The argument I want to make is that veganism and feminism share overlapping ethical foundations and that veganism can be understood as an extension of feminist principles applied beyond the boundary of the human species. Each social movement is considered separately, but there are substantial similarities in their underlying principles (justice, bodily autonomy, consent, and opposition to exploitation, for example). In particular, I want to invite folks (everyone, really, but specifically those) who identify as feminists to reflect on how moral categorization and compartmentalization influence our perspectives and behaviours, sometimes facilitating subtle (or not so subtle) inconsistencies and contradictions.
My intention isn’t persuasion through shame or coercion; it’s to explore how intersecting, entangled, and sometimes inseparable systems of oppression shape what we notice and what we dismiss, and to do it in good faith and carefully enough not alienate anyone who might be sympathetic to these issues. I might not have the requisite tact or rhetorical acumen, but that clearly hasn’t stopped me yet.
Let’s start with looking at what these two social projects already share. Both champion equality, justice, bodily autonomy, and consent. Both aim to challenge systems that justify exploitation by appealing to tradition, necessity, natural order, or convenience. Feminism insists that no body exists strictly as a resource, that reproduction, labour, and sexuality must not be coerced, and that diminished social power or agency, whether due to gender, class, or circumstance, does not negate moral worth.
Bodies as Resources
However, modern animal product industries are founded on the routine violation of these exact principles. Animals are confined, raped, milked, abused, and killed because their bodies have been legally and socially designated as property, and therefore usable without consideration of their interests or preferences. Many strands of feminist ethics assert that moral obligations are heightened in circumstances where power distributions are asymmetrical; that the inability to consent, whether due to marginalization, dependency, voicelessness, etc. puts a greater impetus on those with power to protect. That non-humans cannot consent in ways we choose to recognize demonstrates the applicability of this imperative.
Both movements critique objectification. Feminism opposes reducing beings to functions: procreation, labor, pleasure, etc. Animal agriculture operates on the direct opposite premise: sentient individuals are reduced to inputs (meat, feathers, hide, eggs, milk, oil, etc.) fully abstracted from their lived experience. This abstraction normalizes subjugation and violence, which is rendered all but invisible to the public eye, much as patriarchal influence has historically rendered systemic violence and oppression of women through normalization by embedding it in culture and routine.
Intersectionality and the Logic of Othering
Intersectional feminism recognizes that structure sustains oppression, systems of control influence and reinforce each other, and no system or individual exists in isolation. Gendered and racialized exploitation, ecological destruction, and the commodification of bodies are all contingent on the same logic; specifically, that power confers rights and that entities framed as “other” exist for extracting value. Veganism can be understood as an extension of this idea. Animal rights are not only a distinct concern; supporting them involves refusing to participate in or opposing aspects of the same structure that systematically oppresses humans and non-humans alike categorized as “other” in specific ways by the dominant culture. Veganism is the application of intersectional analysis beyond the human boundary and the recognition that a framework capable of challenging injustices must be applied to all sentient entities whose lives are characterized by systematic exploitation.
Moral Compartmentalization and Consistency
Many feminists who consume animal products don’t notice these overlapping principles due to cultural norms that frame certain forms of exploitation as ethically irrelevant or unavoidable. We also don’t notice because of how our brains work, which is to say that humans are top-notch compartmentalizers, and the experience of cognitive dissonance is quite rare even though most of us hold overtly conflicting values and beliefs under different mental categories or domains. Discomfort only arises when these domains are forced into dialogue, and even then there are cognitive and behavioural defences that protect us from an awareness of personal inconsistency. This doesn’t imply moral failure, but it does reveal a tension embedded in the set of values and habits inherited from a culture that quietly normalizes exploitation and loudly celebrates kindness, justice, and care.
Much like veganism, feminism isn’t well-served by moral purity. Ideally, both would encourage us to continuously reflect on which harms are normalized and why. As such, I think that in this context, veganism benefits from careful framing as one possible way of extending feminist values with greater consistency. Each social project mutually affirms aspects of the other. Both assert that bodies are not commodities, that vulnerability demands care and consideration, and that a more just world is served by widening the sphere of what and who we consider morally relevant.