Female Animalization, A Collection of Images

comments 23
discrimination and hate / equality / human rights images

Female animalization is the depiction of women as animals, or as hybrid human-animals. It’s in fact a subgenre of female objectification, which is itself a subgenre of dehumanization (see also here). Depicting a woman as an animal means taking away her human characteristics and can lead to gender discrimination. It’s easier to deny the rights of an animal than the rights of an individual human being.

female animalization

(source)
snake woman

snake woman

(source)

female animalization

female animalization

female animalization

female animalization

(source)
frog woman

frog woman

(source)
pig woman

pig woman

(source)
Hillary Clinton as a pig

Hillary Clinton as a pig

(source)
dog woman

dog woman

(source)

peta ad pamela anderson as a pig

tiger woman tigra

(source)

And of course there’s this infamous example of Michelle Obama’s face turned into a monkey face:

Michelle Obama monkey face

Michelle Obama monkey face

(source, examples of Bush and Osama bin Laden as monkeys are here)

Some time ago, this image was the first to appear when people googled for images of Michelle Obama. Because of this Google issued this statement:

Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.

Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize if you’ve had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results.

Sincerely,

The Google Team

At this point, I should probably mention that men as well can be animalized, and have been to great political effect throughout history. Here’s one example:

jap rat

More examples featuring hated outgroups here.

More on advertising.

23 Comments

  1. I hope, then, that you accept the corollary of your position (for obvious reasons), which is that male animalization is inherently wrong and dehumanizing. So, something like this is deemed immoral. In the same vein, we should also be very appalled by the new movie, Avatar, which recently come out in theaters because of its depictions of humans (including females!) as non-humans. Of course, I think that’s rather absurd, if I may say so.

    • Male or female animalization can of course be equally appalling, although female animalization is often a corrolary of gender discrimination, making it morally more reprehensible. I say “can”, because the context and the intent, as well as the possible consequences are obviously crucial as to whether it’s a moral issue or not. You can view Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck as forms of animalization, but as far as I can tell there hasn’t been any moral controversy about this, precisely because the Disney characters aren’t inscribed into a narrative of oppression or submission, something which is the case with the “black woman/African animal” analogy in the examples in this post (or the “female/pig (i.e. consumption object)” analogy).

  2. Pingback: An explanation of our search results. «

  3. olivia siegel says

    Hello, I just think what you are doing is sick and cruel! You are a sexist and racist person! Whoever made this website with these pictures, you should be ashamed of yourself! I really hope that one day you see what you are doing wrong.

  4. Pingback: Racism, A Collection of Images « P.A.P. Blog – Human Rights Etc.

  5. Pingback: Human Rights Facts (184): Blacks and Apes « P.A.P. Blog – Human Rights Etc.

  6. Pingback: Racist Stereotypes, A Collection of Images | P.a.p.-Blog, Human Rights Etc.

  7. Pingback: Antisemitism, A Collection of Images (2) | P.a.p.-Blog | Human Rights Etc.

  8. Pingback: Measuring Human Rights (24): Measuring Racism, Ctd. | P.a.p.-Blog | Human Rights Etc.

  9. Pingback: “You Are Not Your Own” Series: On Traditional Gender Roles and Dehumanization

  10. Pingback: Female Animalization, A Collection of Images (2) | P.a.p.-Blog // Human Rights Etc.

  11. FWIW I don’t necessarily equate objectification with dehumanisation, although in reality the two often do go together. But strictly speaking, why should it be automatically wrong to appreciate ONLY the physical beauty (or some other physical attribute) of a human being? Why should it be demeaning for us humans to present ourselves to others ONLY as objects? When I go to a concert the musicians are presenting themselves to me ONLY as musicians and that is how I judge them and all I really care about. This is not demeaning to them – is it?

    To place an ‘arty’ photograph of a tree in an art gallery is to objectify that tree (and trees in general)…. is that ‘dehumanising’ to trees?

    I think we confuse the concept of humans as OBJECTS with the concept of humans as POSSESSIONS, since we usually consider objects to be possessions. But I think the distinction is important one to keep in mind.

    It IS possible to admire, adore or even worship humans based ONLY on their physical form, and do so without any desire whatsoever to treat them as possessions. Again, I’d make the analogy with your favourite orchestra and conductor. At least inside the concert hall, you appreciate these people ONLY as outstanding musicians (not as ‘people’), but this does not mean you have any desire to control them or own them in any way – either inside the concert hall or in daily life.

    Clearing up this confusion between (1) objectifying people and (2) the desire to actually own or control people like possessions allows us to admire (and artistically explore) each other’s physical forms without fear of being un-PC…. a fear generated (like so many) by confusion.

    Having said that, most of the images found in advertising and the corporate entertainment industry ARE vile and certainly ARE deliberately loaded with dehumanisation themes. For an mind blowing education on these matters, I can’t recommend enough this website – vigilantcitizen (especially the ‘music business’, ‘movies and TV’ and ‘pics of the month’ sections)

    • I think the problem with objectification is the difference in morally allowed treatment of objects and subjects respectively. We have no moral obligations towards objects.

      • But is that really true? We venerate (and protect) works of art, monuments, buildings etc. They are all objects. We treasure jewellery or ipads or cars and lavish them with care and attention.

        The government routinely blows the arms and legs off children and nobody seems to mind….. but if they ever directed one of their drone attacks on the Statue of Liberty or Big Ben there’d be a public outcry.

        In any case animals are not objects. What is offensive about these pictures is not that they are animals, because animals are not offensive. What is offensive is that they are portrayed as animals-being-treated-as-possessions (as rugs, in cages, as domesticated livestock or sources of meat or blubber etc).

        There is nothing automatically demeaning about portraying oneself in animal or hybrid form as this video demonstrates.

        Sorry, but I’m sticking to my guns on this one :)

  12. OMG! Anthropomorphism must be from the devil!. Joking aside, I agree it is tasteless to take a celebrity and merge it with a monkey, or showing woman as slabs of meat (peta is the tasteless organization after all, what would you expect from them). However on the same token there are plenty of humanoid animal species in fiction, movies, games, worshiped as gods, in comic books, etc. Making a stance against humanoid creatures would be just plain stupid.
    And the the ‘dog woman’ sculpture was the artist’s stance with genetic engineering, It was not meant to demean woman. It was meant to creep you out, and make you think. a artist has a right to say what he pleases, just as you do in your journal. Tasteless or not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s