by Emily Xue

Drawing from Aristotle’s early precedent around 350 BCE, women’s bodies have largely been viewed as an obstacle to rationality. By one measure, Aristotle sorted women, slaves, and animals into the same lower degree. The border between them and full humanity was the mind (Aristotle, Politics 1254). This artificial border has outlived the Greek philosopher  by twenty-three centuries, and the question it raised— who qualifies for membership in a moral community— remains unsettled to this day amongst Western philosophers. What originated as a claim about who could think became a claim about who could matter, and that conflation of rationality with moral worth has proven remarkably durable. One result is a curious division of labor: caring for the less-than-rational is necessary work, and necessary work done by women is rarely called work at all.

Feral rabbit rescue—like other forms of animal rescue— runs on no ethics board or code like that of a hospital or university, yet it demands relentless, painful, but crucial ethical decisions: who to save, how much to spend, where to draw the line. Because animal rescue is done almost entirely by women, those decisions become one more sort of caring labor that our culture leans on but refuses to respect. Tracing my own path from an all-girls high school animal welfare club in Connecticut to hands-on feral rabbit rescue in Montana, I argue that the ethical frameworks unconsciously at work in rescue are themselves gendered. This dualism runs between the rule-bound frameworks our culture  labels as rational and masculine, and the relational ones dismissed as soft and feminine. To call a framework rational or relational, then, is never a neutral description; it is already a judgment about whose reasoning counts.

In drawing that line, I build on a body of ecofeminist thought, primarily from Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan (see Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations 1995), and including more recent theorists of care, who have argued that the longstanding oppression of women and the treatment of animals spring from the same root (Adams and Donovan 3). Building on that tradition, I explore how three dominant ethical frameworks, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, interact with the feminist ethics of care in the context of animal rescue. These are not abstractions to the people who live them. Where much of that scholarship stays at the level of theory, I test it against the unglamorous practice of a specific rescue, what its choices cost, who is left to make them, and why the labor of caring is easily dismissed as soft. This paper explores how gender shapes rabbit rescue in both expected and unexpected ways, from the dominance of women’s uncompensated care work to the ungoverned ethical frameworks quietly deciding what sacrifices are most necessary, and asks why the very care that makes rescue possible is the care our culture refuses to take seriously.

Entry into Animal Welfare

My path into animal welfare began not with a particular cause but with a single animal. When my kitten, Hobbes, contracted feline infectious peritonitis, a disease that took five months to diagnose and cost him an eye before anyone could even name it, the labor of his survival fell largely to me. The only antiviral known to work against this illness had not been approved for veterinary use in the United States, so the medication reached us through an informal economy of Facebook groups and private sellers. I was tasked with a fixed schedule of daily subcutaneous injections I was unfamiliar with performing. The fact that the care which saved him operated entirely outside of sanctioned structure, unapproved, unregulated, sustained only by pooled knowledge amongst internet strangers rather than by institution, was not a significance I recognized at the time. I understood only that something helpless now depended on me, and its dependence did not pause for my convenience.

That obligation became the seed for Paws for a Cause, the animal welfare club I founded at my private high school in Connecticut at the beginning of my sophomore year. In its early form it was modest by design. We convened weekly, sustaining attendance with donuts, a detail that sounds trivial until one considers that a club exists only to the degree that people continue to arrive at it. The work itself was gentle, and largely domestic in character. We assembled fleece blankets for shelter animals, and we wrote to the no-kill shelters within reach to ask what they lacked and whether they would accept what we could provide. We raised modest sums through school events and fundraising and passed them along. No animal died as the consequence of a decision we made, and no one resented us for making it. Ours was the sanctioned form of caring, the uncontroversial version a community is pleased to see young people adopt, precisely because it solicits compassion without requiring a decision to be made at the expense of another.

The next year, a Theory of Knowledge class introduced me to ethics as a discipline, and reshaped the way I understood the work. Studying bioethics alongside utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and other moral frameworks, I began to grasp how we constructionally determine who deserves moral consideration, and how people draw that line differently. Caring for Hobbes and running Paws for a Cause had already made animal welfare feel urgent and personal; engaging with these frameworks academically revealed that it was something I could actually reason about, not merely feel. This same inquiry drew me toward anthrozoology, the study of human-animal relationships, and eventually toward Dr. Margo DeMello, author of Animals and Society (2012) and Stories Rabbits Tell (2003). I wrote to her, which led to my traveling to Montana and joining the Rodney Rabbit Rescue, a new nonprofit that began  as a student project focused on the feral rabbits living in the small college town where she teaches. My days were spent running around trapping rabbits, visiting the sanctuary where rabbits were rehomed, cold-contacting businesses for donations, and researching the ethics and academic literature that underwrote the work.

Animal Rescue and Ethics: An Overview

The literature used for this paper falls into two categories, with the first framing the second, feminist theory that explains who does the work, and ethical frameworks that examine how the work gets decided. Animal rescue is a field dominated by women, a fact well established in the literature. Jennifer Sinski’s study of animal sheltering organizations in the US shows that women make up roughly seventy percent of advocacy groups, and finds that female-led shelters differ measurably from male-led ones, scoring higher on altruistic leadership. She observes that the people doing this work are strongly marked by it, with the labor becoming central to their sense of who they are (Sinski 97). The scholarship surrounding animal rescue that takes these facts seriously as opposed to incidental, is largely feminist, and therefore it makes little sense to examine the ethics of rescue without the ecofeminist literature that arose out of it. At the same time, the decisions rescuers make every day can also be understood by three classical ethical traditions, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, each of which has been extended in recent decades to the application of animals. This review introduces both bodies of work, the three classical frameworks I will apply to real decisions from the field, and the feminist ethics of care that runs through all of them.

The three classical frameworks each pair a founder with a modern thinker who carried the theory to animals. Utilitarianism begins with Jeremy Bentham, who, in response to Aristotle and all those who followed him, the basis of moral concern regarding animals from reason to suffering, arguing that the question about animals “is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, can they suffer?” (Bentham 283). Peter Singer built directly on that foundation in Animal Liberation(1975), arguing that the capacity to suffer grants a being moral consideration, and that right action maximizes welfare across all beings affected (Singer 8). Utilitarianism is aggregative by design, meaning it counts and accepts that individuals may be outweighed by the needs of the majority. This makes it a natural framework for triage and for organizations operating with limited resources.

Deontology enters this paper in two branches. Immanuel Kant grounded morality in duty rather than outcome, and his categorical imperative forbids treating any rational person merely as a means to an end (Kant 429). However, Kant’s duties run to rational persons only. Animals on his account are owed nothing directly. Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights (1983) adapts the deontological structure precisely to correct that exclusion, arguing that any animal who is a “subject of a life,” a being with desires, memory, and a stake in its own continued existence, possess inherent value and rights that no aggregate benefit can override (Regan 243). Kant and Regan thus share a logic and disagree about its reach, and in situations where duties to humans and duties to animals collide, the two branches can produce opposite answers.

Virtue ethics, the oldest of the three, originates in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics in the fourth century BCE. Aristotle located morality not in rules or outcomes, but in character. He described each virtue as a golden mean between a vice of deficiency and a vice of excess. Right action is discerned from practical wisdom, the situational judgment Aristotle coined phronesis, rather than formula (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 89). The tradition fell out of mainstream Western ethics for centuries, overshadowed by the utilitarian and deontological systems that followed. Rosalind Hursthouse brought this tradition into animal ethics, asking of any treatment of animals what performing it would make of the person, whether it can be compassionately, honestly, and without callousness or arrogance. Hursthouse is also candid about the framework’s limits; some dilemmas, she allows, are tragic, and even the right action can leave what virtue ethicists call a moral remainder, a cost that acting well does not erase (Hursthouse 44).

The ecofeminist tradition primarily draws from Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan, whose collaborations helped establish the notion that the oppression of women and the exploitation of animals are not parallel problems but connected ones (Adams and Donovan 3). The connection runs through the previously explicated tradition that made rationality the measure of moral worth and assigned women and animals to the same far side of that line.

Ecofeminism names this structure directly. Western thought is organized by linked dualisms: reason over emotion, mind over body, culture over nature, man over woman, human over animal. In each pair, the first term defines itself by dominating the second. The devaluation of women and the devaluation of animals are, on this account, the same devaluation with different facades, which is why ecofeminists argue that the two cannot be addressed separately. Donovan argues that Singer and Regan, for all their contributions, never left the rationalist tradition behind. Both extended its moral machinery to animals rather than asking whether calculation and rule are how morality should work at all (Donovan 358). Katrina Albright carries the same critique into law, showing how the animal personhood movement, by selecting the most cognitively impressive species for legal rights, protection for those who resemble the rational man and exclusion for all else that fail (Albright 915). Thus, a feral rabbit fails the test, and for most of history, so did women. What ecofeminism offers instead is a caring ethic that grounds moral standing not in rationality but in vulnerability, relationship, and interconnectedness, and it is from this ground that the ethics of care grows.

The feminist ethics of care stands in a different relation to these than they stand to one another. It is not a fourth framework competing on the same terms, and it emerged from a different context. Developed by theorists including Donovan and Adams out of the broader feminist ethics of the 1980s, care ethics borrows the situational attention of virtue ethics while rejecting what utilitarianism and deontology share, the conviction that moral reasoning is best done from a distance by calculation or rule. Care ethics insists instead that morality begins in a relationship, and that emotion is a form of moral knowledge rather than containment. Two adjacent concepts sharpen its relevance here. Arlie Hochschild’s “emotional labor” names the work of managing feeling, one’s own and others’, as labor, but labor that is unpaid and largely invisible, and disproportionately performed by women (Hochschild 7). Rhoda Wilkie’s notion of “dirty work” captures what animal labor, i.e. working with and for animals, actually involves, work that is physically messy and emotionally heavy at once, and devalued on both counts (Wilkie 116). Together these concepts reveal the unseen foundation beneath the classical frameworks and explain why this paper examines its three dilemmas twice: once through the frameworks themselves, and then through the women who carry out the work.

From Field to Framework

Like the medicine that saved my cat, the rescue operated entirely outside of sanctioned structure, with no external board, code, or protocol to consult. In what follows, I examine three decisions from my two weeks with the Rodney Rabbit Rescue: the fate of a pregnant mother and her unborn litter, the question of whether to accept rabbits from an unstable owner, and the foundational choice of whether relocation serves the animals at all—and read each through the ethical frameworks outlined above. None of the decisions arrived labeled as ethical dilemmas, and all of them were made by women.

Mabel’s Story

During my weeks in the field, the team spent three days trying to trap a single pregnant female, Mabel, one of the feral rabbits living near campus . The difficulty was not only logistical. The choice of whether to continue pursuing her carried a question few in rescue like to state outright, which is whether the litter she carried was worth the cost of raising.

The reasoning DeMello laid out was candid in both arithmetic and its ambivalence. Before the litter was born, part of the hope, admitted with some discomfort, was that the stress of the pursuit might cause the mother to miscarry, sparing the rescue the cost of raising six more animals. The financially rational choice would have been to sacrifice the litter, to prioritize catching the mother whenever possible and to let the babies go. The rabbit was ultimately caught, gave birth to six, and one did not survive.

Read through utilitarianism, this reasoning is coherent rather than callous. A rescue operates on finite resources, and every dollar and ounce of labor directed toward one animal is unavailable to another. Six young rabbits would eventually cost roughly three hundred dollars each, close to eighteen hundred dollars in total, aside from the months of labor their care demanded, labor that might otherwise pull many more animals off the street. The act utilitarian, weighing this particular case, would conclude that those resources do more good spread across a larger number of existing animals than concentrated on a single litter. The hope of a miscarriage is coherent within this framework precisely because of when it occurs. It wishes an outcome while no being yet exists to be harmed by it, and so, before the birth, the loss of the litter registers as a net good. Once the six are born, however, those same rabbits enter the calculation as existing beings, and the arithmetic shifts accordingly. The position grows starker, since releasing kits into the wild would only mean increased reproduction and death by other means; the consistent utilitarian would either withhold the costly care required by the six, or, at the limit, end their lives to preserve resources for the many. Even on its own terms, the verdict depends on a calculation the framework cannot fully defend, since it assumes that one rabbit’s welfare is interchangeable with another’s.

Where utilitarianism weighs the lives of the litter against the others who could be saved, deontology denies that such weighing is legitimate at all. On Regan’s view, the six are not costs to be weighed but individual bearers of value, and no aggregate benefit can license wishing them gone. And where the utilitarian’s obligation switched on only at birth, once the kits could be counted and, as sentient beings could suffer, the deontologist is uneasy with the arithmetic from the beginning, since to hope a life ends because it is expensive is already to treat that life as a means to someone else’s budget. Utilitarianism asks what the resources could do elsewhere. Deontology asks what is owed here, and treats the answer as non-negotiable. The two frameworks disagree not only on the answer, but on whether this question is permissible at all. The deontologist’s verdict is unambiguous. The litter, once born, must be cared for, whatever the cost.

Virtue ethics asks neither what maximizes welfare nor what strict moral rulebook demands, but what a person of strong character would do when facing a frightened, pregnant animal, and its answer depends on which virtue is asked to lead. Compassion pulls one way. A merciful person cannot abandon six living creatures, so she takes them in. Prudence pulls another. A practical steward knows the rescue’s limits and refuses to overextend it, since the resources poured into this litter are resources withheld from the many animals still waiting. Justice makes this argument as well, since those absent rabbits have a claim no weaker than the ones in hand. The virtue of courage demands that she face whichever choice is harder, whether that is making the brutal call or bearing the labor of raising six more. Temperance argues that compassion overextended becomes the exhaustion that ends a rescuer’s capacity to help at all. Virtue ethics does not rank these values for her. The weighing of these options is the work of practical wisdom, discernment exercised in the moment rather than being derived from rule. Thus, this framework issues no single verdict. What it offers instead is an honest picture of a good person pulled apart by competing goods, goods whose pull is itself shaped by the fact that the person feeling it is, almost always, a woman.

The Surrender

A man in a neighboring town had been surrendering his domesticated rabbits to the rescue, a few at a time, and he called again wanting us to take his last four. On its surface the decision looked simple, four more animals in need of a home. Underneath, it was among the most fraught choices faced by the rescue, because saying yes meant taking on more than the rabbits. The animals themselves were the smaller part of the difficulty. Being domesticated rather than feral, they were poorly suited to the rescue’s setup, and a previous surrender from the same source had gone badly. Of the thirteen rabbits taken in earlier, four had died, some from the disease they carried in, other from the sheer stress of moving from confinement into a larger, unfamiliar group. Taking his remaining four meant risking that again, deaths that would cost the rescue more money, and take an emotional toll on the people who cared for them.

The larger part of the difficulty was the man. To take his animals was to be pulled into his life, his instability, and the difficult conditions he lived in. The personal problems that surrounded the rabbits could not be neatly separated from them. This is the part of rescue that goes least discussed. Taking in a stray merely asks you to imagine an animal’s past; taking a surrender ties you to a living person’s present, to their circumstances, and whether or not you have the capacity to absorb them. This entanglement extended further to honesty. Telling the man plainly that some of his previous rabbits had died risked a confrontation that would sever the relationship. To spare him the truth that meant lying, or something close to it, in order to keep the animals coming to safety. Honesty and the rabbits’ welfare seemed to point in opposing directions.

Approaching a utilitarian’s reasoning, the calculation is more complicated than it first appears, because the costs are not only the rabbits’ but the rescuers’. Four animals must be weighed against the money their care requires, the risk of further deaths, and, crucially, the toll the entanglement takes on the people doing the work – a toll that reduces their capacity to help any animal in the future. A framework concerned with aggregate welfare cannot ignore that a burnt-out rescuer helps no one. This is the logic of compassion fatigue viewed as math, the important recognition that a caregiver is a finite resource as any other, and that spending her past a certain point costs more lives than it saves. Weighed this way, the utilitarian verdict is to decline the four. A handful of previously domesticated rabbits, some of whom may very likely die in the transition regardless, cannot justify the money, the risk, and above all the human wear that dealing with the man would demand, wear that threatens every future animal the rescue might otherwise reach. Utilitarianism can count the cost of compassion fatigue, but it cannot ask why the fatigue falls disproportionately on women, or whether the system that produces it is itself the problem.

Deontology offers no easy way out, because it holds the rescuer to duties that pull in different directions depending on whose dignity is centered. The presence of the man, not just the rabbits, is why this scenario calls on both Kant and Regan. Lying to the man would treat him as a means, using his ignorance to secure the animals. From this vantage the verdict is uncomfortable but clear. One may take the rabbits only without deception, and if their safety cannot be secured otherwise, the lie is forbidden and the rabbits must be left where they are. The framework protects the dignity of the person even at the animals’ expense. Tom Regan’s rights-based deontology reverses the priority. For Regan, the rabbits are subjects of a life whose welfare is not the rescue’s to bargain with. On this reading the duty runs first to them, and their right not to be left in harm outweighs the wrong of a lie to a man who is already failing them. The rabbits should be secured, and if a lie is the only way, the lie is the lesser breach. What looks like a single framework thus yields opposite answers depending on a prior question the theory itself must settle, and one this paper has been asking from its opening line, which is whether our strictest duties are owed to persons or extended, as Regan insists, to the animals themselves.

Where the last dilemma set compassion against prudence, this one sets it against honesty. The compassionate response is to take the rabbits and shield the man from a painful truth. The honest response is to tell him plainly and let the relationship fall where it may. A person of practical wisdom perceives what the situation genuinely requires, whether that is a hard truth or a boundary held without abandonment, and acts on that perception rather than rule. But Hursthouse allows that some dilemmas are tragic, and that even the right action can leave a moral remainder. To secure the rabbits may mean wounding the man, and to spare him may mean failing them, and no exercise of wisdom makes that residue disappear.

What Welfare Looks Like for a Feral Rabbit

The third dilemma is not an event but the premise underlying everything else. The entire rescue project rests on the assumption that these rabbits’ lives would be better in a sanctuary than on the street—the only home they’d ever known. Unlike the first two dilemmas, this one never got deliberated, because questioning it means questioning the work itself. It’s answered implicitly, absorbed into the daily routine of trapping and transporting. Not everyone outside of the rescue took this answer for granted. One resident, watching rabbits being removed from his neighborhood, asked why it was better to move them at all; the honest answer was uncomfortable, because relocation improved their welfare and spared the neighborhood’s gardens, while also ending their freedom and autonomy.

There’s a second, quieter version of this same question. Every rabbit taken in was spayed or neutered, and females were prioritized on the assumption that any of them might already be pregnant. These were decisions made on the animals’ behalf, over their bodies and without their consent. The burden does not stop at the rescue. It also falls to someone at a veterinary office to end that pregnancy in the middle of an ordinary workday. Spay and neuter is standard practice in animal rescue everywhere, not just specific to Rodney Rabbit Rescue. This practice is an assumption passed down rather than a consequential decision anyone present ever made. The question, stated plainly, is whether it can be right to take control of another creature’s life and body, even when the control is enacted with good intentions.

Utilitarianism should have the most straightforward approach with this case, and it mostly does, ultimately favoring relocation. In the sanctuary the rabbits are fed, sheltered, and protected from the predators and winters that kill them off every year. Their breeding stops, which means no future generations starving in an overcrowded colony. From an anthropocentric standpoint, even the town benefits, since fewer feral rabbits means fewer ruined gardens and frustrated neighbors. Counting rabbits and humans together, the greater good seems clearly served. However, this calculation depends on the premise that safety and comfort are what make a rabbit’s life good. This is our definition of their happiness, not necessarily theirs, and no one can say how an enclosed sanctuary measures against the life the rabbits had before it. Utilitarianism needs a common measure of welfare to do its math, and between species there may not be one, a limitation ecofeminist critics have pressed hard, arguing that the framework’s need to quantify welfare forces every way of living into human terms. The utilitarian verdict is still to relocate, though the computation runs entirely on human terms, a limitation the framework itself cannot detect. The framework cannot detect this limitation because it treats its own scale as neutral, which is precisely the move ecofeminists critics identify as the structure of every rationalist ethics, an imposed measure that presents itself as universal.

Deontology, on Regan’s terms, is troubled not by the relocation itself but by what accompanies it. Every rabbit taken in is sterilized, and pregnant females are spayed knowing that the procedure will end the pregnancy. These are decisions made directly over another being’s body, permanently and without consent. For Regan, an animal who is a subject of a life possesses inherent value, and that value is not conditional on whether someone else’s plans for it are kind. To alter an animal’s body and end its capacity to reproduce, however sound the welfare reasoning, is to exercise a control over it that the framework’s own logic struggles to justify, since the respect owed to a being of inherent value should extend to its bodily integrity. The impossibility of consent is not merely a practical obstacle but, as Van Patter and Blattner argue, a structural condition that current research and rescue frameworks have yet to adequately address (Van Patter and Blattner 171).

The relocation itself raises a related but less decisive objection. Removing the rabbits from their home and reordering their social world is a significant intervention, but Regan’s theory was built to prevent animals from being treated as mere resources for human ends, and a sanctuary operating for the rabbits’ own welfare does not straightforwardly fit that description. The verdict remains to refuse the intervention, not because the rabbits’ lives in the field are necessarily better, but because a framework granting them inherent value cannot comfortably authorize permanent, non-consensual alterations to their bodies on the basis of a welfare measured only by humans.

A virtue ethicist cannot watch a colony starve and freeze every winter and describe her inaction as respect for autonomy. Intervening takes courage and labor, and a person of practical wisdom and outstanding character understands that caring for the vulnerable sometimes means taking decisions on their behalf. However, it can be argued that deciding that a sanctuary life is better than a free one, on behalf of creatures whose experience we only partly understand, veers into arrogance, the vice of trusting our personal judgment further than it deserves. Aristotle’s golden mean locates the virtuous intervention between callousness and presumption. A lack of care is callousness, whereas too much control is presumption. The virtuous intervention, if it exists, lies between them. If, as Hursthouse holds, the practically wise can find that middle ground, then here it means intervening, with compassion and without presumption.

Across all three dilemmas, the frameworks disagreed on nearly everything, yet they shared one omission. None of them had anything to say about who was actually doing it. The utilitarian math worked without asking who was deciding it; the deontological duties applied without asking who was following them; virtue ethics could describe the character of the person choosing without asking what effect that choice had on her. What sits beneath all three, what none names, is the labor itself and the fact that it falls, almost without exception, to women.

Discussion

The feminist ethics of care begins where the classical frameworks leave off. Donovan and Adams argued that the dominant animal ethics discourses inherited the Enlightenment’s commitment to distance and abstraction, and that this commitment was not philosophically neutral but gendered, developed within a tradition that assigned feelings to women and reason to men and treated reason as the only legitimate ground of moral authority (Donovan). Care ethics does not reject reason; it rejects the assumption that the person reasoning is no one in particular, that morality can be practiced without a body, history, or relationship to the animal in front of you.

My entry into animal welfare began with what I described earlier as the sanctioned form of caring. It was gentle, domestic, and approved by all who encountered it. It is the sort of care our culture is comfortable with, contained enough to be performed without anyone remarking on it, entirely by girls. Montana was different not by nature but by degree. The labor was still caring, still uncompensated, and still predominantly performed by women. However, the decisions now carried real consequences, and animals lived or died based on choices made under pressure. The same gentle gravity of caring work I experienced in high school revealed itself in Montana as a structure, one that assigned the least visible yet most emotionally costly labor to women. The pattern I observed was the same pattern that ecofeminist literature describes, extending from a club in Connecticut to fieldwork in Montana.

Arlie Hochschild’s concept of emotional labor helps explain why the work takes the shape it does. The rescuer holds the utilitarian math as well as the grief the math implies at the same time. Unlike a paid worker at a formal institution, she has no protocol that distributes the moral weight nor an ethics board that absorbs responsibility on her behalf. This absence of structure is the condition under which this particular form of caring has always operated. What accumulates over time is compassion fatigue, the gradual erosion of a caregiver’s capacity to care under sustained exposure to suffering that cannot be fully relieved. The concept originates in nursing and trauma work, but applies to animal rescue with particular force because rescue lacks the institutional structures that other caring professions use to manage the weight. The caregiver absorbs the full burden of every decision personally without relief. The emotional costs faced by these women are real and patterned, but almost entirely invisible to anyone outside the field.

This dynamic is what Rhoda Wilkie describes as “dirty work,” and the term operates in two directions (Wilkie). The work is physically dirty, involving mud, animal waste, and the handling of sick and dying bodies. It’s also socially dirty, devalued because it is physical, emotional, feminized, and conducted without institutional structure. The absence of professional governance is not incidental to this devaluation but central to it. A field with little institutional basis reads closer to a hobby than a discipline. The women involved receive neither the material compensation nor moral recognition that equivalent labor receives in a professionalized context.

When I go back to Connecticut, the club will still be there. I will keep running it, and I will probably keep doing most of the same things I was doing before Montana. But I will not be able to unsee what I saw there, which is that the work I was doing at home and the work I was doing in the field are the same work at different scales. Both run on women who are never quite paid, never quite thanked, and never quite taken seriously for it. I am not going to stop caring for the animals, and I am not going to pretend caring is free. The ecofeminist critique does not offer a way out of this contradiction, it offers a way of seeing clearer. What I carried back from Montana was not a resolution but an awareness; the work that I love is also work that is gendered, uncompensated, and structured invisibly, and the first thing required of those who want that structure to be changed is to refuse to let it stay unnamed.

Conclusion

This paper is preliminary work, drawn from two weeks of fieldwork and a limited body of literature. It is necessary to acknowledge that the sample is one rescue, in one town, observed by one person over a short period. The ethical analysis is exploratory rather than exhaustive, and the three frameworks were applied only to three decisions out of the hundreds that the rescue produces. A fuller study would follow rescuers over months or years, document the nature of emotional labor and compassion fatigue, and examine whether the gendered patterns observed here can be extrapolated across regions, species, and organizational structures.

What this paper can say, despite its limited scope, is that the ethical life of animal rescue is consequential but almost entirely unexamined. Every year the American pet industry grows, and every year on the back end of that industry, the surrendered, abandoned, and feral animals are absorbed by a workforce of women operating without compensation or institutional support. The costs of this arrangement are sustained in damaged health, lost relationships, and the depletion of one’s capacity to care. While these costs are difficult to measure, they are not therefore insignificant. This paper urges future research to examine the long-term consequences of this labor and ask whether a system built on the unpaid sacrifice of women can remain ethically sustainable.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Margo DeMello for her mentorship, candor, and her enthusiasm in providing the opportunity and academic environment that made my research possible. This paper would not exist without her guidance or without the work of the Rodney Rabbit Rescue, whose volunteers welcomed me into the field. I also want to thank Valeria Ibarcena, whose Theory of Knowledge class gave me the ethical frameworks that are the foundation of this paper.

Works Cited

Adams, Carol J., and Josephine Donovan, editors. Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Duke UP, 1995.

Albright, Katrina M. “The Extension of Legal Rights to Animals under a Caring Ethic: An Ecofeminist Exploration of Steven Wise’s Rattling the Cage.” Natural Resources Journal, vol. 42, no. 4, 2002, pp. 915-37.

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin, 2nd ed., Hackett, 1999.

Aristotle. Politics. Translated by C. D. C. Reeve, Hackett, 2017.

Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. 1789. Edited by J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart, Clarendon Press, 1996.

Donovan, Josephine. “Animal Rights and Feminist Theory.” Signs, vol. 15, no. 2, 1990, pp. 350-75.

Estévez-Saá, Margarita, and María Jesús Lorenzo-Modia. “The Ethics and Aesthetics of Eco-caring: Contemporary Debates on Ecofeminism(s).” Women’s Studies, vol. 47, no. 2, 2018, pp. 123-46.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. U of California P, 1983.

Hursthouse, Rosalind. “Applying Virtue Ethics to Our Treatment of the Other Animals.” The Practice of Virtue: Classic and Contemporary Readings in Virtue Ethics, edited by Jennifer Welchman, Hackett, 2006, pp. 136-55.

Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor, revised ed., Cambridge UP, 2012.

Ramp, Daniel, and Marc Bekoff. “Compassion as a Practical and Evolved Ethic for Conservation.” BioScience, vol. 65, no. 3, 2015, pp. 323-27.

Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. 2004 ed., U of California P, 2004.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. Updated ed., Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2009.

Sinski, Jennifer Blevins. Gender and Leadership in Animal Sheltering Organizations. 2018. U of Louisville, PhD dissertation. ThinkIR, ir.library.louisville.edu/etd/2969.

Van Patter, Lauren E., and Charlotte Blattner. “Advancing Ethical Principles for Non-Invasive, Respectful Research with Nonhuman Animal Participants.” Society & Animals, vol. 28, 2020, pp. 171-90.

Wilkie, Rhoda M. Livestock/Deadstock: Working with Farm Animals from Birth to Slaughter. Temple UP, 2010.

About the Author

Emily is a student at Greens Farms Academy in Westport, Connecticut. She is the founder of Paws for a Cause, a student-led animal welfare organization, and her academic interests include history, sociology, and anthrozoology. She has conducted sociological research on the functional beverage industry, interned for the APA’s Human-Animal Interaction section, and enjoys making art and playing squash.