Came across a passage in a book recently (I read daily no matter what else is going on in my life) lamenting how we don't have a real word for men who kill women, whereas the term "man-hater" is used so often you would think actual harm is caused by those accused of being one. And even though not new, this observation still strikes me every time I see it. They also rightly asserted that while we do have "misogynist", this too clinical and too academic-sounding word doesn't do the concept justice.
It's ironic that man-hater is usually directed at those who don't actually hate men, but who do object to hateful actions that hurt everyone. Man-hater is especially lobbed against those who question the status quo, and who fight to eradicate gender inequality. Actually, no, you just have to look like you're not living up to outdated gender expectations and you can expect to have this word spat out at you. Feminist is another term that when not used by like-minded peers, is more apt to be hissed, snarled, or accompanied by spittle than merely said. Just like the term "man-hater", these words are often hurled in anger or contempt. Fear too, because how dare people, women especially, assert their right not to be subservient. An interesting word, subservient, as you can practically see the words serve, servile and servant floating within it.
Man-hater. But if you think about it, how many acts of physical violence resulting in bodily harm or death are caused by these so-called man-haters? How many injuries, rapes, other sexual assaults, or murders? Leaving verbal and other forms of violence aside for now, how much physical damage do victims of man-hating actually endure?
Then think about the instances of physical assault, sexual assault, rape and death experienced by women. Without even looking up statistics, I know the numbers are staggering and frightening, but woman-hater isn't a term that's regularly used to describe the perpetrators of these acts. One could argue however, that evidence indicates we live in a rape culture, which is part of a larger woman-hating culture. So why is the more accurate term woman-hater rarely used?
Another word that I almost never see used relates to dehumanization. Loosely defined, to dehumanize refers to an act or process of depriving a person or group of human qualities. A terrible thing, obviously. A synonym for this is animalize, meaning to cause to be or act like an animal. Leaving aside the inherent anthropocentric bias (we've all heard phrases like, they're no better than animals!), why (and this is more of a rhetorical question) do we not use the term deanimalize to describe a similar process against animals?
A paltry 2,540 results when Googled, it seems to me that this lack of acknowledgement of the horrendous injustice done to individual beings and groups on a daily and worldwide basis deserves greater use of the term. We routinely strip animals of their animalhood (personhood some would even say), that is, the essential qualities that make them a sentient being and not an object, and don't give it a second thought. It begins with the use of the word "it" to describe most animals instead of he or she, words like pork instead of pig, beef instead of cow, television commercials about eggs that don't even show or mention chickens, and of course the routine farming practices we all abhor. Language is twisted and doesn't include the appropriate naming of what would be considered theft, kidnapping, rape and murder if the victims were human.
Animals, male and female, old and young, sick and healthy, are instead treated as inanimate objects, products of consumption and cogs of a vast and vile agricultural machine. In short, living beings with their own interests are rendered invisible, and the very act of invisibling is made invisible for most people as well. So another word almost completely missing from our vocabulary is animal-hater, and really, what word better describes a person who kidnaps and kills without fear of punishment because of a victim's species? Animal-hating (even though it isn't defined as such) is very much a part of our culture and that of others, so it seems absurd to have many who condone animal cruelty refer to themselves as animal-lover simply because they favour a couple of specific species. Love isn't even necessary; animal-respecter would be nice enough.
Man-hater, animal-lover. Woman-hater, animal-hater. So much hate, but not enough words to identify accurately where the real hatred is coming from, and whom it's actually aimed at. A lot of fakery in other words, and sadly, in today's political climate, even the word "fake" is now failing. The difference between fake and genuine was once more easily discerned, but nowadays fake seems to be applied by some to anything they don't want to hear. In some ways even topsy-turvy is now better thought of as turvy-topsy, as if things weren't bad enough before.
Words fail when they mean the exact opposite, when they conceal what's really going on, and when we don't even have proper names to describe what's happening. Words in this post fail too, of course, because of what I've left out. While I've talked (the words briefly outlined would perhaps be more accurate) about some of the words that fail women and animals, I haven't even touched upon words that fail humans who, for example, aren't white. And I haven't mentioned the most important word, the word that's at the heart of misnaming or not naming at all, and the word at the root of harm to different groups of beings whether based on categories like class, race, gender, ability, orientation or even species.
I love words, but even I often fail to do them, and you the reader, any real justice.
"So another word almost completely missing from our vocabulary is animal-hater". This. This hit me so much seeing it in words! I'd copy and paste the whole paragraph that follows that sentence here because I love what you wrote so much and have felt it but haven't put it into those words in a coherent way yet, but instead I will just say thank you for putting this into such eloquent words!
The thing that never occurred to me though is your point about the term "animal lover". I know that I've felt guilty (for lack of a better word) since becoming Esther Approved / vegan ... because I always did consider myself to be an "animal lover". When in reality, I was basically, for real, an animal hater. Because my love was so one dimensional and shallow regardless of how close I was to any individual dog or cat or bird that was brought into the various households I lived in over those years.
I appreciate this post so much! And I also share your views about everything at the beginning of this post, but I don't even have the knowledge to begin to address it. I realize it is definitely a part of the whole vegan reality, it is just too big for me to be intelligent about in a comment. Well, maybe intelligent isn't a good word. But the concept/connection don't come to me easily other than in my head. Exactly the same way that "animal lover" and "animal hater" didn't. Thanks for taking the time to put things like this into words!
I'm too bumfuzzled by most everything lately but something I've noticed again and again is that groups with power (social and/or other kinds) are the ones who control language and thinking and whats ok and whI ran across a brief video talk by Walter Mignolo recently (he's described as a semiotician...which means someone who studies "meaning making"...snazzy, eh?) and he was presenting a very abbreviated and condensed version of colonization and he noted that colonization (along with capitalism) led to the turning of life and living beings into some sort of commodity...meaning that they became instead of something having an intrinsic value and meaning all their own that they could be equated to some monetary value and bought and sold and exchanged and valued greatly or not at all.
He noted that the western Europeans "discovered" this "new" world and with all that land they needed labor and at's not and so on. I wonder if all the words (and absent words) you write about might gain some bit of greater clarity if they were thought about in relation to the power of the groups involved in their use...or their lack of existence. "Man-hater"...for instance...that's a word wielded by the group with power (men) to denigrate and intimidate and maybe shame those who resist and/or oppose them. No word for those who kill women? Well...mostly that's men (right?) and men have the power and a widely used word for a woman killer might denigrate or serve to put men down so...voila...no widely used and/or recognized term.
I've not thought a whole whole bunch about the power thingee but I have enough to suspect that it's a pretty useful tool for thinking about a number of things, not just the presence or absence of widely used terms, ya know? For instance, one thing I'm nervous about anymore is paying much heed to anything about a subordinated group if the originator of that information belongs to a dominant group. Make sense?
I just discovered your blog and really enjoy it. It is not a typical vegan blog, I like your writing and can relate to your point of view. There truly are many inequalities and not nearly enough compassion. We love to label things, so if you’re not with us, you’re with them. We group and classify things, occurrences, animals and even people. And then we fail when it really matters to use our words.