I used to wrap myself in fur. I loved the way I looked in it. I loved the way it felt on my body. I loved the social message it gave to others. This love affair with fur began when I, as a young girl, inherited a sheared beaver coat from my grandmother. There is, however, always a day of reckoning.

My day of reckoning came with a horrific tale of a mink farm, not far from my home. 2,800 mink were liberated; scattered throughout the forest, but these liberators also bludgeoned 443 of them in their cages with baseball bats or stomped them to death with their heavy boots. Their dead bodies laid smashed to death all over the mink farm floor. These mink-killers went so far as to decapitate the two family dogs; one an old beagle. I knew that no animal loving group was responsible for this. This was an act of hate against animals and a personal vendetta, I believe, with the owners of the farm. The crime remains unsolved. This farm had been crippled and would not be contributing to the 1.8 billion dollar fur industry.

I have always loved animals, so this story of hate and cruelty took me to my computer, where I found the story. I read all about the family who owned the mink farm being ruined because of dead breeding lines; that many generations of mink were gone forever. This article forced me to start thinking about fur farms, and for the next six months, I researched everything I could get my hands on about mink farms, mink, and the fur industry. The more I read, the more disheartened and appalled I became.

I never thought much about how my beautiful furs, in which I looked and felt so terrific, came into being. (Did I think the animal died of old age?) My research took me to mink farms and fur trappers. It was here that my days of buying and wearing anything with fur attached to it ended. All my furs went into the garbage and were removed from my home forever. But this was not enough. I needed to do something: make a difference. What could I do? I was just one girl. I was no one famous. I did not come from a well-connected family. I wondered how one woman could bring about change. That is when I thought about the power of words. I decided to write a book, but not just any book spewing out facts and statistics —those were already around. I decided to do something very different from anything done before; and from there, Mink was born. I was lucky to have been published by Arctic Wolf in late 2008.

Mink is a heroic fantasy novel about a universe of European mink. I used them since they are now approaching the endangered species status. They live in the story live in their natural environment. They are anthropomorphized, possessing their own culture, language, and mythology. Evoking epic themes, the novel recounts the mink odyssey as they encounter perils and dangers, but none so insidious as the wickedness, indifference, ignorance, and greed of a fur farmer, who has no regard whatsoever to the mink stuffed and locked behind cages. The story addresses the labors and timeless struggles between tyranny and freedom, reason and blind emotion, and the individual and corporate capitalism. The novel explores the themes of secular ostracism, survival, heroism, political and moral responsibility, and the making of a hero. They tell their own story. The sequel has just been finished.

Animals bring such joy to our lives. And we have a Biblical dominion over all of them, which to me means that we need to be responsible and care for all of the animals that God has put on this earth. My position is that more humane treatment is needed for all animals; this means empty cages, not bigger ones, and it means no more fur.

I reject physical violence, and my book, Mink, rejects physical violence. I can, however, understand why attacks on property can and do occur. If you compare the destruction of animal laboratories/fur farms to resistance fighters blowing up gas chambers in Nazi Germany, then it is easier to accept. I can understand why this is done. Personally, I could not do it, but I understand it, especially when you see the inhuman things they are doing to animals in the name of research and fashion.

Read. Look at the pictures and videos of what is found in laboratories—look at what fur farmers are doing behind closed doors. Fur farmers want the public to believe that their mink are domesticated…sorry pal, no such thing as a domesticated mink. It takes 1,000 years of evolution to domesticate an animal and fur farming began just after the Civil War. Do the math. Those who destroy labs and fur farms argue that the removal of animals from a laboratory or the farm it is supplying fur for, simply means they will be quickly replaced, but if the laboratory itself is destroyed -if the fur farm is trashed -it not only slows down the restocking process, but increases costs, possibly to the point of making animal research and/or skinning animals prohibitively expensive. I believe that all humans have a responsibility that encompasses all aspects of an animal’s well-being, beginning with the enforcement of stricter animal welfare laws and those breaking these laws should see harsher consequences.

For more information about the book, go to www.zetothemink.com.

A Problem with Words

Dani, at The Vegan Ideal, has already stated outrage over the notion that animal rights activists are the most targeted segment of the U.S. population. Or as the call asks:

Why do queer activists in Uganda but animal activists in the USA bear the brunt of police suppression in their respective countries? Are they similarly subversive of “cultural” practices that turn out to be critical to the maintenance of state power?

I whole-heartedly agree with Dani’s outrage. I’ve had the privilege of reading Pattrice’s writing before and my guess is that this is perhaps a misunderstanding in context. Perhaps it was meant the as far as activist groups go, animal rights activists “bear the brunt” in the U.S., whereas Queer activists are the most targeted in Uganda. If that is the intended statement, I may be more inclined to agree or at least less inclined to outrage.

There is perhaps a problem with comparison in this example. Animal rights activists in the U.S. are targeted for our activities and successes against large corporations. Queer activists in Uganda are not targeted because they are activists, or not solely because they are activists. They are targeted for being Queer, thus the situation requires the transition into activism.

What makes the claim of animal rights activists being the most targeted somewhat legitimate? The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is the first thing that comes to mind. Animal rights activists can now be sent to prison as terrorists for doing nothing but hindering the profits of animal exploitation businesses. That is what happened with the SHAC 7. They were not charged with any physical crime or even the conspiracy to commit a physical crime. Instead, they were targeted as terrorists because they ran a website that helped other activists effectively shut down the largest animal testing company. They are now serving federal prison sentences. But immigrants who participate in immigrant rights work (or any activist work for that matter) can be detained for an indefinite amount of time and deported without having committed any crime other than crossing an imaginary border to provide for themselves and their family.

It is also known that FBI agents commonly try to infiltrate animal rights groups (and vegan potlucks). However, it is also known that they are doing that with peace and environmental groups. I would also be surprised if they were not at least attempting to infiltrate immigrant rights groups. So to that extent, animal rights groups are, indeed, targeted. But perhaps not as disproportionately so as we would like to believe. After all, I believe the six SHAC activists are the only ones that have been imprisoned who didn’t actually commit any crimes (even if the other crimes were non-violent, they are still generally accepted as punishable crimes). And environmental activists such as Jeffrey Luers, who did commit the crime of burning SUVs, are serving far more disproportionate sentences (23 years for Luers).

So far, I’ve been arrested or detained for anti-war activities, anti-sweatshop activities, and counter-globalization activities, but not yet animal rights work. Not that one person’s experience can serve as the standard for an entire population, but that is my experience so far. The argument could be made that I haven’t been effective enough yet in my animal rights activism:)

Dani also makes a great point about something that I have been hoping to address here on this blog for several months now:

this call for papers ignore how activists are manufacturing increased police suppression that targets oppressed groups by actively promoting stiffer sentencing for anti-cruelty laws, and specifically criminalizing “animal cruelty” identified with poor people and people of color (i.e., dog fighting and cock fighting)

Sexualizing Things That Are Not Sexual

All of the above discussion was not, however, a part of the original dialogue sparked here at Deep Roots. The original concern, brought up by Jerico, was “are we continuing the trend of sexualizing something that isn’t sexual?” There is context to this question that I will get to in a moment, but let me first point out that this line of discussion was perhaps sparked by another problem with wording.

The subtitle of the book, Queering Animal Liberation, is kind of problematic. As Jerico pointed out, this title chose the language of “animal liberation” as opposed to animal rights or animal welfare. As longtime animal liberation activists, Jerico and I both agree that this is one of the Queerest and most Queer-friendly movements we have been a part of. Hell, there was an uprising at the Grassroots Animal Rights Conference because the keynote speaker is an outspoken homophobe. All of this is not to say that there isn’t work to be done within the animal lib movement.

Another question was why do we need to “Queer” animal liberation? Shouldn’t animal liberation as a concept be strong enough that it doesn’t need to be attached to some other liberation struggle in order to be justified? I hope the book will be used as a tool to show how liberation struggles are connected, but that in those connections they stand up in their own right as liberation struggles that must be taken seriously by those concerned with compassion and justice.

Jerico also pointed out that perhaps it could be called “The Queering of Animal Liberation.” This is where I’ll get into the context I mentioned above. Over the past year or two, we have seen a rapid increase in the attempt to connect veganism and animal lib work to some sort of deprived sexuality. The New York Times went so far as to claim a new breed of sexuality: vegansexuality. The idea that vegans will only sleep with other vegans because everyone else disgusts us. While vegans may be more apt to sleep with other vegans, you could say the same thing of liberals sleeping with liberals, conservatives with conservatives, Christians with Christians, Muslims with Muslims, Jews with Jews, you get the point. The reason is not that all of these people have some sort of sexually deprived minds, but that we like to be intimate with people who have common interests and ethics.

But it didn’t start or stop with vegansexuality. For a long time, it has been tried to attach animal liberationists to bestiality. Even Mother Jones sorta played into this notion by introducing the term “petophilia,” which I guess is supposed to refer to people who seem to care more about their non-human companions than the humans around them.

There were a series of articles recently published that tried to prove that herbivorous diets, especially those containing soy, will turn your children into Queers. And still to this day, there are very enlightened people who shout “fag” or “dyke” as they pass a crowd of animal lib activists. Obviously I don’t take these to be the insults they are meant to be, but it begs the question, “why is animal liberation and veganism seen as an activity for Queer people?”

The Remaining Straight-Edge Vegans

One last thing that was brought up that I repeat solely because I think it is funny, is Jerico’s response the the question, “What are we going to do about homophobia among straight-edge vegans?” His response: “Um, I don’t know. Go back to the 90s when it was still a problem?”

Mind you, we are both substance-free. We have both been around long enough to watch the rise and fall of the straight-edge scene. While there are still a lot of straight-edge people, the scene (if it is still a scene) is a lot different. In fact, the strongest proponent of straight-edge life that I know is Queer. Straight-edge seems to no longer be entrenched in the hardcore dudeliness that it once was.

None of this is to say that I think the book is a bad idea. I don’t. I am really interested in this discussion and hope that it succeeds. I merely hope that the critiques will encourage people to write thoughtful essays that truly challenge movements to become the liberation struggles we purport them to be. I think this is what the editors want to get out of this project as well and it is going to take all of us to accomplish that.

Coming Out for Animals: Queering Animal Liberation

What do queer liberation and animal liberation have to do with each other? How does the construction of homosexuality as both “unnatural” and “bestial” hurt both people and animals? How are speciesism and heterosexism interrelated and how do they fit into the matrix of race-sex-class oppression? Why have both homosexuality and veganism been dismissed as “white things” beside the point of real liberation struggles? What are we going to do about homophobia among straight-edge vegans? About those dreadful gay rodeos? Should we be arguing for pleather or against sexual practices that mimic the subjugation of animals? What’s so sexy about whips, chains, and choke collars anyway? What do hip hop “video vixens” and activist “vegan vixens” have in common beyond the performance of animality for the heterosexual male gaze? How does vivisection hurt people with AIDS? Why, within the USA, are both the queer and animal liberation movements less diverse than they should be but portrayed as more white than they are? Why do queer activists in Uganda but animal activists in the USA bear the brunt of police suppression in their respective countries? Are they similarly subversive of “cultural” practices that turn out to be critical to the maintenance of state power? What keeps many gay men in the animal liberation movement from coming out? Why are so many lesbian potlucks vegetarian and what does this mean in the era of FBI infiltration of the vegan potluck?

In the hopes of answering these and similar questions, we are seeking proposals for a new anthology to be entitled Coming Out for Animals: Queering Animal Liberation. (”We” are Kim Stallwood, pattrice jones, and Olivia Lane. Our bios are here.) The anthology will include thought-provoking essays on theoretical and practical topics as well as personal narratives by queer animal advocates , vegan queer activists, and queer vegans who are active in other struggles.

Proposals should include a summary or abstract of the proposed chapter along with information about the author. If you have previous publications, please list at least some of them. If you don’t have previous publications, don’t despair but please do include a writing sample — perhaps a page or two of the piece you want to write for us. All of the editors are skilled at working with first-time writers and we are particularly committed to publishing activists who have not yet had a voice in their respective movements.

We do have a number of chapters and promises in hand as well as a list of topics we really hope somebody will cover (some of which are suggested by the questions above). If you fear that your proposed topic might be already covered or if you might like to help us out by covering one of the topics on our wish list, please write to us before preparing your proposal. If you have any questions at all, please feel free to write to us before putting any time into a proposal.

Address all proposals and inquiries to: pattrice (at) pattricejones.info or pattrice jones c/o Eastern Shore Sanctuary; 13981 Reading Ferry; Princess Anne, MD 21853; USA.

Proposal Deadline: 30 August, 2008

Deadline for Accepted Chapters: 31 December, 2008

Please forward or re-post freely!

hat tip to Vegan Soapbox