Speciesism, Patriarchy, and the Limits of Moral Recognition
Some suffering counts, and some doesn't, and the difference has almost nothing to do with how much pain is actually involved. That's the question underneath this essay: not whether animals, women, or civilians in someone else's war can suffer, since that's rarely the real dispute, but why only some of that suffering ever becomes visible as loss in the first place. Suffering does not simply exist and then get noticed. It first has to be recognized as morally significant. Whether a life is apprehended as grievable is not a neutral fact but a political achievement, unevenly distributed across bodies. The same logic that separates lives worthy of mourning from those that can be ignored also underpins broader systems of domination, privileging rational control over embodied vulnerability and positioning certain forms of life as available for use. Seen this way, speciesism, the domination of women, and political violence are not separate problems with separate causes. They are different expressions of the same underlying mechanism: some lives are excluded from moral consideration before the question of their suffering is ever asked, making that suffering easy to organize, exploit, or disregard.
Suffering only matters when it is recognized, and recognition is political
Not all suffering is apprehended as loss, and it is precisely this distinction that structures animals as beings whose suffering does not register. Speciesism is the mechanism through which grievability's uneven distribution extends to non-human animals, making their suffering not only permissible but structurally unrecognizable. Singer defines speciesism as a system that privileges human interests while relegating the suffering of non-human animals to moral insignificance – most visible in industrial farming. What is at stake is that animal life is not encountered as life whose loss would register as loss at all.
To see how this becomes possible, it helps to turn briefly from animals to the human sphere, where the terms of grievability are more visibly articulated. Grief exposes a fundamental human vulnerability and interdependence, yet modern political systems suppress this exposure, producing hierarchical distinctions about whose lives count as grievable and whose do not. Butler describes an “experience of humiliation” in the face of this precarity for the rational-thinking adult, because it forces a confrontation with the limits of autonomy and self-mastery. Love is likened to that of infants – uncritical and absolute – emphasizing that grief is not only loss, but the prior condition of having been bound to another in ways that can never be fully accounted for or controlled. The humiliation lies in recognizing something more primitive beneath rational selfhood: grief surfaces as bodily, exposing a dependency never governed by thought, a reminder of a vulnerable, almost animal condition within the sane mind. As Butler puts it, the “body implies mortality, vulnerability, agency” – and this ties back to that same frightening exposure; the less we recall our own bodies, and those of others, the more rational we consider ourselves.
Yet this exposure reveals not only vulnerability, but the ground of moral consideration itself. If the capacity to suffer is the minimal condition for having interests, then grief becomes the experiential recognition of that shared condition across beings. To have a body is to be implicated in relations of risk, dependency, and possible suffering, even love, such that Butler's “tenuous ‘we’” begins to converge with Singer's demand that like suffering be given equal consideration wherever it occurs.
Political systems depend on this gap to sustain hierarchical distributions of grievability. The fear of vulnerability generates the impulse to displace it – to render others more vulnerable in order to secure oneself. Violence emerges not as an aberration but as an extension of relationality itself, redistributing exposure in an attempt to reclaim agency. The response to 9/11 shows this clearly: a jolting confrontation with “a vulnerability to a sudden address from elsewhere that we cannot preempt,” followed by its rapid reorganization into stabilizing frameworks. The unequal distribution of grievability is not arbitrary but produced through a logic that secures the subject against this exposure, projecting vulnerability outward and consolidating it as binarism. George W. Bush's declaration that “either you're with us or you're with the terrorists” reasserts control through the production of hierarchies distinguishing lives that are protected from lives that can be acted upon. Grievability, in other words, becomes unevenly distributed.
Singer identifies a parallel structure within species relations, where the human is aligned with moral worth and rational restraint, the animal with unregulated corporeality. Yet this is precisely the opposition his ethics dismantles: if suffering is the basis of moral consideration, then it cuts across the human–animal divide, rendering such hierarchies indefensible. Both binaries – animal and human, or terrorist and American – emerge from a similar logic, one that assumes little is held in common, the same dualist split Val Plumwood describes, where reason is elevated and nature subordinated. The more strenuously vulnerability is denied, the more aggressively it must be managed elsewhere. Violence and devaluation are not departures from an otherwise stable order but the ongoing labor required to maintain the fiction of autonomy. Grievability is less a reflection of intrinsic worth than a measure of how successfully a life can be kept within, or cast beyond, the boundaries of the human.
Industrializing Suffering: Shared Structures of Domination
This failure of recognition is critical to how industrial systems are organized. Factory farming is the largest source of human-caused suffering in the world because it industrializes pain at scale, turning billions of living beings into units of production whose bodies are engineered, conditioned, and exhausted for output. It is not the consumption of animals itself that produces this scale of suffering, but the industrial systems within which their lives are organized. Chickens are bred to grow so unnaturally fast they now carry bodies up to four times what their skeletons can handle; over six million pigs in the US are confined during pregnancy in gestation crates barely two feet wide; cows are repeatedly impregnated and separated from their calves within their first 24 hours, all in the name of what the industry itself calls “maximizing milk yield.” What emerges is not incidental cruelty but a system in which life is calibrated according to output, suffering normalized as a byproduct of optimization – the animal treated not as a “sentient being” but as a means to human ends. Their bodies are segmented into functions, valued only insofar as they produce, reproduce, and can be consumed. The problem of recognition becomes fully operational here: the animal is positioned outside the field of grievability altogether, so that its suffering is not only denied but rendered irrelevant.
This structure is sustained at the level of knowledge itself. Singer points out that it has historically been considered “unscientific” to explain animal behavior through reference to conscious feeling. The exclusion can look like a commitment to objectivity, but it functions to preclude the recognition of animals as vulnerable beings, since
acknowledging their capacity for suffering would immediately generate moral obligations that the “simplest possible explanation” of science is built to avoid. The boundary of the ‘scientific’ already participates in the regulation of grievability. The idea of the body as fundamentally vulnerable clarifies why this exclusion has to be maintained: recognizing animal feeling would mean confronting a shared condition of exposure that destabilizes the distinction between the human as rational and controlled and the animal as primitive and unregulated. That distinction secures the human subject's sense of mastery by displacing vulnerability onto the animal. To admit that animals feel cracks the illusion of human exceptionalism and the institutions that uphold that belief. This logic of disavowal and domination extends across other domains structured by the same need to manage vulnerability. Shiva argues that early modern science, particularly the work of Francis Bacon, frames nature as feminized and passive, something to be controlled, forced, made to reveal its secrets. The language of scientific inquiry is not neutral but violent: nature is “vexed,” “conquered,” and “subdued,” and truth emerges only once it is pressured out under artificial conditions. Knowledge, in this way, is not relational but extractive, mirroring the logic of coercion, where power is exercised over a body to force disclosure or submission rather than engaging with it as part of a living, interconnected system.
If knowledge is structured as extraction, domination does not appear as excess but as method. The same epistemic habit – treating the object as something to be acted upon rather than responded to – extends into industrial farming, where animals are organized as units of production and their bodies manipulated without regard for their own experience. But it also reflects a longer history in which bodies associated with nature, particularly women's, have been positioned as available for regulation, correction, and use. What makes this gendered is not simply who is targeted but how the domination is justified: through a framework that devalues embodied life and elevates detached reason as the sole basis of worth. As Shiva puts it, “the violence to nature… and the violence to women… arise from this subjugation of the feminine principle,” which makes visible that the treatment of animals is not an isolated ethical failure but part of a broader structure in which certain forms of life are systematically positioned as available for use.
What makes this structure difficult to dismiss is that it holds across extremes and scales, which suggests it is systemic rather than incidental. At one end are highly visible cases where wealth and power enable the organized exploitation of women's bodies; at another, forms of collective violence carried out by men with little economic or political power. These are not equivalent in cause or context, but they rely on the same underlying assumption: that women's bodies do not constitute an absolute limit on what can be done to them. That assumption persists in quieter ways too. In medical contexts, women's reports of pain or distress are more likely to be discounted or delayed, while care is disproportionately structured around reproduction rather than broader health. In domestic life, women continue to perform a greater share of unpaid labour, work treated as expected rather than as a claim that must be recognized or redistributed. Across these cases, what appears is not a single form of domination but a consistent pattern: reduced authority over one's own body and experience, which allows intervention, dismissal, or control to be justified without needing to answer to the person affected.
This makes visible that the treatment of animals is not an isolated ethical problem but an extension of the same structure already at work in the regulation of women's bodies. Once a form of life is positioned as lacking full authority over itself, its experiences no longer function as a limit on what can be done to it. Even in its most minimal
form, this structure ensures that even the poorest, least powerful man retains access to domination over women beneath him, because authority over their bodies and labour is treated as given, and therefore justified. Seen this way, the treatment of animals is an extension of the same structure already at work in the regulation of women's bodies. Speciesist structures systematically deny the visibility of animal suffering, industrializing pain at scale while framing its acknowledgment as unnecessary or excessive. As Shiva writes, this kind of violence “does not arise from the misapplication of an otherwise benign model, but is rooted in the patriarchal assumptions of homogeneity, domination and centralisation.” The systems that govern human grievability, by regulating whose suffering counts, are not only mirrored but intensified in the treatment of animals. What emerges is a single, continuous logic: where recognition is withheld, suffering carries no moral weight.
The liberal subject depends on displacing vulnerability onto others to sustain its autonomy If the uneven distribution of grievability under patriarchy is visible in the treatment of animals and women, its logic extends into the very constitution of political life. The idea that grievability is a function of recognition shows how liberal political subjectivity is built on the disavowal of vulnerability: to be recognized as fully human is to be autonomous, rational, capable of control. Yet grief, as a confrontation with the body's irreducible dependency, undermines this ideal even as it constitutes the very condition of living beings – the capacity to love, to form bonds, to experience loss. In displacing vulnerability onto others, whether racialized, feminized, or animalized, the liberal subject tries to preserve a sense of self-mastery. In doing so, though, it relinquishes its own humanity: by refusing to inhabit its own interdependence, the subject severs itself from the relational conditions that make life intelligible and meaningful.
This shows up quickly in moments of political violence, where recognition organizes along these lines. In moments of rupture, vulnerability is briefly exposed as a shared condition, only to be re-stabilized through narratives that assign grievability selectively: lives aligned with the dominant political subject are rendered visible as losses, while those positioned outside it are apprehended as threats, collateral, or statistics. This selective framing does not only structure the field of the other but it folds back onto the subject itself. Even for the subjugator, it becomes a form of confinement, where love, grief, and self-knowledge are measured not by the depth of relational entanglement but by how little they threaten the subject's autonomy. Even the attainment of dominance, in this way, is a form of severance from the self, and the subjugation of others becomes a compensatory mechanism, a projection of the vulnerability the subject cannot integrate.
The scale of industrial farming is conducive to exactly this kind of society; the suffering produced within these systems is both visible and institutionally sustained. Its persistence depends on a prior condition in which animal life does not appear within the field of grievability at all. The absence of recognition is so complete that suffering does not even need to be denied – it can be openly organized without disrupting the structures that depend on it.
This reveals the limit within Singer's framework. While his principle establishes that suffering should count equally wherever it occurs, it presumes suffering is already available to moral perception in a neutral way; in reality, perception itself is structured. Where grievability is withheld, suffering does not translate into obligation, no matter
Shonna Chatterjee
how intense or widespread it may be, and the industrialization of animal suffering does not so much contradict Singer's claim as demonstrate the conditions under which it fails to take hold. Patriarchal dualism becomes inseparable, here, from political and economic violence: it organizes who can be perceived as suffering in the first place, underwriting the treatment of animals as production units, women as repositories of labor and sexual availability, and racialized populations as threats to security, all while securing the liberal subject's identity as sovereign, rational, and elevated.
What this makes visible is how we treat others depends on who we see as deserving moral concern in the first place. A form of life becomes available for use not because it lacks the capacity to suffer, but because that capacity is prevented from functioning as a limit. Once this boundary is established, it can be reproduced across domains, organizing relations between humans and animals, and within human populations themselves. Taken together, Singer, Butler, and Shiva point to a single, underlying principle: the regulation of life through the differential distribution of grievability is not incidental to patriarchy but one of its most intimate and persistent mechanisms.
The patterns traced here show that recognition is not neutral – it is structured in ways that let certain lives register as losses and others remain outside that field entirely. In those cases, suffering does not need to be denied or justified. It can be organized, scaled, and sustained without resistance, because it never appears as a violation in the first place. What this exposes is a single underlying logic: once a form of life is positioned outside grievability, so that its experience no longer sets a limit, it becomes available for use.
Bibliography
Butler, Judith. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso, 2004. Colino, Stacey. “Women Are Still Underrepresented in Medical Research: Here's Where the Gender Gap Is Most Pronounced.” TIME, November 1, 2024. https://time.com/7171341/gender-gap-medical-research/. Dwary, Anurag. “Dalit Woman Gang-Raped in Madhya Pradesh Forest, Male Friend Restrained.” NDTV, August 6, 2025.
Engmann, Olivia. “Dairy Cows: An Opportunity in the Research Field of Non-Genetic Inheritance?” Environmental Epigenetics 4, no. 2 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/eep/dvy014.
Johnson, Allan G. The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997.
OECD. “Gender Gaps in Paid and Unpaid Work Persist.” OECD, September 2025.
https://doi.org/10.1787/25a6c5dc-en.
Paulsen, Emily. “Recognizing, Addressing Unintended Gender Bias in Patient Care.” Duke Health Referring Physicians. Duke Health, January 14, 2020.
Shonna Chatterjee
PETA. “Pigs: Intelligent Animals Suffering on Farms and in Slaughterhouses.” PETA, 2013. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/pigs-intelligent-animals-s uffering-factory-farms-slaughterhouses/.
Plumwood, Val. “Dualism: The Logic of Colonisation.” In Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 41–82. London: Routledge, 1993.
Pokorny, Laszlo. The Pyramid of Exploitation: Forensic Analysis of Victim Recruitment Networks, Coercive Control Mechanisms, and Victim-Perpetrator Dynamics in the Epstein Enterprise. 2025. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18040725.
Ritchie, Hannah. “Adopting Slower-Growing Breeds of Chicken Would Reduce Animal Suffering Significantly.” Our World in Data, September 2023.
https://ourworldindata.org/adopting-slower-growing-breeds-of-chicken-would-reduce-animal-suffering-sig nificantly.
Ruggles, Steven. “Patriarchy, Power, and Pay: The Transformation of American Families, 1800–2015.” Demography 52, no. 6 (December 2015): 1797–1823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-015-0440-z. Shiva, Vandana. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1988. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. 40th anniversary ed. New York: Open Road Media, 2015.