R5.pdf
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cgpc20
Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography
ISSN: 0966-369X (Print) 1360-0524 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgpc20
Pepperoni or Broccoli? On the Cutting Wedge of Feminist Environmentalism
JONI SEAGER
To cite this article: JONI SEAGER (2003) Pepperoni or Broccoli? On the Cutting Wedge of Feminist Environmentalism, Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 10:2, 167-174, DOI: 10.1080/0966369032000079550
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369032000079550
Published online: 14 Jul 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 909
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Gender, Place and Culture, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 167–174, June 2003
Pepperoni or Broccoli? On the Cutting Wedge of Feminist Environmentalism
JONI SEAGER, Department of Geography, University of Vermont
ABSTRACT Feminist environmentalism has become a significant intellectual and social policy force
across fields as diverse as public health, political economy, philosophy, science, and ecology. Feminist
environmental theory and activism together are challenging and redefining foundational principles, from
animal rights to the environmental economy of illness and well-being, from global political economy to
the role of Big Science as the primary arbiter of the state of the environment. Animal rights is one of the
most intellectually challenging and innovative areas of intellectual activity and social activism, and within
feminist environmentalism is one of the most radical subfields. This paper provides an overview of activity
in this subfield, starting from the observation that feminist environmental scholarship and grassroots
activism on animal rights pivot around three concerns: elucidating the commonalities in structures of
oppressions across gender, race, class, and species; developing feminist-informed theories of the basis for
allocating “rights” to animals; and exposing the gendered assumptions and perceptions that underlie
human relationships to nonhuman animals. At the same time, the serious contemplation of animal rights
makes a considerable contribution to destabilizing identity categories and adds new dimensions to
theorizing the mutability of identity.
Prologue
Feminist environmentalism is hot and getting hotter. At its best, feminist environmental-
ism rocks boats in public health, political economy, philosophy, science, and ecology.
Feminist environmental theory and activism together are challenging and redefining
foundational principles from animal rights to the environmental economy of illness and
well-being, from global political economy to the role of Big Science as the primary
arbiter of the state of the environment.
Rather than write a disciplinary-based review of the field of feminist environmentalism
that extols these myriad strengths, I would like to use this opportunity to reflect the
breadth of the field—and the potential for even greater breadth—through one lens. Let
me start with a recent social moment that suggests, for me, the scope of the field of play
of feminist environmental curiosity.
The scene is a women’s studies party for a retiring staff member at a Boston university.
A handful of women’s studies students, including two shy undergraduate men, are
tending the drink table and serving the food. I am sitting with a group of three other
faculty women when one of the men passes by with a tray of pizza in each hand. In his
left hand, pepperoni pizza, in the right, broccoli. We each in turn reach for the broccoli.
He pauses and then asks quizzically, ‘What is it about feminists and vegetarianism, is
there something going on?’ Three of us exclaim an enthusiastic ‘yes,’ the fourth a
Correspondence: Department of Geography, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401, USA; e-mail:
ISSN 0966-369X print/ISSN 1360-0524 online/03/020167-08 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI 10.1080/0966369032000079550
167
168 J. Seager
resounding ‘no’ and to punctuate her point she reaches for a second slice, this one, of
course, pepperoni.
‘Pepperoni or broccoli?’ ‘Paper or plastic?’; in contemporary North America, such
questions are positioned to encompass an entire moral universe, freighted with meaning
that is simultaneously heavy and impossible to ignore and also contrived to the point of
irrelevance. How profound, how trivial. How important, how indulgent. How compel-
ling, how trite. For North American feminists of a certain age, the ‘pepperoni or broccoli’
question also evokes a particular variety of furious 1970s debates about moral choice and
the patriarchal project, the politically pure vegan, male violence at home and on the
(kitchen) range, and feminist and lesbian separatism.
But the ‘pepperoni or broccoli’ question isn’t just a second-wave first-world feminist-
angst holdover. It travels well as a platform for a reconfigured modern feminist
environmentalism too. The simple pizza encounter sparked, for me, a broader curiosity
about what feminist geographers would bring to the table in thinking about this moment,
and what we have learned as feminists and as geographers/environmentalists since the
1970s that might make this question worth seriously considering.
Animal Rights and Feminist Environmentalism
Animal rights is one of the first entry portals for a feminist environmentalist pondering
the ‘pepperoni or broccoli’ question. In North American culture in the first years of the
twenty-first century, animal rights is developing a new legitimacy and visibility, propelled
largely by a gathering legal storm—several prominent jurists are positioning themselves
to develop a broad legal challenge on animal rights (for example, Wise, 2001). This will
come soon, and the fallout, one way or the other, will be shattering. At the same time,
within the broader contemporary field of feminist environmentalism, animal rights is also
at the hot center. It is one of the most intellectually challenging, paradigm-shifting,
innovative, and radical (in the best sense of that word) areas of intellectual activity and
social activism. The geographical—let alone feminist geographical—work directly in this
field is thin, but what there is is compelling and significant. Two anthologies represent
the best of geographers’ contributions to this field: Animal Geographies: politics, race, and
identity in the nature-culture borderlands, edited by Jennifer Wolch and Jody Emel (1998); and
Animal Spaces, Beastly Places, edited by Chris Philo and Chris Wilbert (2000).
Feminist environmental scholarship and grass-roots activism on animal rights pivot
around three concerns: elucidating the commonalities in structures of oppressions across
gender, race, class, and species; developing feminist-informed theories of the basis for
allocating ‘rights’ to animals; and exposing the gendered assumptions and perceptions
that underlie human relationships to non-human animals. At the same time, the serious
contemplation of animal rights makes a considerable contribution to destabilizing
identity categories and adds new dimensions to theorizing the mutability of identity.
Like nineteenth-century racial and gender taxonomies that were constructed and then
frantically repatched to keep pace with contravening evidence and with shifts in social
and economic realities, efforts to fix a firm line between ‘us’ (humans) and ‘them’
(non-human animals) are similarly becoming increasingly frenetic as the old standard-
bearers of asserted human/animal difference topple. For example, the insistence that
animals do not feel pain—until very recently the central subterfuge of vivisectionists and
other animal experimenters—has been all but abandoned in the face of overwhelming
contrary evidence. In response, the contested terrains have been shifted away from a
simple ‘pain’ threshold test of animal rights to arguments about whether animals have
consciousness or social awareness, whether they feel or express abstract emotions, can
Feminist Environmentalism 169
feel loss and deprivation, the extent to which they demonstrate cognitive skills, curiosity,
and problem-solving capacity, whether their behavior is motivated more by ‘instinct’ or
‘intelligence.’ (Not unimportantly, this last debate is taking place even while the
measurement and concept of human ‘intelligence’ itself is increasingly called into
question.) Where a pig or cow (aka pepperoni) is judged to lie on the human-to-broccoli
spectrum is no small matter.
The North American and European high-consumption, industrialized economy is one
in which the oppression, enslavement, and exploitation of animals occurs on an
unimaginably massive and cruel scale—in the food chain, the scientific production chain,
in consumer and commodity chains, in the recreational economy. The specific
justifications for this vary, but are all rooted in dual assertions: of significant human/
animal difference, and of the putatively scientifically provable ‘lesser’ intellectual or
emotional capacities of animals. Sound familiar? These are achingly close reprises of the
conceptual bases for racial, sexual, and gender hierarchies, certainly as those hierarchies
have been developed in the Western context of the past few centuries. The debates about
animals unmistakably echo familiar racist and sexist ideologies about ‘natural affinities,’
categories authorized by nature, destinies inscribed in biology, and ‘scientific proofs’ of
the limited capacities of the ‘other’ that have rumbled through the centuries to justify
slavery, the oppression of women, and ethnically and racially based holocausts and
genocides. Two early feminist works remain unsurpassed trenchant analyses of these
parallels: Marjorie Spiegel’s comparison between animal and human slavery, The Dreaded
Comparison (1988), and Carol Adams’s treatise on the Sexual Politics of Meat (1990). Work
by geographers Glen Elder, Jennifer Wolch and Jody Emel (1998) adds important
post-colonial and place-sensitive analyses of the ways in which animal–human relations
are used in the representational politics of cultural difference and in the production of
notions of hierarchies of ‘civilized’ societies (the contrast drawn, for example, between
‘savages’ who ritually sacrifice animals versus ‘civilized’ societies that kill animals, but in
a more modern industrialized way).
Since animal exploiters rely on tropes about animals being ‘different from’ humans
(and thus not protected by human-like considerations or rights) and about animals being
‘lesser than’ us in myriad ways, animal rights activists often start by arguing the opposite.
Complacency about human exceptionalism is challenged by every report of parrots who
can count, of whales with globe-spanning languages, of elephant mourning and memory,
of cephalopods who solve spatial problems, or of cows who escape slaughterhouses with
prodigious feats of athleticism and cunning. Recent discoveries that genetic differences
between human and most non-human animals are slight to negligible have opened a new
dimension in animal rights debates.
Assertions of biological or cultural similitude—or parallelism—between human and
non-human animals are theoretically and philosophically congruent with the larger
feminist project of destabilizing identity categories. Thus, many animal rights feminists
aver that just as feminist and queer theorizing has blurred the line of ‘authorized by
nature’ identity categories, animal rights environmentalism queers the line even more.
Many feminists would assert that the ‘line’ between human animals and non-human
animals is more of a broad, smudgy band than a sharp demarcation. This is what Donna
Haraway calls a moment of boundary breakdown:
the boundary between human and animal is thoroughly breached …
Movements for animal rights are not irrational denials of human uniqueness;
they are clear-sighted recognition of connection across the discredited breach
170 J. Seager
of culture and nature … the line between humans and animals [is reduced] to
a faint trace re-etched in ideological struggle. (Haraway, 2000, p. 52)
However, this is not to say that feminists can or should argue for rights for animals just
because they are ‘similar’ in some aspects to humans. Questioning the human/animal
divide as a basis for animal rights is complicated by deeply theorized feminist political
commitments to respecting and retaining the integrity of ‘difference.’ In this, feminists
part company with prominent male animal rights advocates such as Peter Singer (1975)
and Tom Regan (1983), who argue for an extension of the moral community to include
animals primarily on the basis of their sameness to humans. Philosophers Karen Warren
(1990, 1997), Deborah Slicer (1991), and Val Plumwood (1993) elaborate most clearly
the importance of developing a feminist animal rights theory that does not sanctify the
‘erasure of difference,’ an erasure that almost always works primarily to the advantage
of the dominant class. Prominent environmentalist Vandana Shiva presents a key
feminist assertion that ‘even the tiniest life form [must be] recognized as having intrinsic
worth, integrity, and autonomy’ (2000, p. 74).
Bioengineering, with its potential to elide biological difference (splicing salmon genes
into potatoes or engineering goats to produce spider silk) introduces a new uncertainty
into the ‘pepperoni or broccoli?’ question. It also throws feminist animal rights theorizing
into contentious debate. Extending her point about the necessity of recognizing the worth
of animals in their own terms, Shiva, for example, chides Western feminists for playing
with postmodernist romanticizations of transgenicism. Directly challenging Donna
Haraway’s ‘cyborg feminism,’ Shiva argues that measured against the real-world impact
of transgenicism on food production and lived ecologies, fantasies about ‘border cross-
ings’ (between humans and animals, or among non-human animals themselves) are an
indulgence. The intellectual pleasure of playing with ideational subjectivities, Shiva says,
is a Western luxury that ignores the high costs of the bioengineering assault on ecological
and social integrity:
The mad cow is a product of ‘border crossings’ in industrial agriculture. It is
a product of the border crossing between herbivores and carnivores. It is the
product of the border crossing between ethical treatment of other beings and
violent exploitation of animals to maximize profits and human
greed … Species boundaries between humans and cattle are also being crossed
to create pharmaceuticals in the milk of factory-farmed animals … These
border crossings, promoted by corporate elites for profit, are rationalized by
the popular postmodern stances taken by some academics … This [Haraway’s
defense of transgenic border crossing] academic rationale for an attack on
environmental and Third World movements is based on false assump-
tions … The mad cow, as a product of border crossings is a ‘cyborg’ in Donna
Haraway’s brand of ‘cyborg feminism.’ (2000, pp. 72–75)
This particular challenge has not been well developed elsewhere, but it will become
increasingly important as genetic manipulation of plants and animals escalates.
Most feminists in the forefront of developing and advancing animal rights theory
locate the primary challenge of their work against the positions of Singer and Regan, the
two men whose writings largely frame Western contemporary animal rights analyses.
Both Singer and Regan famously reject expressions of ‘caring’ for animals, a position
they both offhandedly feminize, as a basis for animal rights. The case for animal rights,
they argue, must be a rational (unemotional) one. Regan and Singer’s unflinching
embrace of what Bordo (1986) calls ‘masculinized Cartesian thought’ paints animal
Feminist Environmentalism 171
rights, ironically, with the same brush used by those who justify animal exploitation.
Josephine Donovan, a prominent feminist animal rights theorist, makes this point
in their reliance on theory that derives from the mechanistic premises of
Enlightenment epistemology (natural rights in the case of Regan and utilitarian
calculation in the case of Singer), and in their suppression/denial of emotional
knowledge, [they] continue to employ Cartesian, or objectivist, modes even
while they condemn the scientific practices enabled by them. (1990, pp. 177–
178)
Sandra Harding (1986) remarks on the synergy between masculinism and appeals to
scientific rationality:
Science reaffirms its masculine-dominant practices, and masculine dominance
its purportedly objective scientific rationale, through continued mutual support.
Not only is this set of associations objectionable because it is sexist; it also
makes bad science. (p. 121)
The tenor of mainstream animal rights theory set by Regan and Singer taps into this
‘mutual support’ of male reification of Western scientism and rationality, a fact that may
largely explain their dominant position in the pantheon of animal rights advocates.
Some of the most exciting work in theorizing a feminist approach to animal rights,
then, is rooted in the effort to break from this rationalist tradition. In its place, feminists
are developing a new ethic of animal rights around care-based theory. The central
philosophical tenets of this approach include consideration of a ‘particular other’ and
‘attentive love’ (a phrase derived from Simone Weil), and a recognition of the importance
of feeling, emotions, and personal experience in moral decision-making. Several feminists
make the point that there is a tradition even among male Western philosophers to locate
ethics in emotion, sympathy, and compassion (Hume, Schopenhauer, Buber, Husserl,
and Scheler among others), but that this ‘sympathy tradition’ has been overshadowed by
rationalist theory (Donovan, 1994).
The best of feminist animal rights theorizing does not simply resuscitate this overshad-
owed Western philosophical tradition of ‘care.’ Rather, it reimagines a human relation-
ship to the non-human world by locating action and theory in the lived world and moral
universe of women’s identity and on the basis of feminist political insights. Some of this
work returns us to ecofeminist discourses about women’s ‘special kinship’ with animals,
an assertion that raises specters of essentialism. However, the most compelling feminist
animal rights theorists insist that developing a care-based ethic cannot rest on an appeal
to a ‘natural(ized)’ extension of women’s affinities and experiences but, rather, must also
reflect a honed political analysis. Donovan, for example, insists that while a caring ethic
might seem to make particular ‘sense’ within women’s lives, ‘feminists must insist that it
be framed within a political perspective’ (1994, p. 160), a perspective she enumerates as
including analyses of power relations in animal exploitation industries, in the com-
modification of animals, and in the hegemonic export of Western constructions of
human–animal relations. This insistence on contextualizing the caring for animals within
a political analysis brings animal rights into synergy with political ecology, the point of
entry for most feminist geographical work in this field.
Feminist Political Ecology
Feminist political ecology pushes the ‘pepperoni or broccoli’ question into new domains.
I think of feminist political ecology as an intellectual inquiry forged at a point of
172 J. Seager
convergence of critical studies of science, global structural power, political economy,
gender, and environment. Work in this field ranges widely: much of it focusing on
transnational or international processes, and almost all starting from a curiosity about the
gendered material conditions of lives rooted in specific ecological contexts (see, for
example, Agarwal, 1992; Wickramasinghe, 1994; Rocheleau & Edmund, 1997;
Shiva, 1994; Gururani, 2002). Much of this work includes a strong focus on the uneven
distribution of access to and control over resources, economies of uneven development
(see, for example, Rocheleau et al., 1996; Sachs, 1996), and the environmental effects of
the forced integration of local environments/communities into global capital flows, world
trade regimes, and military webs (Agarwal, 1992; Seager, 1999; Silliman & King, 1999;
Kurian, 2000; Shiva, 2000).
Feminist scholarship on the construction of science exerts a strong influence on much
of the political ecology literature. The widespread export of Western technologies and
ideologies of the ‘control of nature,’ whether as part of eighteenth-century colonialism or
twenty-first century corporatist ‘development’ strategies, is a strong determinant of the
state of the global environment, and feminist political ecologists have been particularly
attentive to the gendered import of the global spread of these ideologies (see, for
example, Agarwal, 1992; Shiva, 1989, 1993, 2000).
Focusing on the pepperoni question still, one of the particular contributions of feminist
analyses of such processes lies in exposing the patriarchal foundations of the exploitation
of animals and in detailing the gender/race/class specificity of what are typically
portrayed as ‘universal’ norms of human–animal relations. The feminist literature on this
ranges widely. Carol Adams’s (1990) provocative analysis of the masculinist privileging of
meat-eating, and of feminist interventions to destabilize Western patriarchal (animal)
consumption, is a classic. My own brief analysis of the fur industry (in Seager, 1993) adds
another dimension to this type of analysis. Feminist analyses of the gendered foundations
of industrial and ‘recreational’ animal abuses can be shocking, even in a cultural context
where both the casual and the systematic abuse of animals is taken for granted.
One of the contributions to this genre that I find particularly revealing and analytically
challenging is Jody Emel’s analysis of wolf-hunting in the USA, ‘Are you man enough,
big and bad enough?’ (1995). The unremitting ferocity and depravity of wolf eradication
in the USA, Emel argues, is deeply embedded in the license given to distorted male
power through the normalization of hunting. The hunting and killing of ‘fierce animals,’
she argues, is demarcated (in the American frontier-referent imagination) as a pinnacle
expression of virility and manhood. In this argument, Emel builds on a rich literature of
feminist analyses of hunting (see, for example, Kheel, 1995). But the power of Emel’s
analysis is its particularly sophisticated positioning of raw male brutality within even
larger structures of rationalization:
Constructions of masculinity, cruelty, regimes of bureaucracy, commodity
production, class relations, myth and superstition, all determined the wolf’s
demise. Altogether they supported and mutually defended one another. (1995,
p. 732)
A related area of feminist inquiry interrogates gender, race, and class differences in
attitudes to and perceptions of animals, nature, and the environment. The germinal
study on American attitudes toward wildlife is a 1987 study by Stephen Kellert and Joyce
Berry, who concluded that gender was the strongest demographic factor in patterning
attitudes to wildlife; they went on to point out that to the extent that men dominated the
wildlife/conservation bureaucracy and industry, then the formulation of public policies
Feminist Environmentalism 173
on wildlife would be particularistically gendered. Jennifer Wolch has extended these
analyses with studies of attitudes toward wildlife in California across race, class, and
gender (Wolch et al., 1997, 2000; Wolch, 2001). She finds, again, sharp differences across
gender and also across racial and ethnic groupings in perceptions of animal protection
policies, in attitudes towards culturally specific animal practices, and on broad measures
of animal welfare.
Feminist political ecology also raises key challenges to modernist inscriptions of
resource-as-commodity relationships, especially the imposition of Western systems of the
commodification of nature—in its gendered dimensions. Who grows broccoli where, for
whom, and under what conditions? Under what conditions is land put into or taken out
of broccoli production? Who makes those resource decisions? Who plants, harvests,
sprays, cuts, washes, packages, and profits from the chain of commodity production that
puts broccoli on a pizza at a party in the middle of a New England winter?
Pigs and cows don’t become pepperoni in a disintermediated state. Under what
conditions, at whose hands, and to whose profit does a pig become pepperoni? Under
what conditions, and by whom, are pigs inscribed primarily as pepperoni? What are the
consequences (social, ecological, economic) for pigs and for people of the pepperoni
economy? Who consumes pepperoni—and, as we started, within what cultural, class,
racialized and gender contexts? It’s not a small question.
REFERENCES
ADAMS, CAROL J. (1990) The Sexual Politics of Meat: a feminist-vegetarian critical theory (New York, Continuum).
AGARWAL, BINA (1992) The gender and environment debate: lessons from India, Feminist Studies, 18, pp. 119–
158.
BORDO, SUSAN (1986) The Cartesian masculinization of thought, Signs, 11, pp. 439–456.
DONOVAN, JOSEPHINE (1990) Animal rights and feminist theory, Signs, 15, pp. 350–375.
DONOVAN, JOSEPHINE (1994) Attention to suffering: sympathy as a basis for ethical treatment of animals, in:
JOSEPHINE DONOVAN & CAROL J. ADAMS (Eds) (1996) Beyond Animal Rights: a feminist caring ethic for the treatment
of animals, pp. 34–59 (New York, Continuum).
ELDER, GLEN, WOLCH, JENNIFER & EMEL, JODY (1998) Le Pratique Sauvage: race, place and the human–animal
divide, in: JENNIFER WOLCH & JODY EMEL (Eds) Animal Geographies: politics, race, and identity in the nature-culture
borderlands, pp. 72–90 (New York, Verso).
EMEL, JODY (1995) Are you man enough, big and bad enough? An ecofeminist analysis of wolf eradication in
the United States, Society and Space: Environment and Planning D, 13, pp. 707–734.
GURURANI, SHUBHRA (2002) Forests of pleasure and pain, Gender, Place and Culture, 9, pp. 229–244.
HARAWAY, DONNA (2000) A manifesto for cyborgs: science, technology and socialist feminism in the 1980s, in:
GILL KIRKUP, LINDA JANES, KATHRYN WOODWARD & FIONA HOVENDEN (Eds) The Gendered Cyborg: a reader,
pp. 50–57 (London, Routledge).
HARDING, SANDRA (1986) The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press).
KELLERT, STEPHEN & BERRY, JOYCE (1987) Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by
gender, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 15, pp. 363–371.
KHEEL, MARTI (1995) License to kill: an ecofeminist critique of hunters’ discourse, in: CAROL J. ADAMS &
JOSEPHINE DONOVAN (Eds) Animals and Women: feminist theoretical explorations, pp. 85–125 (Durham, NC, Duke
University Press).
KURIAN. PRIYA A. (2000) Engendering the Environment? Gender in the World Bank’s Environmental Policies (Aldershot,
Ashgate).
PHILO, CHRIS & WILBERT, CHRIS (2000) Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: new geographies of human–animal relations
(London, Routledge).
PLUMWOOD, VAL (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (New York, Routledge).
REGAN, TOM (1983). The Case for Animal Rights (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press).
ROCHELEAU, DIANNE, THOMAS-SLAYTER, BARBARA & WANGARI, ESTHER (Eds) (1996) Feminist Political Ecology:
global issues and local experiences (London, Routledge).
174 J. Seager
ROCHELEAU, DIANNE & EDMUND, DAVID (1997) Women, men, and trees: gender, power and property in forest
and agrarian landscape, World Development, 25, pp. 1351–1371.
SACHS, CAROLYN E. (1996) Gendered Fields: rural women, agriculture, and environment (Boulder, CO, Westview Press).
SEAGER, JONI (1993) Earth Follies: coming to feminist terms with the global environmental crisis (New York, Routledge).
SEAGER, JONI (1999) Patriarchal vandalism: militaries and the environment, in: JAEL SILLIMAN & YNESTRA KING
(Eds) Dangerous Intersections: feminist perspectives on population, environment and development, pp. 163–188 (Cambridge
MA, South End Press).
SHIVA, VANDANA (1989) Staying Alive: women, ecology and development (London, Zed Books).
SHIVA, VANDANA (1993) Colonialism and the evolution of masculinist forestry, in: SANDRA HARDING (Ed.) The
‘Racial’ Economy of Science: toward a democratic future, pp. 303–314 (Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press).
SHIVA, VANDANA (1994) Close to Home: women reconnect ecology, health, and development worldwide (Philadelphia, PA,
New Society Publishers).
SHIVA, VANDANA (2000) Stolen Harvest: the hijacking of the global food supply (Cambridge, MA, South End Press).
SILLIMAN, JAEL & KING, YNESTRA (Eds) (1999) Dangerous Intersections: feminist perspectives on population, environment and
development (Cambridge, MA, South End Press).
SINGER, PETER (1975) Animal Liberation (New York, Avon).
SLICER, DEBORAH (1991) Your daughter or your dog? A feminist assessment of the animal research issue,
Hypatia, 6, pp. 110–124.
SPIEGEL, MARJORIE (1988) The Dreaded Comparison: human and animal slavery (Philadelphia, PA, New Society
Publishers).
WARREN, KAREN J. (1990) The power and promise of ecological feminism, Environmental Ethics, 12, pp. 125–146.
WARREN, KAREN J. (1997) Ecofeminism: women, culture, nature (Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press).
WICKRAMASINGHE, ANOJA (1994) Deforestation, Women and Forestry (Amsterdam, International Books).
WISE, STEPHEN (2001) Rattling the Cage: toward legal rights for animals (New York, Perseus).
WOLCH, JENNIFER (2001) Attitudes toward marine wildlife among residents of Southern California’s urban
coastal zone. Monograph, 131 pp.
WOLCH, JENNIFER & EMEL, JODY (Eds) (1998) Animal Geographies: politics, race, and identity in the nature-culture
borderlands (New York, Verso).
WOLCH, JENNIFER, BROWNLOW, ALEX & LASSITER, UNNA (2000) Attitudes toward animals among African
American women in Los Angeles, in: CHRIS PHILO & CHRIS WILBERT (Eds) Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: new
geographies of human–animal relations (London, Routledge).
WOLCH, JENNIFER, GULLO, ANDREA & LASSITER, UNNA (1997) Changing attitudes toward California’s cougars,
Society and Animals, 5.
