At the risk of adding yet another comment on the endless, ridiculous commentary on Barack Obama’s remark about John McCain’s economic policies (that his policies, no matter how he tried to recast them, amounted to putting lipstick on a pig; the policies were still a pig), I feel compelled to say this:

In a Washington Post editorial we read: “Mr. Obama’s supposedly offending remark was not only not offensive — it also was not directed at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.” Indeed, Obama’s comment was not offensive to Governor Palin, but it was – hear me out – offensive to pigs, even though pigs are not capable of taking offense to human language.

The expression “putting lipstick on a pig,” like so many expressions (“She’s a cow,” “What a dog,” “He’s chicken,” “She’s a weasel,” among countless other pig expressions), subtly perpetuates our perception and treatment of animals. These expressions subconsciously influence how we view other species: as lazy, stupid, worthless, cowardly, untrustworthy, fat, ugly, etc. They lead us to believe that these animals are not worthy of consideration, protection, or kindness. They are ours to use and exploit because they are, after all, just animals.

This is not a criticism of Obama – we all use these expressions; they are embedded in our language and culture. But it’s worth asking, in all the hoopla that has surrounded Obama’s remark, whether, although it was utterly innocuous in relation to Sarah Palin, it was really harmless after all. Given that hundreds of millions of pigs are tortured, and I use that word intentionally, in our modern agricultural systems, perhaps we might want to find new ways of saying what we mean without perpetuating the oppression of other sentient species.

~ Zoe