Report Confirms How the White Patriarchy is Hurting the Farmed Animal Movement

A new report from Encompass, an organization that works to make “the farmed animal protection movement more effective by fostering racial diversity, equity, and inclusion,” applies research to its cause.

It’s well known in the field that a small band of white men control almost all of the funding and take up most of the oxygen in the room. This new report attempts to get underneath some of the consequences of this reality while making recommendations for how to ensure more voices are heard in the movement.

Researchers interviewed 69 organizations and gathered information from both survey data and individual interviews. I cannot do the robust 57-page report justice, so please do read it. I am going to focus on the interview summaries, as well as highlight a few quotes that most accurately illustrate the white male problems that I have also noticed or experienced or heard about many times from other women.

1. Most of the money and attention is going to white, male-led organizations. Summarized well by this statement:

“That the large, well-funded organizations in the farmed animal protection movement are predominantly white came up in nearly all of our interviews with leaders and staff. What does it mean that the well-funded, most visible (“mainstream”) sector of the movement is, or is perceived to be, predominantly white?”

It means it’s discriminatory and a massive, unchecked problem. According to one survey respondent:

“the generally held opinions and sentiments of those within the movement are most typically in a white vacuum; there tends to be a forgetfulness of the interconnectedness of oppression amongst people and animals.”

2. People of color are disrespected and marginalized. Some of the responses to the interviews were quite troubling. Here is how the report summarized it:

“respondents described regularly being discounted or having their ideas, suggestions, or approaches dismissed by leadership and/or others at their organizations. Such rejections, especially when they happen “regularly” as several respondents reported, were often felt not only as rejection of an isolated idea, but as a rejection of one’s perspective or lived experience.”

This sounds very painful. Of course, being treated this way often led to people leaving these organizations (I can think of several women I know, including women of color, who have left the movement):

“The respondents who described being “shot down” when raising ideas with leadership were more likely to leave their organizations. These respondents expressed that they experienced emotional exhaustion and burnout from these inequities, rather than burnout from the long hours (which also came up regularly in interviews as a common issue).”

3. There is one single “right” way to conduct advocacy. This is a theme that I have heard over and over again from my women colleagues in the farmed animal protection movement. That the men have decided the strategies and if you are not on board with them, you are out of the club. This translates to not getting funded and even at times being blacklisted. This problem is exacerbated by the “effective altruism” cult-like wing of the movement. The report confirmed this:

“grassroots groups are more likely to be told they are drawing on the “wrong” approaches because they are not serving a large enough number of animals … this right/wrong mindset has been amplified by the mandate of Effective Altruist funders to maximize “effectiveness” in protecting animals”.

4. Single-issue activism ignores political context. One of the biggest weaknesses of the animal welfare movement has been that it ignores neighboring issues that may be more politically charged. This report explains this problem by quoting one respondent:

“I think historically the farmed animal protection movement has been a single issue with a very poor ability to think multidimensionally and about power and privilege.”

5. White male led organizations are tone-deaf to other demographics. This problem was best summed by this quote from a respondent:

“If your messaging resonates well with a middle-aged, affluent, white mom from LA, it probably doesn't resonate with a mom in North Philadelphia who earns minimum wage at McDonald's.”

The report also goes on to explain how certain groups are marginalized in the movement:

“Many respondents also said that the movement has been oblivious to Black and Latinx vegan and animal rights groups, and have misunderstood, ignored, or overlooked the cultural values that drive support for vegan and vegetarian practices among those groups. These cultural values may include the use of traditional foods, and tying veganism to personal health, in addition to a concern for animals.”

6. Grassroots and community-led efforts may have more effective solutions. The report does an exceptional job at pointing out what is lost by a single focus on the “right way” to help animals, which is undervaluing grassroots efforts:

“Because the movement is still learning how to best support animal welfare, delineations about “right” and “wrong” approaches to animal advocacy not only exclude many organizations [led by people of color], but may ultimately hinder the efficacy of the movement itself.

Also:

“groups and organizations were described as overlooked, under-funded, and, yet, effective. Many respondents, particularly staff (as opposed to leaders), felt that connecting with these groups, building alliances, and sharing funding with them would not only be the “right thing to do” but would be a pragmatic way to advance the cause.”

Finally, the report makes the not so startling conclusion that including other voices would make the movement more effective overall: “making progress on racial equity is not only a moral imperative, but a survival imperative for the ongoing and continued success of the movement.”

Another strong quote came from a white respondent, but it nicely summarizes the problems:

“I think we need to do a better job of actually listening to advocates from marginalized groups and stop pretending like there's not an issue of inequity in the animal protection movement. There's still too much of a culture of ‘this is for the animals, stop making it about people’ when someone claims they have experienced harm or discrimination. Yes, obviously this movement is about the animals, but if we want to help animals, we can't have a movement full of burnt out, depressed, harmed, and unmotivated advocates. And when you deny these things are happening you're putting more power into the hands of people who aren't being effective for animals, because all they care about is THEIR glory, and THEIR way of doing things, without recognizing that it will take way more than a few elite white vegans to make change for those who need it (the animals themselves).”

Amen. The entire report is well worth the read. Every funder should be required to read it and take a hard look inward at what role they are playing to perpetuate these problems.