Response to Skyla

Skyla pointed out that "meat is masculine", and our society essentially "genders" food. While this is true, I would like to argue that both sides of the "meat" debate use sexism, and other forms of prejudice, as a tactic to push their agenda. There is a book that just came out entitled "Meat is For Pussies". It is exactly what it sounds like; it argues that men can be "real men"(strong, tough, "kick ass and take names", etc) by going vegetarian (I haven't read the book, but I got all of my information about it from its official website: http://www.meatisforpussies.org). This is problematic because not only is it enforcing gender roles on men, but it is sinking to the extremely low tactic of comparing something to female genitalia in order to make it look bad. More well known, though, is PETA(People for Ethical Treatment of Animals)'s use of sexist, racist, sizeist, and probably many other bad tactics to protest the unethical treatment of animals. I'm not going to post any of their ad campaigns here, because I find them disturbing and others might too, but if you google "peta" and the '-ism' of your choice you will find plenty. Their ads are humiliating, degrading, and insulting towards whoever they are targeting (though it is most often women, from what I have seen).

In the introduction of "The Animal Ethics Reader", the authors describe the "Extension Thesis"-the idea that people who are concerned with one oppressed group will often extend their concern to other oppressed groups. I believe that, when someone is concerned with one oppressed group they should be concerned with others, and they can't logically justify only defending one group. However, time and time again people have essentially thrown one group under the bus in order to push their own issues (and this is not just in the animal rights movement. It can be found in the women's rights movement, the civil rights movement, and the contemporary gay rights movement). Instead of everyone being concerned with oppression in general, they are often only concerned with the only oppression they personally have experienced. My question is, if the Extension Thesis makes sense in theory, why is it not usually accurate in mainstream resistance to oppression?

EDIT: I just want to add a quote from Audrey Lourde: "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. " To me, this is saying that you can't end oppression using the same "tools"-humiliation, degradation, disrespect- the oppressor uses.