercise (including a short definition of privilege and a trigger warning). I read out (and explained) one statement after another. Every time one statement applied a person, that person would stand up. I made it clear that this is not a test, that there are no right or wrong answers, that nobody should judge anybody else for standing up or not standing up and that you should only stand up or stay seated if you feel safe to do so. (below is the visualisation of the statements).



    After the exercise we discussed how some of the questions made us feel, whether anything made us upset or happy or whether anything was surprising. It was productive and also served as a really good ice breaker! Last year I introduced the concept of privilege by showing my class a privilege circle that depicted categories of identity that indicate privilege at the top half of the circle and their direct opposites that depict oppression on the bottom half.

    Unfortunately, beginning by explaining privilege through this dualistic and very simplified chart had the opposite effect of what I wanted to achieve. The three white male students in my class immediately got their defences up and were almost unreachable for me. On top of that everybody else aided them by confirming that they are very lovely people and could never oppress anybody! Last year it took me much longer to familiarise them with the concept. This year I feel they have already taken out much more, with regards to privilege, in three weeks of class than throughout the whole term last year. From my mistakes last year I realised that I need to create a community in which all of us first understand that identity is not a dichotomous concept but actually carries a lot of facets within it and then acknowledge that we are all in some ways oppressed and in others privileged, often involuntarily. This year, I only handed out this privilege circle (with the addition of speciesism, humans - animals, plants) after this first workshop. This way it makes it much easier for me to refer back to privilege and oppression in the sessions that follow.

    I would love to hear from other educators, what their classrooms look like and how they create safer spaces! I still have a long way to come, in fact I believe as knowledge facilitators we must never stop learning and experimenting together with our students.

    08 November 2014

    The epitomisation of everything that is wrong with the world - And the Story of Marie Françoise Bernard.

    ***Trigger Warning: Portrayal of animal cruelty***

    Claude Bernard was amongst the most prominent proponents of vivisection in 19th century Europe. He was celebrated as 'one of the greatest of all men of science' by science historian I. Bernard Cohen. Claude Bernard was a physiologist, a scientist who opens up the body to learn about its inner workings. It even seems as if in Bernard's work there was no greater purpose, such as for example helping those who want help. Rather, it looks as if he was doing science for science's sake, so to speak. His writing reflects this sentiment:

    The physiologist is no ordinary man. He is a learned man, a man possessed and absorbed by a scientific idea. He does not hear the animals' cries of pain. He is blind to the blood that flows. He sees nothing but his idea, and organisms which conceal from him the secrets he is resolved to discover.(Thanks Wiki)

    I don't think I have ever encountered all principles of patriarchy, perfectly exemplified in five short sentences. But there we go, that's exactly what this quote is, the epitomisation of the patriarchal mode of expression - or Phallogocentrism, a horribly bloated word which basically means that everyone who has/is a massive dick is seen as the best (people without penises can also be dicks). 

    Phal - from the phallic, the masculine, potent, able-bodied, knowledgable
      |
    logo -  from logos, the systematic, logical, rational, not emotional nor intuitive
      |
    centr - from the centre, in the middle, surrounded by everything else, the main and only point of attention
      |
    ism -    indicating an ideological conviction, a constructed -not natural- truth to subscribe to

    All patriarchal ideologies operate under the phallogical principle. Patriarchy implies that there is someone - a patriarch- hierarchically above you, who you must please so as to justify your existence. This can be a god, a king, a lord, a master, a judge, a father, brother or son...any figure to look up to. If we subscribe to patriarchy we communicate through phallogocentism (the mode of expression or language of patriarchy) and we make it our purpose in life to become more like that figure, so as to please him. The more we are opposed to becoming like our patriarchs, the more we suffer, as our existence will not be validated and legitimised because we don't speak a language that is understood by him.
    This painting of Claude Bernard -who, following his teacher, often operated on dogs without anaesthetic - portrays the reality of this systematic production of privilege (and by extension oppression). The painting shows a room filled with 13 humans who are portrayed as male, mostly wearing dark attire. We gaze directly upon the centre where we find a man - Bernard - wearing a white shirt and yellow vest, covered by a white apron (the mostly white outfit resonates very much with contemporary perceptions of the lab coat as a symbol of knowledge and understanding). He is pointing towards a bloody opening in a dog's chest/stomach (the dog is lying in front of him) whilst most men around him are looking intrigued towards him and the dog. The dog Is lying on their back, shackled by chains attached to their neck and paws, seemingly screaming in agony with their mouth wide open. Their right paw seems to be dislocated or broken by force as it is portrayed in a way that dog's paws don't bend. In the left corner of the painting we find another dog with a chain around their neck, bearing their teeth towards Bernard and tensing their body as if moving rapidly. This dog is ignored by the humans, none of which show any emotional expression, except perhaps attentiveness and contemplative curiosity. Behind the group of men we find a shelf with two skeletons, presumably from previous experiments, allowing us to imagine the upcoming death of the two dogs in the painting. The right bottom side of the image bears a book, behind which we see a curtain, that has been moved aside, thus no longer concealing much. The book in combination with this curtain might indicate to us that the scientist here is revealing knowledge to his spectators. He is unveiling a secret, a mystical, previously unexplored truth that he penetrated and can now expose to other. The top left side of the painting shows the only window in this room, which is placed at an angle and thus indicates the men's location in an attic, above other rooms of the house (that perhaps are attended to by women - if there are any in the building). The attic is also closest to heaven and god.
    So there we go, two small examples of Claude Bernard's legacy (the quote and the painting) show us everything that is wrong with the world. There is one very exciting aspect in Claude Bernard's life however. The fact that his scientific career was only made possible through his arranged marriage to Marie Françoise Bernard (née Martin). This gave him the space - metaphorically, physically and financially - to validate his torture chambers and build his career upon vivisection.

    Marie Françoise Martin - One Awesome Lady


    For catholics divorce is seen as a sin, and imagine the gravity of the sin when a woman wants to divorce a man in their marriage - today this still poses a huge moral dilemma for many women in abusive relationships so imagine this situation in the 19th century! Nevertheless Marie Françoise Martin separated from her husband and established an anti-vivisection society (thanks wiki). She had two daughters (and a son who died in infancy) with him. Wikipedia states that not only Marie Françoise, but also the older daughter Jeanne-Henriette actively campaigned against vivisection. They took a stand against the patriarch(y) and broke out of social convention. They spoke their own language and refused to give Claude and everything he stood for any platform to voice his ideas from. Of course, Marie Françoise came from a position of privilege with her wealthy upbringing but that also meant that she might have had a lot to lose when refusing to use phallological language. In this context she surely is one awesome lady!
     

    25 October 2014

    Feminism, feminism, feminism, can't you talk about anything else?

    Nope. I would like to. But I can't.
    Unfortunately feminism is the only tool I have to protect myself in a world that recognises the able white masculine cis-male voice, one that I don't fully have, as the only valid and legitimate voice.

    Before I came to animal activism I 'tried out' some other general social justice groups. I never really felt I fit in. I knew I wanted to be active and that I belonged somewhere on the left of the political spectrum but it was too confusing to see so many different 'lefts' and none that I would feel at home with. In fact, I didn't know what was so alienating to me in all those activist groups I tried to join but failed, until I started reading feminist literature, which I had to actively seek out - unless I picked a module at uni that was taught by a woman - although some of them were still very masculine.


    It's explicitly identifying with feminism that enabled me to see the whole picture. Having always been a feminist, not knowing that it does not go without saying for most people, I didn't realise until my late teens that I need to actively seek others out who share the same values as me. Finding 'my kind' of feminism was a huge journey for me. After I discovered TERFS (Trans-exclusionary feminists) I got a bit of a reality check once again, realising that feminism doesn't equal feminism and I still needed to dig deeper to find what exactly I want to fight for/against.


    Feminism lead me to activism, as feminism for me meant the total rejection of discrimination based on the socially constructed categories we give each other and everything around us. Feminism quickly equalled anarchism for me. Then logically, those two ideologies combined lead me to veganism. I had the biggest epiphany of my life when I realised that what we do to animals is the same evil that we perpetrate against other humans who we somehow categorise as lesser based on their gender/sexuality/age/ability/race/natonality etc or in fact, their species. It was not so much that I first had a strong feeling of solidarity with non-human women, but rather that I logically understood that I am oppressing these women the same way that patriarchy oppresses me. Out of that conclusion arose the deep empathy to my animal sisters (and brothers). 


    The fight for animal liberation symbolised the ultimate fight for me, the one that would free us all. The one thing that needed fixing so that we all could live happily ever after. When I found my way to animal activism, I once again was in for disillusionment on a big scale. I thought, this must be the place where people already have figured out how discrimination and oppression work. I will learn so much! Wrong again (well, wrong about how everybody will have made the same conclusions as me, not wrong about the fact that I am learning a lot). My first animal rights protest had ladies in their underwear with 'blood' all over their bodies, 'but ok' I thought, 'they are doing this voluntarily, their bodies their rules. I admire their courage'. Then, the further I looked and the deeper I got into the Animal Rights community (world wide a rather small network), the more I saw racism, ableism, nationalism, sexism and especially misogyny popping up everywhere, in AR communities in all cities and all countries. 


    This put me in an awkward situation, as by critiquing animal liberationists and vegans I felt I am betraying my comrades, who just like me face ridicule, shame and harassment every day for their choice not to eat animals and to speak out for their rights. Recognising that all of us, no matter how oppressed we are, still benefit from human privilege I tried to suppress being affected by the many micro- and macro-violences produced within my new family, against me and others. We had common enemies that I would rather focus on, appreciating all efforts to save our non-human friends*.


    It took me about a year to figure out which spaces are safe and which ones aren't within this community. I am still figuring that out actually. And I only now figured out, that it is ok for me to build my own space and establish my own rules. I am still working on not feeling that I need to justify myself for the decisions I make but thanks to a growing feminist vegan community who recognises the same faults with not only the sexual politics of meat but also the sexual politics of veganism and animal liberation (which are both an expression of patriarchy) I feel more empowered every time I overcome a setback.



    So, it looks like I'll have to continue talking about feminism as long as I live. I will never cease to speak the language of feminism until we are all free and there won't be the need to call it 'feminism' anymore. Even if it means that I need to stand up to people who demand I be held accountable for suggesting these unreasonable and uncomfortable ideas I have, I will continue to do so. That is the most valuable thing I've learned from animal rights, actually, how to stand up for the things you believe in. It is frustrating and it takes out a lot but there are people who will support you and you need to surround yourself with your kind of people. Jennai Bandock is one such incredibly strong person, who does her own thing because she knows she is right. For anybody who is frustrated by announcing, explaining and justifying yourself, I recommend her speech with the title 'The Hidden Cost of Patriarchy'. Absolutely empowering!

    I will leave you with some of my favourite written lines ever, arisen from the brilliant mind that is Luce Irigaray**: 'It is still better to speak only in riddles, allusions, hints, parables. Even if asked to clarify a few points. Even if people plead that they just don't understand. After all, they have never understood'.

    If anybody ever gives you shit for standing up against oppression, remember that.



    *I just now noticed that I am writing in the past tense, as if I have left all of this behind me. In fact these developments in my thinking are so fresh and they hit me so quickly that I am still working through them.


    **Irigaray is a brilliant old school feminist but not vegan as far as I know and I am not sure how far she extents her thoughts on liberation with regards to gender issues either.

    The Beginning of Something Great - Our Women's Group


    It's official. After a month of gathering interest online, we had our first Cambridge Women's Anti-Speciesist Reading Group meeting. And it was AMZING.

    If you define yourself as a woman and are willing to sign our safer space agreement, you are more than welcome to join this group.

    We are meeting every other Thursday. Here are the upcoming dates (location to be confirmed)

    30.10. Reading: Chapter 2 of Carol Adams the Sexual Politics of Meat.
    13.11.
    27.11.
    11.12.

    It was very interesting for me to realise after the meeting how much groups like these are needed. This is one of the projects that I took up, out of the inspiration and frustration that I brought back home from this years International Animal Rights Conference (IARC). I've climbed quite a steep feminist learning curve last summer. When I heard about IARC I wanted to be part of it. When I saw that there were already three confirmed feminist speakers (out of perhaps 70/80 total), I thought: They will never take me, as there are already people covering the ground for 'us' (as in us feminists/women). After I had sent in my abstract, Heiko, the organiser, responded with the friendliest email explicitly stating that it is urgent to have more feminist speakers present. I was baffled, this has never happened to me before. I was so used to having one token feminist speaker at any gathering and it never occurred to me that I never questioned this before.

    Although most participants were women at IARC (in fact the animal liberation movement consists mostly of women), most speakers were men. This is by no means a critique of the organisation, as I know that the organisers value intersectionality and marginalised experiences to a great extent. Rather, is it a fault of the system, a system in which a woman who has a lot to say, thinks that because there is one other woman speaking about women's issues, everything that anyone will want to hear about this will be said for her. So she might not even apply to speak.

    Thank fuck that I tried despite thinking I wouldn't be wanted. The experience I took away from meeting people from all walks of life and exchanging ideas and experiences in this almost utopian setting was overwhelming. It is there that the feminist friends I met, suggested to open an all women's group. An idea that would have never occurred to me!

    My first question was: How will I explain the purpose of this group to anybody? The answer I got to this was that I don't have to explain anything. I don't owe anybody any justification. If they join, they will see why the group is valuable.

    And despite the fact that up until the first meeting I only got good feedback, lots of support and a shitload of gratitude (even though I hadn't done anything except said: hey girls, let's meet up) I kept having imaginary conversations in my head with someone, anyone, no one really, in which I would justify the crap out of my group and keep explaining my frustration with patriarchy as well as animal rights, as part of this culture.

    So the moment came. I was sitting in the room. Nervous and anxious about whether anybody would actually turn up. The clock hit five to six. The first person came in and I died inside from happiness and relief. The person left again to take a phone call and didn't return until much later. I was alone in the room with my symmetrically arranged snacks and drinks on the table where I planned to seat about 10 people. At five past six then a group of 5 people flooded into the room and I the euphoria took over me.

    After the meeting, when saying our goodbyes for the night, two people subtly acknowledged how nervous I must have been, saying that they have been there, they know exactly how it feels, which again surprised me, because I just thought that in my anxiety I was just being dramatic without even knowing what was causing it.

    Another friend, 1000 kilometres away from here, went through exactly the same agony up until yesterday, when she invited women only to regularly meet up. This got me thinking about what a draining (but also exciting) experience it is for a woman to say: I want to have a women's only space in a world where most spaces are dominated by men.

    There were points, leading up to our first meeting, during which I questioned the activism of the group. What's so active about a bunch of people getting together and reading a book? What is this going to change in the world? And I realised very quickly, that it will actually change a lot. Our mere collective presence means that we are re-learning how to be, so as not to exist only in response to the dominant culture but to live as ourselves. Yes, it is about not living a live dictated by patriarchy, a demand we share (to a small extent) with the demand of animal liberation, the emancipation of our animal sisters and brothers from the same patriarchy that oppresses us.

    The Language of Patriarchy: Phallogocentrism

    My presentation from the International Animal Rights Conference 2014 is finally up!
    The title seems really bloated, but I try my best to unpack phal-logo-centrism in the presentation. It is a concept that helped me so much in understanding patriarchy and it revealed the urgency for vegan anarcha-feminist activism to me.

    Enjoy, and let me know what you think!





    P.S. After this presentation I have adjusted some things on the slides (e.g. instead of intersectionality I now talk about liberation - but my understanding of liberation could be the topic of another post)

    03 October 2014

    International Animal Rights Conference 2014

    Last month we attended what was probably the greatest four days of our lives. The people, the location, the food and the absence of profit created the most amazing atmosphere which allowed us to learn an enormous amount about activism and self-care.
    The International Animal Rights Conference in Luxembourg was set in a former slaughterhouse - when you paid close attention you would notice hooks and other remnants of the building’s dark and sad past. It was incredibly empowering sitting next to fellow vegans, listening to the tactics of animal liberationists in this giant hall, knowing that this is the place thousands of animals were murdered ruthlessly. We reclaimed it and made a powerful statement with our sheer presence - around 400 people from all over the world attended!

    The Movement for the abolition of meat as well as
    many other vegan organisations occupied the former
    abattoir with their materials for four days.
    Out of those almost 400 people a visible majority was female, yet, disappointingly but not surprisingly more speakers were male, which did not change the fact that mostly this conference created a safe space for us. In fact, when I was looking at the speakers who had been confirmed before I myself submitted an abstract, I thought I would not be invited to speak as there were already a hand full of feminist speakers. To my surprise, Heiko the organiser sent me a very encouraging email, inviting me to speak, even mentioning that they don't have many speakers addressing feminist issues. I thought to myself: 'Five explicitly feminist speeches is seen as not many? This must be an amazing place!' And indeed it turned out to be the wonderful gathering of ideas I was hoping for. The primary purpose for all of us to attend were the animals. This was felt throughout every talk and every interaction. The feeling of solidarity and the willingness to listen and learn that everybody approached each other with was overwhelming.

    I haven't felt so safe outside my own home for a very long time. Everybody was so accepting and respectful. Nothing mattered except for freedom and liberty. IARC is a place in which especially as a woman I felt safe. Speaking to an amazing activist who we met on the second day, Ana, psychologist, athlete and director of Vegan Power 50 K, I realised I was not the only one feeling this way. In our conversation we both realised that this was a place where we were not objectified (or objectified less?). We weren’t put under the (same amount of) pressure that we felt outside of this conference to apply make-up, wear gendered clothing or shave. Shit! The conference was so freeing, that when back home, I felt my bra restricting me to the point I couldn't breathe properly (which was a result of my psycho-somatic sensitivities and the fact that back in reality I felt overwhelmed with social pressures). Of course I have overheard some sexism and cheap pick up lines at the conference, but nobody is perfect, and these four days were pretty damn close to perfect (for myself anyway). Not only because of the minimised gendered interactions, but also because of the minimised speciesism and capitalism. It makes a huge difference to run an event on a non-profit basis. It gave rise to solidarity and respect, which, unlike at other conferences, was not based on someone's attire (usually men in suits get the most respect at conferences) or the amount of papers they have published, but solely on the fact that everybody tried the best in their capacities to help each other out.

    I must admit though, as wonderful and safe I felt at the conference, I also was accompanied by the feeling that my voice would be less important or less interesting to the attendees. I wasn't sure what that stemmed from, perhaps because I addressed systemic change from a more abstract perspective, rather than direct action and ALF tactics in my speech. It didn't become clear to me until I spent some time with Alissa, a vegan feminist activist and host of Animal Voices Vancouver. (Animal voices aired a report on IARC 2014, which conveys well what kind of inclusive space this conference is.) Alissa invited everyone for a feminist discussion group, an informal circle that would create a place of exchange between the female participants of the conference. Men were invited, too, and thanks to Lisa Kemmerer (who I wrote about in yesterday's post), the problematic of masculinity became obvious to me in one instant that night. All she did was call out, very peacefully, a silencing of the female voice by a male. It was a profound and overwhelming moment, whose energy stayed with me until today.

    I am grateful to all the strong women (and men) who I met at the conference and who have inspired me and given me the confidence to stand up for what I believe to be right.

    The most beautiful cake
    in celebration of  the opening night.
    We also both want to express our gratitude for the tireless efforts of the organisational team. They have managed to create an atmosphere of trust and solidarity you (surprisingly) rarely experience in activist circles. We are both absolutely grateful to all volunteers who fed us, cleaned up after us and gave us the possibility to solely focus on the animals for four whole days. Thank you for everything and see you next year!

    All recorded talks will be available on Youtube on Vegan Kanal.






    02 October 2014

    Feminists = Vegans: Lisa Kemmerer at IARC 2014

    We, as language-using humans love to put labels on everything. We love to identify, define and name everything around us. We need to give words to things, so as to speak. Chair... table…. water…. air…. you all have some sort of idea of what I am talking about. It might be vague but it gives you an indication of what I mean, at least enough to ask me for further context.


    When I tell you that I am a feminist, you will get the idea that I’m all for women’s emancipation and all against patriarchy.


    When I tell you that I am vegan you will (hopefully) know that I am all for animal liberation.

    But when I tell you that I am a feminist it doesn’t imply that I am vegan, nor vice versa. For me they are one and the same thing.


    I had the pleasure of meeting Lisa Kemmerer at the International Animal Rights Conference 2014. And she really nailed it! The label ‘vegan’ and the label ‘feminist’ should go together at all times!


    Watch and share please!




    Meeting Lisa was absolutely the best experience I have had in a long time. I have never experienced such a peaceful person, whose ability to diffuse conflict and still stand up against injustice is phenomenal. I should probably rather say she stands up for justice, not against injustice to stress how non-confrontational Lisa is. Although, of course, this is exactly what she does with every breath she takes, in silence and in words, her peacefulness is a major strike against injustice.