What do you think?
Rate this book
Rape of the Wild: Man's Violence against Animals and the Earth
"One of the really significant books to have come out of the women's movement." ―Mary Daly
"Rape of the Wild is a bold work that stress[es] the absolute necessity of kinship with nature and all forms of life." ―Animal's Agenda
"This book is constructively "radical" in that it channels the energy of anger into a probing examination of the roots of patrist violence." ―Changing Man
" . . . a welcome addition to ecofeminist literature . . . " ―Feminist for Animal Rights
"Rape of the Wild is a very moving, passionately written expose of men's subjugation and exploitation of the natural environment and of women." ―Forest History Society
This visionary and inspiring book is a cogent analysis of man's use and misuse of his environment and an impassioned plea for a feminist ecological revolution.
"Rape of the Wild is a bold work that stress[es] the absolute necessity of kinship with nature and all forms of life." ―Animal's Agenda
"This book is constructively "radical" in that it channels the energy of anger into a probing examination of the roots of patrist violence." ―Changing Man
" . . . a welcome addition to ecofeminist literature . . . " ―Feminist for Animal Rights
"Rape of the Wild is a very moving, passionately written expose of men's subjugation and exploitation of the natural environment and of women." ―Forest History Society
This visionary and inspiring book is a cogent analysis of man's use and misuse of his environment and an impassioned plea for a feminist ecological revolution.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
3 people are currently reading
429 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
November 8, 2023
In 1855, Chief Seattle of the Duwamish tribe said in a speech, “Every part of this earth is sacred to my people.” Of the white man he then said, “The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. I have seen a thousand rotting buffaloes on the prairie, left by the white man who shot them from a passing train. I am a savage and I do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more important than the buffalo we only kill to stay alive.” The author traces this to the white man abandoning “the ancient rituals of atonement that accompanied the killing of animals for food.” Modern “hunters do not love nature as such but rather how they feel in nature as they stalk and kill her animals.” Note how many conservationists around you protect nature mostly to keep fish and animal preserves are regularly stocked. Man removed wolves, the top predator of deer, this conveniently leaves hunters with lots of deer to kill. “The overwhelming majority of the 20.6 million registered hunters in the US do not kill for survival. Bears kills the weak. Hunters take the biggest and the best. Bears give back to the earth. Hunters give back nothing.”
The “Joys” of Humanism: Audubon’s lovely paintings of birds came not from stalking them with cameras, but from stalking them with weapons, killing them just so they could be in a painting. Oh my God, you’re so beautiful I just HAVE to kill you to understand and appreciate you at my leisure. Aristotle approved of slavery saying that slaves “deserved” unequal treatment and called slaves “a living tool”. “Pavlov won the Nobel prize for literally driving his dogs mad and torturing them”. With Rockefeller grant money, Melzack and Scott tortured Scottish terriers “Melzack and Scott used strong electric shock and burning, i.e. they struck matches and attempted to push the flame into the dog’s noses.” They also jabbed the dog’s skin with needles. Isn’t science fun? What Melzack and Scott learn? What all US torturers all know: traumatize any living thing enough and they will submit to any atrocity and become dependent on their torturer. And don’t forget how Bruce Overmier and Martin Seligman “administered as many as 640 shocks to some of the dogs (88 mongrel dogs) – at a rate of one shock per nine seconds.” None of these four had to do these experiments on American citizens because we have already achieved such learned helplessness but nationally because between taking selfies, we make no effort to critique or resist a culture that is clearly killing the planet. Funny how Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t get the honor of publishing the results of his sadism, yet Melzack and Scott and Pavlov could. If only Mr. Dahmer or soldiers at Abu Ghraib were scientists, humanism maybe could have honored them as well for their contributions to “science”. Humanism led to the “institutionalization of cruelty.” Progress is a humanist obsession.
“Blaming the victim ensures the continuation of rape.”: this works perfectly also for relationships with gaslighting sociopaths and even defending your country from valid accusations of illegal occupation. Theodore Roszak tells us that scientists don’t see with the eyes of Monet or Goethe, but instead see with the “eyes of the dead wherein reality is reflected without emotional distortion.” The author writes “As one physician of my acquaintance put it, her class (in Med school) was taught the ‘work’ on animals was necessary ‘to teach us desensitization’.”
From the book “Physical Control of the Mind”, here’s a lovely experiment which medical students were supposed to do, where they “anesthetize a rabbit or other small animal and to expose its brain in order to stimulate the motor cortex. The demonstration is far more elegant if the experimental animal is completely awake and equipped with electrodes implanted in the brain.” Pop Quiz: If we strapped scientists to chairs and did this to them all, would ANY of them call it “elegant”? Achievement Unlocked: “When those students finish professional training, their ability to compartmentalize is complete. By then most have learned to look upon animals, and indeed upon life itself, with eyes unclouded by ‘emotional distortion’, with the eyes of the dead.” One such worker said, “I ended up doing things on animals that really made me sick. But I rationalized it.”
For humanists, human welfare means “Better poisons, better chemicals, better cosmetics, better drugs, better behavior, better brains, better genes.” “Millions of animals suffer and are sacrificed (killed) yearly for all this welfare.” The New York Times magazine wrote that in 1978, 64 million animals were involved in these charming torture-for-science experiments.
Let’s meet these douchebags: Charles River Laboratory in North Wilmington, Massachusetts is the world’s largest laboratory animal breeder – it grossed $30 million in 1979. They sell many cute little guinea pigs for your nasty experiments, and they sell 18 million animals annually “to universities, government agencies, and manufacturing companies – Revlon, Dupont, General Foods,” etc… Remember that serial killers often began as animal torturers. If you want to torture a Rhesus monkey, you’ll have to wait 2 to 3 years, they are in the highest demand because they are the closest to human. Who doesn’t want to support baby monkeys ripped away from their mothers in Bangladesh so they can be strapped down and tortured half-way around the world. Does this remind anyone of the global slave and prostitute trade? The author looked through journal advertising wares for animal experimentation and found cages and a “completely washable guillotine that will decapitate instantly.” I imagine a movie where humans are reduced to animal size and aliens are also delighted by efficiency of those washable guillotines. Pause for Erich Fromm’s gentle reminder to us: “I propose that the core of sadism, common to all its manifestations, is the passion to have absolute control over a living being.”
You might get your prize cow to ovulate every two months. Meanwhile, your prize bull “can sire more than 50,000 offspring.” That’s sure sounds painful, not to mention that bull will basically live in a stall unable to move. Birth Control Poster Woman Margaret Sanger “advocated government-sponsored sterilization as the solution the problem of fertility among the ‘unfit’.” “The need for infant formula in developing countries is linked to malnutrition in the mothers.” “Most technological achievements – herbicides among them – are ecological failures”, said Barry Commoner. Barry was pretty cool in the 70’s boycotting synthetic fabrics as pollutants and not ironing his shirts to save energy.
In the end, the author wishes that education today involved teaching lessons of moral courage. Also, the next time you turn on a faucet or flip a light switch, think of them as “demands on the earth’s resources. To that I add a comment learned from my Peak Oil years, when you flip on a light, remember how the average cyclist can’t power a single 100-watt bulb. Final insight of the author, When the US “brings civilization” to the third world, it’s not about “sharing a good thing” but instead is “because it serves our political and economic interests.” – Just like the way we treat nature. This was a really good book, and as you can see I Iearned good stuff, so I happily recommend it. It would pair well with Derrick Jensen’s “Thought to Exist in the Wild.”
The “Joys” of Humanism: Audubon’s lovely paintings of birds came not from stalking them with cameras, but from stalking them with weapons, killing them just so they could be in a painting. Oh my God, you’re so beautiful I just HAVE to kill you to understand and appreciate you at my leisure. Aristotle approved of slavery saying that slaves “deserved” unequal treatment and called slaves “a living tool”. “Pavlov won the Nobel prize for literally driving his dogs mad and torturing them”. With Rockefeller grant money, Melzack and Scott tortured Scottish terriers “Melzack and Scott used strong electric shock and burning, i.e. they struck matches and attempted to push the flame into the dog’s noses.” They also jabbed the dog’s skin with needles. Isn’t science fun? What Melzack and Scott learn? What all US torturers all know: traumatize any living thing enough and they will submit to any atrocity and become dependent on their torturer. And don’t forget how Bruce Overmier and Martin Seligman “administered as many as 640 shocks to some of the dogs (88 mongrel dogs) – at a rate of one shock per nine seconds.” None of these four had to do these experiments on American citizens because we have already achieved such learned helplessness but nationally because between taking selfies, we make no effort to critique or resist a culture that is clearly killing the planet. Funny how Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t get the honor of publishing the results of his sadism, yet Melzack and Scott and Pavlov could. If only Mr. Dahmer or soldiers at Abu Ghraib were scientists, humanism maybe could have honored them as well for their contributions to “science”. Humanism led to the “institutionalization of cruelty.” Progress is a humanist obsession.
“Blaming the victim ensures the continuation of rape.”: this works perfectly also for relationships with gaslighting sociopaths and even defending your country from valid accusations of illegal occupation. Theodore Roszak tells us that scientists don’t see with the eyes of Monet or Goethe, but instead see with the “eyes of the dead wherein reality is reflected without emotional distortion.” The author writes “As one physician of my acquaintance put it, her class (in Med school) was taught the ‘work’ on animals was necessary ‘to teach us desensitization’.”
From the book “Physical Control of the Mind”, here’s a lovely experiment which medical students were supposed to do, where they “anesthetize a rabbit or other small animal and to expose its brain in order to stimulate the motor cortex. The demonstration is far more elegant if the experimental animal is completely awake and equipped with electrodes implanted in the brain.” Pop Quiz: If we strapped scientists to chairs and did this to them all, would ANY of them call it “elegant”? Achievement Unlocked: “When those students finish professional training, their ability to compartmentalize is complete. By then most have learned to look upon animals, and indeed upon life itself, with eyes unclouded by ‘emotional distortion’, with the eyes of the dead.” One such worker said, “I ended up doing things on animals that really made me sick. But I rationalized it.”
For humanists, human welfare means “Better poisons, better chemicals, better cosmetics, better drugs, better behavior, better brains, better genes.” “Millions of animals suffer and are sacrificed (killed) yearly for all this welfare.” The New York Times magazine wrote that in 1978, 64 million animals were involved in these charming torture-for-science experiments.
Let’s meet these douchebags: Charles River Laboratory in North Wilmington, Massachusetts is the world’s largest laboratory animal breeder – it grossed $30 million in 1979. They sell many cute little guinea pigs for your nasty experiments, and they sell 18 million animals annually “to universities, government agencies, and manufacturing companies – Revlon, Dupont, General Foods,” etc… Remember that serial killers often began as animal torturers. If you want to torture a Rhesus monkey, you’ll have to wait 2 to 3 years, they are in the highest demand because they are the closest to human. Who doesn’t want to support baby monkeys ripped away from their mothers in Bangladesh so they can be strapped down and tortured half-way around the world. Does this remind anyone of the global slave and prostitute trade? The author looked through journal advertising wares for animal experimentation and found cages and a “completely washable guillotine that will decapitate instantly.” I imagine a movie where humans are reduced to animal size and aliens are also delighted by efficiency of those washable guillotines. Pause for Erich Fromm’s gentle reminder to us: “I propose that the core of sadism, common to all its manifestations, is the passion to have absolute control over a living being.”
You might get your prize cow to ovulate every two months. Meanwhile, your prize bull “can sire more than 50,000 offspring.” That’s sure sounds painful, not to mention that bull will basically live in a stall unable to move. Birth Control Poster Woman Margaret Sanger “advocated government-sponsored sterilization as the solution the problem of fertility among the ‘unfit’.” “The need for infant formula in developing countries is linked to malnutrition in the mothers.” “Most technological achievements – herbicides among them – are ecological failures”, said Barry Commoner. Barry was pretty cool in the 70’s boycotting synthetic fabrics as pollutants and not ironing his shirts to save energy.
In the end, the author wishes that education today involved teaching lessons of moral courage. Also, the next time you turn on a faucet or flip a light switch, think of them as “demands on the earth’s resources. To that I add a comment learned from my Peak Oil years, when you flip on a light, remember how the average cyclist can’t power a single 100-watt bulb. Final insight of the author, When the US “brings civilization” to the third world, it’s not about “sharing a good thing” but instead is “because it serves our political and economic interests.” – Just like the way we treat nature. This was a really good book, and as you can see I Iearned good stuff, so I happily recommend it. It would pair well with Derrick Jensen’s “Thought to Exist in the Wild.”
June 30, 2015
I’ve been trying to catch up with some eco-feminist titles lately, and RAPE OF THE WILD is a challenging and at times unusual book in this genre.
Overall, I think Carol J. Adams does a bit better on this topic, but Collard has a wider scope to deal with; that is, this isn’t just about the patriarchal oppression of both women and nonhuman animals in a similar way, but also about man’s destruction of the earth and biological systems as a whole.
I do think the author is little too idealistic of prehistoric times—what she sees as a matriarchal societies living in harmony with, rather than destroying, the earth and each other. The fact is, none of us really know what life was like during the earliest stages of human culture and society. However, I’m willing to bet that there was cruelty, greed, and exclusion—simply because we see this behavior in even very young children; it appears to be part of our makeup. We must be taught to be considerate of others, and for some, the early lessons never do sink in.
RAPE OF THE WILD could be considered an animal advocacy work, as unlike many environmentalists, Collard refuses to just see nature in macro and focuses in on the individual experiences of animals caught up in the human machine. In keeping with the animal advocacy movement of the 1960s through the 1980s, sport hunting and vivisection are Collard’s primary focuses; she devotes a chapter to each. Indeed, both are important issues which cause a lot of suffering; both are also primarily male-driven pursuits infused with disturbing, rape-y language. However, animal agriculture represents by far the greatest abuse of the female body in the animal kingdom—as well as the greatest abuse of all animals, period. It’s no wonder many eco-feminists see withdrawing support of the meat, dairy, and egg industries as a feminist act.
Collard has me confused when she turns her attention to human females, or at least women’s reproductive choices. The book acknowledges the prejudices women face if they do not conform to gender norms, specifically highlighting women who choose not to have children.
At the same time, she posits that “human infertility is also on the rise.” Seriously? With seven billion and counting, clearly our problem is too many, rather than too few. I’m guessing that those of us in more educated and affluent parts of the world may think this is true because people in the West tend to wait longer to have children and have fewer when they do. However, humans as a whole are clearly far too fecund; we’d be much better off if we’d knock off the breeding and people who want children would adopt them instead!
The author imagines a male-dominated, “scientifically perfected” future in which:
Only ‘special’ women would be allowed to continue to breed while the rest of us would gradually be phased out. However, this too is but a step toward the elimination not only of women, but all other species as we know them, including our own.
Wow. Ok, I’ve actually seen this “forced human extinction” theory before, usually from the propaganda of right-leaning conspiracy theorists. But think about this—we’re frequently reminded that if bees and other pollinators disappeared, the ecosystem would collapse. However, if human beings were to become extinct, nature would benefit tremendously. The ecosystem would just keep on humming along without our “help.” And I’d also like to add just how difficult it is to choose a permanent method of birth control in many parts of the Western world at least. Women must jump through a lot of hoops and do a lot of waiting if they wish to be sterilized. Our society and government also reward having children with tax breaks, incentives, and programs. Sorry, I just don’t see ANY discouragement of breeding.
In the footnotes, the author states that “apparently the ‘fit’ are beating the ‘unfit’ in the race for self-elected sterilization,” noting that tubal ligation is the number-one birth control used by married couples. And? I’m not really sure if the author sees this as a positive or negative development, or perhaps she feels the male in the relationship should shoulder this duty in a more equitable way. However, I would think that there are very few things more empowering than taking control of your own body, and making informed, adult choices on whether to bring more people into this world. A woman who chooses a tubal ligation is doing both of these things—and it’s a choice that will stay with her, even if her relationship doesn’t last. Why rely on others, even an intimate partner, to make choices about YOUR body?
For those women who do choose to have biological children, the author speaks approvingly of those pregnant women who refuse prenatal tests and hospital births, and instead to do things the “natural” way. *facefreakingpalm* You put your own life at risk? Stupid, but your choice. You put an innocent child’s life at risk, perhaps dooming him/her to all sorts of painful and debilitating complications? Argh! Why?! This foolishness is why some otherwise sympathetic people may reject Collard’s work as a whole—which is a shame—in essence throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Overall, I think Carol J. Adams does a bit better on this topic, but Collard has a wider scope to deal with; that is, this isn’t just about the patriarchal oppression of both women and nonhuman animals in a similar way, but also about man’s destruction of the earth and biological systems as a whole.
I do think the author is little too idealistic of prehistoric times—what she sees as a matriarchal societies living in harmony with, rather than destroying, the earth and each other. The fact is, none of us really know what life was like during the earliest stages of human culture and society. However, I’m willing to bet that there was cruelty, greed, and exclusion—simply because we see this behavior in even very young children; it appears to be part of our makeup. We must be taught to be considerate of others, and for some, the early lessons never do sink in.
RAPE OF THE WILD could be considered an animal advocacy work, as unlike many environmentalists, Collard refuses to just see nature in macro and focuses in on the individual experiences of animals caught up in the human machine. In keeping with the animal advocacy movement of the 1960s through the 1980s, sport hunting and vivisection are Collard’s primary focuses; she devotes a chapter to each. Indeed, both are important issues which cause a lot of suffering; both are also primarily male-driven pursuits infused with disturbing, rape-y language. However, animal agriculture represents by far the greatest abuse of the female body in the animal kingdom—as well as the greatest abuse of all animals, period. It’s no wonder many eco-feminists see withdrawing support of the meat, dairy, and egg industries as a feminist act.
Collard has me confused when she turns her attention to human females, or at least women’s reproductive choices. The book acknowledges the prejudices women face if they do not conform to gender norms, specifically highlighting women who choose not to have children.
At the same time, she posits that “human infertility is also on the rise.” Seriously? With seven billion and counting, clearly our problem is too many, rather than too few. I’m guessing that those of us in more educated and affluent parts of the world may think this is true because people in the West tend to wait longer to have children and have fewer when they do. However, humans as a whole are clearly far too fecund; we’d be much better off if we’d knock off the breeding and people who want children would adopt them instead!
The author imagines a male-dominated, “scientifically perfected” future in which:
Only ‘special’ women would be allowed to continue to breed while the rest of us would gradually be phased out. However, this too is but a step toward the elimination not only of women, but all other species as we know them, including our own.
Wow. Ok, I’ve actually seen this “forced human extinction” theory before, usually from the propaganda of right-leaning conspiracy theorists. But think about this—we’re frequently reminded that if bees and other pollinators disappeared, the ecosystem would collapse. However, if human beings were to become extinct, nature would benefit tremendously. The ecosystem would just keep on humming along without our “help.” And I’d also like to add just how difficult it is to choose a permanent method of birth control in many parts of the Western world at least. Women must jump through a lot of hoops and do a lot of waiting if they wish to be sterilized. Our society and government also reward having children with tax breaks, incentives, and programs. Sorry, I just don’t see ANY discouragement of breeding.
In the footnotes, the author states that “apparently the ‘fit’ are beating the ‘unfit’ in the race for self-elected sterilization,” noting that tubal ligation is the number-one birth control used by married couples. And? I’m not really sure if the author sees this as a positive or negative development, or perhaps she feels the male in the relationship should shoulder this duty in a more equitable way. However, I would think that there are very few things more empowering than taking control of your own body, and making informed, adult choices on whether to bring more people into this world. A woman who chooses a tubal ligation is doing both of these things—and it’s a choice that will stay with her, even if her relationship doesn’t last. Why rely on others, even an intimate partner, to make choices about YOUR body?
For those women who do choose to have biological children, the author speaks approvingly of those pregnant women who refuse prenatal tests and hospital births, and instead to do things the “natural” way. *facefreakingpalm* You put your own life at risk? Stupid, but your choice. You put an innocent child’s life at risk, perhaps dooming him/her to all sorts of painful and debilitating complications? Argh! Why?! This foolishness is why some otherwise sympathetic people may reject Collard’s work as a whole—which is a shame—in essence throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
March 17, 2018
One of the most important books on ecofeminism, Andree Collard was such amazing radical feminist, she really go deep in her analysis on the links between patriarchy and ecocide, through the rape of the biophilic powers in every womyn and the erasure of the original Goddess cultures and values.
October 15, 2019
a MUST READ!
October 26, 2021
When I picked up this book I did not expect that I would be devouring it so vapidly; the explanation of our approach to nature and its links to patriarchal concepts was enlightening, meanwhile the brief analysis of the etymology of various words used to describe our relationship to nature drove home the points discussed. The tone of the book was much more direct than most modern environmental articles and books I have read in the past, which was a blessing, as I am quite sick of the wishy-washy finger-pointing stance many of these books usually take.
Most of my reflections on "Rape of the Wild" were provoked after reading the second chapter on hunting. Collard delves past the sport and discusses the motivations and behaviours consumers are guilty of which forced me to confront my own fallacies because although she does not "tell off" the reader, she does not shy away from attributing these impulses to our lack of connection to nature and a psychotic drive to subordinate the vulnerable.
I do not agree with some of the points she makes- there was a page of writing that may have been ignorant of trans people or transphobic quite frankly, and she seemed ready to promote home births too profusely, but it is an interesting look at some of the sentiments of the feminist movement of the 80s.
This is the first explicitly feminist book on environmentalism I have read and it has definitely piqued my interest in other books within the genre- roll-on COP26 and the self masturbatory agenda of our VIPs!
Most of my reflections on "Rape of the Wild" were provoked after reading the second chapter on hunting. Collard delves past the sport and discusses the motivations and behaviours consumers are guilty of which forced me to confront my own fallacies because although she does not "tell off" the reader, she does not shy away from attributing these impulses to our lack of connection to nature and a psychotic drive to subordinate the vulnerable.
I do not agree with some of the points she makes- there was a page of writing that may have been ignorant of trans people or transphobic quite frankly, and she seemed ready to promote home births too profusely, but it is an interesting look at some of the sentiments of the feminist movement of the 80s.
This is the first explicitly feminist book on environmentalism I have read and it has definitely piqued my interest in other books within the genre- roll-on COP26 and the self masturbatory agenda of our VIPs!
December 28, 2024
I found this book to be eye-opening in many respects. While the author and I disagree on a few matters, I was deeply moved by her passion for the subject and have thought considerably on the topics in this book. It has propelled me to begin to live, think, and imagine differently. The epilogue was a wonderful addition and I truly enjoyed learning about the author’s life as I had not heard of her before purchasing this book on a whim. The ideas in this book are huge and heavy but important and freeing.
March 18, 2021
This book wasn't exactly what I expected, but was definitely worth the read. Still very much relevant today!
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews