Via Our Bodies, I found this interesting Salon article that I can’t believe I missed when it first came out. It’s about that “Skinny Bitch” book you see everywhere and how the veganism preached within allows the writers and their audience to have the excuse to finally make explicit what’s implicit in our culture, which is the notion that body fat is a moral flaw. Convinced of the righteousness of veganism, the authors apparently feel entitled to berate their readers in the same voice women the country over use to berate themselves for fat-based imperfections like cellulite and weight gain, voice that holds fat not to be just unhealthy or unattractive, but to be sinful.
The relentless bullying peppered throughout the authors’ advice accounts for much of the book’s humor, including quips like “you need to exercise, you lazy shit,” “coffee is for pussies” and “don’t be a fat pig anymore.” It was a formerly anorexic friend of mine who nailed it when she read excerpts from the book. “When you have an eating disorder,” she told me, “that’s the voice you hear in your head all the time.”
Thanks to “Skinny Bitch,” women who hate their bodies no longer need rely on their own self-loathing to stoke the flames of what seems like motivation but is actually self-flagellation — penance for the sin of being too fat. Now dieters can have the convenience of a former model (Barnouin) and a former modeling agent (Freedman) putting their transgressions in the black-and-white terms of right and wrong. “If you eat crap,” they chirp, “you are crap.”
I’m a vegetarian in the barely mode, who indulges in occasional bouts of fish-eating, though I’m well aware that’s a moral contradiction of sorts. I’d be lying if my conversion to this diet many years ago didn’t come with a hope that I’d be skinny easily if I didn’t eat meat, but in fact I packed on a few pounds for while there that I had to then lose. While I’m perfectly capable of berating myself for fat-based imperfections in the same moralistic tone that most women learn from the cradle, I can safely say that it never occurred to me to link any kind of moral implications of vegetarianism with the moralistic-like attitude our culture has about fat. Maybe it seemed obvious to me that the number on the scale doesn’t actually have genuine moral implications. Maybe it’s because not eating meat comes easily to me. Who knows? Let’s just say I was genuinely shocked to hear that gluttony was considered one of the seven deadly sins. It seems so self-evidently not a moral issue.
But what I do know is that this shit described above is insane. You’re not a bad person if you gain weight, overeat, just are naturally kind of chubby, or refuse to believe there’s some sort of holiness to living on 1,000 calories a day. But with this cover story about animal protection, now suddenly there’s a reason to put being fat into the same category of people as adulterers, racists, and guys who yell “cunt!” at women from their cars. Eating disorders are a neurosis, albeit a perfectly understandable one. It’s more than a little alarming to see such a neurosis mainstreamed so easily. You definitely see more social resistance to the sexual neuroses that drive the right wing Christian crew. But this is the first I’ve heard about this book being more than offensively titled, but a manual on how to develop an eating disorder with veganism as your cover story. I will say that veganism as a diet fad does go a long way to explaining to me why on earth hyper-libertarian Megan McArdle went vegan, which initially struck me as an insufficiently rah-rah Wal-Mart capitalism thing to do.
I’m surprised more people didn’t immediately throw the book away when it told you to give up coffee. Any calorie-conscious woman worth her diminishing weight knows how to drink coffee with minimum calorie consumption doing it. The book must be really good at channeling the berating inner voice to get women past the skepticism you’d have to have being told not to drink what is basically a minor metabolism booster.
205 Responses to “Holy anorexia wrapped in a chick lit cover”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
This book gets more horrifying the more that I read about it. And as a chubby vegan, I’m more than a little annoyed that it’s perpetuating the “all vegans are super skinny” stereotype.
And while there are certainly plenty of ethical/political reasons to go vegan (depending on your personal ethics/politics, of course) that shouldn’t be linked to the idea that being fat is wrong.
Vegan doesn’t mean skinny. Skinny doesn’t mean righteous.
It wasn’t very long ago that people could starve to death even in the most advanced societies. Gluttony was a sin because it meant you were placing your own pleasure above other people’s lives. At least that’s always been my take on it.
This punishing attitude is very tempting for people who are already beating themselves up for these imperfections. The thought that maybe you just need to beat yourself up harder, or have someone do it for you, is always a tiny voice in your ear.
It’s worse when you quit anti-depressants to stop the weight gain, and it takes forever to bloody well reverse the effects, and you don’t even have the help of the antidepressants anymore. At those times, anorexia starts to sound less like a horrible disease and more like something you could do if you weren’t so lazy and sinful.
Grimgrim, that does go a long way to explaining how people can’t tell greed from gluttony. Our culture now has a tendency to be harder on gluttony than greed. High sex drives and doubling up at the buffet raise more eyebrows than, say, running a company that makes money off blatant usury.
Thanks for blogging this, I started and then gave up.
aimai
I’ve never seen this take on the body image thing, but the self-righteous moralizing streak within the vegan/animal rights/straight edge continuum is nothing new. I have more than a few unpleasant memories of rather ugly debates with some of them who wanted to liberate the precious zygotes at the same time that they were liberating the factory-farm chickens. Honestly, those people always made the left (if you want to call them that) feel like Catholic school to me.
Is it any wonder why eating meat increased the size of our ancestor’s brains?
I’m not into fat shaming, but there is something odd about some (not all) American meat eaters, who insist on large portions of meat at every meal. People can, as Grimgrin points out, place their desire for meat above the health of the environment, and the fairness of the food distribution network. Of course, stupid epithets about “fat pig” or “coffee for pussies” are out of place, but as a culture, we could investigate our insistence on having meat, when others do not have grain, and the meat industry will not end its abuses of the environment. I suppose I would want something in between the sentiments of the book and the I deserve to stuff whatever into my maw whenever, regardless of who it hurts, attitude. Eating local meat, butchered one animal at a time (but costing more) is one way to work beyond the simple dichotomy between meat gluttons and the people who make jTuba so uncomfortable.
Funny; I’d never thought before about the fact that most anorexics are, in practice, vegans. Can you be a vegan if you don’t eat anything at all? It’s sort of like a Zen koan… what’s the sound of an anorexic chewing?
I don’t think it’s crazy for people to assign a moral value to their physical fitness, particularly if they live in a society where individual bad health outcomes have social costs. Of course, our society not only values “skinny” over “healthy”, it also over-emphasizes its moral value relative to, say, the value of not supporting sweatshop labor. But this is standard operating procedure for Americans (and, to be fair, everyone else): it’s the same phenomenon as Christians spending 99% of their time screaming about the sinfulness of abortion and homosexuality, but 0% about the sinfulness of owning more material goods than you need to survive when many of your fellow children of God live in dire poverty. By assigning different weights to different components of a comprehensive system of morality, you can start pretty much anywhere (e.g., a middle eastern apocalyptic gnostic cult of personality spun off from the cult of the Hebrew sky father) and end up with just about any set of social pressures you need (e.g., an ideology that promotes production of economic value above all else, deference to authority, and military aggression).
How does one confront a problem like this? The argument that moral weights are being assigned improperly is a subtle one to make, which is why you never hear it from politicians: they know that most people don’t want to acknowledge that level of complexity in their moral calculations. But your tactic — denying that eating and exercising can ever have any moral relevance — strikes me as dishonest, and the people who buy books like this probably sense some of the dishonesty in it. How does one go about convincing simple people that their moral calculus needs to be re-weighted?
Oh, awesome. I can just buy this book, carry it around with me, and read it whenever I’d like to experience high school again.
I suppose I would want something in between the sentiments of the book and the I deserve to stuff whatever into my maw whenever, regardless of who it hurts, attitude.
That’s where 90 percent of us omnivores fall — between “eating meat is sinful” and “eating meat is Godly.” Most of us just consider it, you know, food, and not a marker of morality.
I’m actually not surprised by this book at all. It’s well-known that veganism and vegetarianism are not uncommon covers for an eating disorder, especially among teenagers. I know at least a couple of people who have gone from vegetarian to vegan to diagnosed anorexic.
Wait. So if you disagree, explain how eating and exercising is a moral issue. Note that you didn’t say meat eating, so arguments about slaughterhouses don’t fit. How is weight loss (which is, let’s face it, what you’re talking about with ‘eating and exercising’) a moral issue?
What in the name of Dog is that “RICE DREAM” stuff???
I think our culture glorifies gluttony, but disparages physical imperfection (particularly in women, of course). It’s just the sort of conundrum our self-flagellating Puritan forbears needed to keep their show on the road, so to speak. Similar to their impossible take on sex. Even anorexia/bulimia is a kind of out-of-sorts self-indulgence. Bulimia, in particular, mimics the binge-purge proclivities of the Puritan > Victorianism arc. Well, it’s home; the only life we’ve ever known.
As far as diet goes, it all grows so tiresome. Can’t we just say that a huge number of vegetarians/vegans are self-righteous boors and so are a huge number of omnivores? There is a finite number of online flamefests on the subject that one monkey can withstand per lifetime.
Wow. I’ve been vegan for 7 years but not for the reasons the authors have!
There are wonderful health benefits to a plant-based diet - not to mention getting away from processed food in general - but there’s no need to have a harsh tone like this! I like eating vegan (beans and brown rice and veggies, not diet coke and fries) because it will reduce liklihood of heart disease, diabetes, and many cancers. Sure, I’m still 15 lbs overweight (I blame beer and guacamole) so being vegan won’t guarantee skinniness. (Although when I ate meat, I was 45 lbs overweight…)
When I saw this book in a bookstore, I thought it was a joke! How sad that these people aren’t making an Onion ™ like spoof on the ridiculousness of the perfection-seekiing model-wannabees.
P.S. If I may be so blunt, why does that chick have tits on her back? Is this the latest thing with the kids or something?
What in the name of Dog is that “RICE DREAM” stuff???
It’s vegan ice cream substitute. And it tastes about as good as it sounds.
“What in the name of Dog is that “RICE DREAM” stuff???”
A frozen dessert made from rice milk. Not all that bad if you aren’t expecting ice cream and just want something cold and tasty. It does have a funny texture though.
I want to preface this statement by saying that I do not buy the “vegetarians/vegans are a bunch of self-righteous fanatics” line, nor am I trying to equate veganism with mental illness. Furthermore, if a meat-eater can engage them in a non-antagonistic way, most vegetarians and vegans are perfectly mellow about omnivorous folks, unlike Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin.
…but I know that for troubled individuals, especially troubled young girls, I have seen a not-at-all-subtle association between veganism, annorexia, and extreme hatred of the physical body. One girl in particular that stands out in my mind had suffered abuse and tried to self-medicate the feelings of mortification she had for her body. She went from pesco-vegetarian to vegetarian to vegan to raw foods, without really understanding the nutrition of any of it, just wanting to get away from her body and seeing food as a frustrating reminder of her body’s needs.
While she wasn’t doing it “to be skinny,” I think that the sort of abusive vegan propoganda that appears to be in Skinny Bitch would definitely have fed into that mindset that was destroying this girl.
Rice Dream is a frozen rice mylk food, akin to ice cream.
I’ve never read the book, have no desire to, and have not yet found a vegan friend who has read it, but I have a question for those who may have:
Does it explicitly decry carrying excess body fat as a moral wrong, or the overeating as a moral wrong? I could see a justification for a global argument that consuming too much, when so many are going without, would be considered an ethical flaw. One of the tenets of hardline (vegan, anti-alcohol/drugs, anti-abortion….) veganism was an avoidance of exotic produce and foods that were produced overseas, due to its impact on the locals (who are often treated harshly producing food that they can’t afford, so that it can be shipped thousands of miles away for the enjoyment of people in wealthier nations).
The Hare Krishnas whip up something similar made out of white rice, coconut milk, a dash something piquant (cardamam seed?) and some kind of sweetener (tastes like white sugar to my palate). They serve it as a kind of pudding/milkshake thing. I have to say, it’s pretty good, although the Ben & Jerry’s empire can certainly rest easy. It may have some actual milk in it, tho, I’m not sure.
Matt, anorexics usually eat something. If you ever drop by one of those bizarre pro-ana sites, it’s immediately evident that it’s not completely abstaining, but more this who game of seeing how long you can go without or how few calories you can consume when you do eat. And it’s not vegan for a lot—apparently a cube of cheese and half an apple is sort of the daily food intake of many an anorexic.
Vegan: If you eat crap, you are crap strikes me as a non-ambiguous statement.
I missed that one…thanks!
If memory serves me correctly, this book was torn to shred on the Vegan Freak podcast a few months ago. That was the first I heard of it.
www.veganfreak.net
Mighty Ponygirl,
I wrote the following comment before reloading the page and reading your comment on a similar issue (veganism, diet, self-image/hatred). I think you’re right about how they fit together. Anyway, here’s the comment I wrote:
On the general topic here: I worked for a number of years with a woman who’d had eating disorders as a teen (she was very open with her coworkers about this) and went through a series of very conscious, strongly-held views about food and diet, from vegetarian to vegan to a few others. My sense of it was that her underlying issues regarding food and self-image were still inside her, but that the way she was manifesting that struggle was much less unhealthy than it had been before. That is, expressing whatever conflicts or self-negation or whatever as bulimia or anorexia or binging is much worse for you than expressing them as veganism.
That experience made me feel that in some cases we might be looking at a harm reduction situation. Not everyone who’s a vegetarian or a vegan or is into calorie restriction does so because of deep issues relating to their sense of self. I’d bet that most people have completely unrelated reasons. But to some people, whose self-image/hatred issues have led to severe dangerous eating disorders, I wonder whether veganism or whatever could be the equivalent of methadone treatment, a way to prevent a serious, underlying disease from ruining their lives through incredibly self-destructive behavior.
That being said, that book sounds really poisonous, like it’s evangelizing self-hatred and negative body issues. Reinforcing those issues is about the last thing we need to do.
For some of the religious there’s the idea that the human body is given to you by your deity and you should take good care of it, but that’s pretty much gone by the board with the patriotic duties to support fast-food manufacturers and watch Fox News. If it were possible to make money for someone by exercising that would be OK, though.
This sounds more like the mortification-of-the-flesh side of established religion than the body-is-a-temple side.
I’m really, really sick of people using “Skinny Bitch” as a reason to discredit veganism. REALLY sick of it. That’s like using “Sex And The City” to discredit feminism.
People with eating disorders also tend to have self-punishing relationships to exercise. Should we ban going to the gym? I’ve known plenty of people who’ve used going to the gym every day as a cover for their anorexia.
My diet is vegan for ethical, health, and environmental reasons. I don’t even think of it as a “diet” since my relationship to food has completely changed since eliminating animal products. In addition, from a feminist point of view, when I personally started realizing that non-human animals are their own subjects, not objects for my consumption, it really changed my relationship to my own body as subject, and I found myself “objectifying” myself a LOT less.
#25 Paul:
Your comment reminds me of a post I read last night by Sarma, the owner of Pure Food and Wine in NYC. She talked about how years ago, she was impressed by the notion that Bain Capital, Mitt Romney’s company, would use Mormon guidelines against tobacco and alcohol to refrain from purchasing certain companies….until they bought Dunkin Donuts. She details several harmful ingredients in Dunkin Donuts food, and how it seems unethical (following Romney’s own “body as a temple” philosophy) to promote something that was also so unhealthy for the body.
god this shit makes me mad.I mean the book. Earlier today I went bought “The complete Light Kitchen” by Rose Reisman. Like so many women, I want to lose weight *shocker* But the book I bought is a far cry from the “skinny bitch”. As in, actually had healthy foods, veggie and meaty. And guess what!? OH MY GOD, some of the recipes actually have more than 10 grams of fat!!! ahh oh no! jk.
Anyway, as for the whole vegan thing, a friend of mine and I have noticed this trend in our friends and aquaintences (sorry i can’t spell) where its obvious they don’t so much care about the poor animals, but want to consume food that has no fat content and perpetuate an unhealthy diet or 700 calories a day. Yes we actually know people who live off of 700 calories a day… it’s pretty sick.
Furthermore, the reason I think this whole vegan fad got started, (aside from the activist part of things, which is really noble and all) is partly due to the restaurant industry and our need to get more bang for our buck. Have you ever noticed the portions of meat at a restaurant?! they’re insanely unhealthy to be eating on a regular basis. If you take a look at your national food guide you’ll find that the portions of meat and almost everything is double and thripple a healthy meal portion! I think people were like “oh meat makes me fat” not realizing that they were eating way more of it than they should. It doesn’t mean you have to get rid of it all together. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath-water… unless you really do have some huge moral problem with eating meat, and then , I really hope you’ve done your research.
As for eating disorders, I think we all understand there’s a lot more to it than just the want to be skinny, but it’s shit like this that perpetuate the unhealthy obsession so that you can get down to the bitter roots of the problem..
and hello!!?? giving up coffee? I gave it up for a year because sitting in my office wired all day wasn’t so fun, but seriously, I drink at least three cups a day again, and I don’t see myself giving it up again unless my doctor tells me to for serious medical reasons.
Yeah, well….I expect a lot of women who fall for this sort of book to have *real* problems later on in life. Like osteoporosis starting at age 30, for example. Heart failure. (e.g. Karen Carpenter) And all the other wonderful stuff associated with a diet where you’ve got to be very careful about getting sufficient protein, calcium, B12, and all the other stuff.
Snapping bones at 30 is a hell of a price to pay for being skinny and morally pure in your 20s. I’d rather be a little overweight, throw a little meat into my diet, and live to be a feisty old broad with strong bones at 70.
At least one recent study has questioned whether or not this is even the case. Researchers found that obese people did not live quite as long but actually cost less to treat overall.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22995659/wid/11915773/
If this holds up, it pretty much refutes the “but obesity is so expensive to treat” argument that a lot of people like to throw around.
Then there’s the Flegal study that found the lowest overall mortality rates in “overweight” people - you know, what was considered “normal weight” before the BMI tables were revised to favor skinnier folks.
Lillet, would you chill out? Unless you have an eating disorder and are using your veganism to pretend that you don’t have a problem, this blog post is not about you. Actually, it’s hardly about being vegan at all. We all know healthy vegans and non-healthy ones. It’s about using something that could be a positive lifestyle (veganism) as a moral sledgehammer to make women stop eating, which is not a good thing. The book this post is about is not actually about veganism, it’s about fat-shaming
Technically, the whole “vegan fad” was started in 1944 with the founding of the UK Vegan Society in London. The rise in veganism can be attributed to several factors, but the largest is, hands down, a concern for animal welfare/rights. Ask a vegan what got them to go vegan, and the majority of responses will center around the treatment/slaughter of animals.
And to clear up a common misconception…
The vegan diet is certainly not fat-free. Tofu and tempeh have good amounts of fat, and processed vegan foods (soy products, Rice Dream, Tings, etc…) can contain unhealthy processed plant fats. Even most raw vegans, who consume nothing heated over 118 degrees (F), note the need for fat in the diet (good fat though, not processed saturated and trans fats).
Wow, I had never seen the book “Skinny Bitch” but it’s pretty interesting, another version of physical perfection = moral perfection. It seems to go along really well with Peter Singer’s version of animal rights, the “because they are better than disabled people! who totally suck!” version.
It’s particularly upsetting since these versions give apologists for animal suffering so much easy reverse ammunition.
(full disclosure: I am in the category of “hypocrite”. I eat meat bought at the regular grocery store several times a week, even though I do think the ways that meat gets there are horrifying and oughta send me to hell for participating. Also — not to harsh on the SB dogma — I’m skinnier now as a regular consumer of animal fat than I was as a college vegetarian. For whatever that’s worth)
I thought we were talking about pretend vegans… who actually have eating disorders.. ?
Obviously there are healthy ways to be vegan. Somehow i don’t think thats the conversaton… is it>?
It seems like people aren’t quite getting the point of the Salon article… The author is saying that the book is using women’s weight/body issues to shame them into veganism, not the other way ’round. That this book is essentially a cynical political ploy to play on body shame and consciousness in our society to force women to embrace a vegan lifestyle.
Vegan: If you eat crap, you are crap strikes me as a non-ambiguous statement.
Which is ironic, because the authors have now come out with a cookbook, filled with recipes that rely on heavily-processed, albeit vegan, crap.
Which tells me that their focus is not on health or nutrition, but on thinness.
It seems like people aren’t quite getting the point of the Salon article… The author is saying that the book is using women’s weight/body issues to shame them into veganism, not the other way ’round. That this book is essentially a cynical political ploy to play on body shame and consciousness in our society to force women to embrace a vegan lifestyle.
PETA uses that ploy a lot, too, with some of their campaigns. Such as their version of “Got Milk?” that features woman-as-milk-cow.
Zuzu -
I saw the cookbook version, which amazingly, is a lot crappier than I eat - ironically, I think I would *gain* weight if I ate all that heavily processed “food”. I was expecting the cookbook to be heavy on salads and veggie stir-fry items, not soysage and all those super expensive faux meats and the like.
Will the authors yell at me for gaining weight from eating their recipes? Geez.
There’s a freaky subset I’m sure you’re all aware of — they eat only 1000 calories a day, and obsessively monitor the content, in the firm belief that they’ll live to be 150 years old. Very well-written profile of some of these nuts in the New Yorker, if you can find it. Since the hook is immortality rather than svelteness, the discipline claims a surprising number of male adherents.
All eating disorders are a kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder. You can tell women they’ll be skinny or tell men they’ll live forever, but is this the fundamental enticement? No, even though the anorexic her/himself would say so emphatically. It’s an arena in which to practice obsessive-compulsive tendencies and rationalize it as a legitimate regimen.
Zuzu, thanks for posting that article. These two comments really stood out to me:
Kimberly Latham, a fashion publicist in New York, said: “I would never have read ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma.’ I’m not even sure I know what an omnivore is. But I know what a skinny bitch is, and I know I want to be one.”
Debbie Rasmussen, the publisher of Bitch magazine, a feminist journal in Portland, Ore., has mixed feelings about the Skinny Bitch phenomenon. “Obviously I’m in favor of assaults on the food industry,” said Ms. Rasmussen, a vegan. “On the other hand, the constant equating of skinny and healthy is something I have a real problem with. And replacing junk food with vegan junk food is not my idea of how to change our unhealthy food culture.”
The rise in veganism can be attributed to several factors, but the largest is, hands down, a concern for animal welfare/rights.
I think we’re talking about two different groups of people here. Yes, a lot of people who are vegans got there from animal rights. But there are also a lot who did it because their favorite celebrity did it, or because they think it’s an easy way to lose weight, or because they have an eating disorder that they’re not ready to cop to. I think the second group is larger than you might think, especially in places like Los Angeles where they love nothing more than a super-trendy diet that sets them apart from the proles.
P.S. If I may be so blunt, why does that chick have tits on her back? Is this the latest thing with the kids or something?
Maybe Chris Muir was the illustrator.
I think curvy women are hot.
It’s not just women who develop a negative self-image because of weight issues. I look in the mirror now and coo, because I managed to lose all the weight I wanted to lose and I love how I look. But when I was overweight, I looked in the mirror and hated the way I looked. I looked down at random times during the day and hated on my gut. I’d tug at my double-chin in frustration. It really sucked. The last thing I needed was some book getting snippy with me.
We should all collectively write a book called “Hey, Skinny Bitch, We Can Lose Weight, But You’ll Still Be a Bitch!”
[I]t never occurred to me to link any kind of moral implications of vegetarianism with the moralistic-like attitude our culture has about fat.
Way to dismiss everything veganism actually stands for by reducing it to a woman-shaming technique. It’s like Lillet said. People with EDs exercise a lot. Why not pick on athletes?
This has been explained in the comments of half a dozen other blog posts about this horrible book, but it bears repeating:
Veganism is a lifestyle and belief system, not a diet.
Restricting your diet to lose weight is NOT veganism.
If you eliminated meat and dairy from your diet in order to lose weight, but still participate in using animals for clothing or entertainment, or you haven’t committed to the belief that exploiting animals is ethically wrong, you’re not a vegan. You’re on a diet.
I usually shy away from waving my magic vegan wand and declaring who does and does not get to be called “vegan,” but these women are not vegan.
I haven’t knowingly eaten animal products in over ten years, and I’ve never in my life been on a diet. This is true for all but a minuscule percentage of people who eliminate animals from their diet.
And in what alternate universe would the mainstream media try to “shame” women into being vegans? Shame women into being skinny, sure. But since when are vegans seen as anything short of pains in the collective ass of America?
F*&% this idiotic book and everyone who thinks it has anything to do with veganism.
People with eating disorders also tend to have self-punishing relationships to exercise. Should we ban going to the gym?
Did someone suggest banning veganism? Because I totally missed that comment. Some weeks I’m practically a vegan myself. I’m not sure how a ban on veganism would work. Mandatory cheese-eating?
Veganism is a lifestyle and belief system, not a diet.
For you. Not for every vegan.
It’s funny, because I’ve picked up Veganomicon and Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World, both of which are 100% vegan cookbooks that are about enjoying healthy vegan food - not about being a ’skinny bitch’ or about my-diet-is-more-moral-than-yours. Funny how they aren’t marketed with the same enthusiasm; what’s the point in promoting a product that doesn’t shame women?
Mandatory cheese-eating? That would be awesome.
And to reiterate the comment to the angry vegans-this post is not about you, so un-knot your knickers.
I’m just starting a nutritional plan through my gym, the first month of which is vegan. Crazy, restrictive vegan, consisting of vegetables that are low in sugar, and protein. Since I’m vegetarian, that means a whole lotta tofu and protein shakes! And I am so glad I’m not eating like this for the rest of my life-a month I can handle, to ‘detox’ from all the sugar I normally consume, but spending the rest of my life feeling vaguely hungry and… spiritually unsatisfied? would suck.
That statement is not intended to offend vegans-they are welcome to their choices, I would just find it depressing to live like that.
To clarify-the diet isn’t vegan for everyone-meat eaters get meat, but I get none, which means defaulting to vegan.
Veganism is a lifestyle and belief system, not a diet.
That’s how you, and probably lots of vegans, view it. That is not how it’s viewed by the mainstream media. They view it as an extreme form of dieting. Hence it’s used to shame women with a little extra dollop of fakey animal-rights concern on top of the fat-shaming.
Since the authors of Skinny Bitch are specifically saying that veganism is a pathway to weight loss, are you saying that they’re not “real” vegans because they don’t believe the way you do?
I wish I could say that I find this surprising, but I don’t. Anyone who has followed PETA’s antics knows that the animal rights movement is perfectly happy to use fat-shaming and woman-hating tactics to advance their agenda. Anyone who has spent significant time with people with eating disorders knows that they’re adept at finding justifications and rationalizations for their basically self-indulgent behavior. (And I say that as a former anorexic and bulimic.) No surprises here.
In a lot of ways, I think what’s more significant is the movement towards a kind of self-conscious vegan epicureanism. There are definitely vegans out there who talk up the pleasures of vegan food, not the pleasures of vegan self-denial and superiority. That’s a kind of veganism that could potentially be appealing to me, although I’m not willing to take that step right now. But the other kind just feels too familiarly eating-disorder-y to me. Even if self-denying vegans don’t have eating disorders, it’s a way of thinking about food that is liable to make me crazy. I need to think about food as a healthy and pleasurable thing that fuels my body and makes me happy. Once I start thinking about it as a moral battleground in which I win through self-denial, I’m halfway to the psych ward, if I’m lucky.
For you. Not for every vegan
Sorry, those who abstain from animal products for health or to lose weight, but don’t avoid animal-derived clothing, etc aren’t vegans - they’re strict or total vegetarians.
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/qa/qatypes.htm
There are no such entities as “part-time vegans,” “partial vegans,” or “dietary vegans.” People who merely consume no animal products, including no eggs, animals’ milk, or honey are not vegans; they are “total vegetarians.” Until one’s commitment extends beyond the scope of food, the word “vegan” does not apply, regardless of how the media or certain individuals wish to employ it. Unlike vegetarianism, being vegan does not entail simply what a person does or doesn’t eat — it comprises who a person is.
Wow. I didn’t realize there was an official vegan council that was authorized to excommunicate people from veganism!
I gained weight after going vegan. I think it was because I started eating much tastier food, as implausible as that might seem.
Wow, I didn’t know that you could have your vegan card revoked. We feminists need to get behind this belief-based accrediting procedure!
And what Mnemnosyne said. This isn’t really about the One True Face of Veganism; it’s about making money off shaming women by equating limiting their food intake–in quantity and manner–with their worth as human beings. Animal rights are purely window dressing here. The issue about this bookisn’t “you’re a moral person because less animals die,” it’s “you’re a moral person because you restrict what you eat and are skinny.”
“Wow. I didn’t realize there was an official vegan council that was authorized to excommunicate people from veganism!”
There’s even a Vegan Agenda, which only committed vegans are allowed to see and use…
Sally:
Something’s not quite right there, ecological fallacy perhaps. Anyway, I share your disgust with the fat-shaming and whoman-hating tactics, but I would revise your sentence:
I’m not sure how a ban on veganism would work. Mandatory cheese-eating?
Speaking for the dairy-allergics in the crowd, I’d rather you didn’t… If I quit meat, I’d pretty much have to be a vegan (can’t eat dairy or eggs), but I don’t have the time or money to do it at this latitude. Veganism is easier when you live further south than I do.
I think “If you eat crap, you are crap” is pretty unambiguous too. I also resent the hell out of people like that infringing on perfectly legitimate body-hatred out of something as venal as looksism. I’d like my body a lot better if it worked better, but right now, I maintain a sort of suspicious armed detente here in the Meat Robot.
Kathleen, I want to thank you for drawing that parallel between physical perfection and moral perfection. Since reading that thread on the cop dumping the guy out of his wheelchair, I’ve been again wondering how the fuck there can be such things as anti-disabled hate crimes (which shocked the hell out of me). That halfway makes it make sense, if you use anti-logic. I’d never thought of my cerebral palsy as being a moral failing before…
I took a “look inside” at the table of contents on Amazon, and a misogynistic bent was immediately apparent there. I mean, chapter 10 is titled “Don’t Be A Pussy.”
Excuse me??? I LOVE my pussy!
Sorry. You’re absolutely right. I should have said “parts of the animal rights movement” or something like that.
That just said everything i was planning to think or say about the book, the post, and the thread. Rock on.
Huh, Rasmussen was just on CBC this morning criticizing this book. She was good. The book sounds like it combines the worst qualities of misogynist fat-shamers and self-righteous vegans.
This is the sort of thing that makes me reticent to admitting I’m a vegetarian. “Oh, did you do it because you love animals or to lose weight?” Um, neither, actually.
Sorry, but “meat robot” reminded me of one of my all-time favorite lines from “Futurama”:
“You’re just jealous! Nobody loves you because you’re tiny and made of meat!”
This book has 517 ratings on amazon.com. Fortunately, it’s only getting 3 1/2 stars average. I read the few pages they provide as a free excerpt.
Chapter 1, page 1: “Healthy = skinny. Unhealthy = fat.”
Bullshit.
The text on the rest of the pages makes me feel like I’m being yelled at by the authors. If I want to feel badly about my body, I can do that for free. Save myself the eight bucks buying this book.
I do believe there are moral aspects to how we consume and what we consume, but that there is no moral issue regarding the size of our bodies. Asking meat eaters to be cognizant of the treatment factory-farmed animals suffer is reasonable and a moral issue, or at least ethical; asking meat eaters to acknowledge the effects cattle farming (methane output and deforestation) wreak on our global economy and environment are reasonable. Asking people to think about a food economy in which oranges are more expensive than candy bars, in which a bottle of water is more expensive than a bottle of soda, making unhealthy food choices the affordable food choices - that is a reasonable moral issue. But if someone wants to eat cheetos all day or load up on fudge rounds and french fries or wants to overeat non-junk food but then not exercise… well, there’s no ethical issue there. Just a lot of fat shaming for not being eye candy. Cause really, that’s what chicks are here for. There’s really no honor behind fat-shaming, no matter how much people pretend their intentions are meant kindly, and the message isn’t any more tasteful when it comes from skinny vegan bitches.
Argh, sometimes I think that’s one of the worst things about PETA. Nobody who is vegan or vegetarian should have to apologize for what they do or don’t eat or wear.
They also don’t seem to get that their shaming isn’t effective for anything except making themselves feel better. Misogyny isn’t a requirement for spreading the gospel of veganism; it’s just something they enjoy.
Wow. I didn’t realize there was an official vegan council that was authorized to excommunicate people from veganism!
Well, call me crazy, but I think it’s a pretty fair that the guy who *coined the term* (Donald Watson) should be allowed to define what means. But I’m funny like that.
Perhaps I missed some comments, but I feel like no one has brought up the issue of health. Eating vegan takes planning and effort.
It is very very easy to live off tortilla chips and guac. or even frech fries. Just because you are eating “vegan” does not mean you are eating healthy.
Does anyone think the book promotes a malnourished lifestlye without really explaining what goes into maintainging a balanced vegan diet?
well, Jesus “invented” Christianity and we’ve all seen how good folks are about following HIS definition.
Exactly, a bunch of wannabe assholes keep corrupting the meaning of it - why encourage more of that shit?
not encouraging. but leaders of a movement lose their absolute authority once their movements reach the public. sucks, but that’s how it goes unless you’re willing to back your movement up with cyanide kool-aid.
just as we might say, “it doesn’t matter that Jerry Falwell never said a Christ-like word in his life, he flies the Christian banner and hides behind its cache,” we can say, “it doesn’t matter that this book’s authors are essentially fat-shaming malnourished bitches, they are claiming vegan cache and that means something.”
Otherwise you end up lost in a spiral of “no true Scotsman” fallacies.
er, correction: lose their absolute authority over definition
Touchy, much, Rebecca? I didn’t bash being a vegan for moral reasons. That was my point. It’s a legitimate moral choice, and it’s being superimposed on something that’s not a legitimate moral issue, which is the waistlines of America. Nothing about that is vegan-bashing. It’s actually saying that veganism has a legitimate moral component I agree with, even if I’m not ever really going to give up cheese to get there.
Well, call me crazy, but I think it’s a pretty fair that the guy who *coined the term* (Donald Watson) should be allowed to define what means.
So there *is* a Central Vegan Authority? Glad you cleared that up for us.
yazikus, have you been reading the thread? This isn’t promoting a healthy vegan diet. It equates body size with health. The authors think “pussy” is an appropriate term to hurl at women who don’t yet follow their diet. They extol junk food as long as it’s vegan and you’re skinny.
You should see how the Council deals with the breakaway evangelical vegans, whom you might know by their familiar name: Vegan-Agains.
This post at Feministing about “vegan strip clubs” makes a good companion to this post.
Wow. I’m making a big “T” here with my hands to ask any of you if you have read the book. It doesn’t sound like it. I happened to have just finished it–it interested me because I am currently hooked on the BBC Show “You Are What You Eat” and the advice in this book sounds quite similar (Although the BBC version does allow fish in the diet).
The tone of the book didn’t bother me at all, and as a fan of Michael Pollan and an adherent to the local foods/CSA movement, I had heard/read most of this before. Like the authors, I am one of those people who will tell you all about the evils of aspartame and the connection with Donald Rumsfeld, or of high fructose corn syrup, if you want to hear it. My husband is a biochemist and can give you the lowdown on why Splenda is awful if you need to know.
At any rate, the thing that seems to be the sticking point here–that the whole book is about shaming people about their body weight, well, I suppose it is there if you want to quote certain bits, but isn’t the overall message. (then again, I haven’t got an eating disorder, so maybe I’m missing it).
At the end of Skinny Bitch there’s a page that says something like (I don’t have it in front of me) “We have a confession to make. We don’t care if you get skinny at all. We just want you to be healthy and to use your head and think about what you put into your body.” They repeat “Use Your Head” over and over again, in every chapter. And it seems to me that getting people to think about what they eat, especially people who really don’t consider it much from a nutritional standpoint, is probably not a bad thing.
Yes, they go into detail about the dairy and meat industries and they have an agenda. They never mention the local foods movement and they plug vegan junk food. It’s not a perfect book. But it does focus on why eating chemical food is not good for you, and how eating well can make you feel good. And for a certain audience who think of dieting as drinking lots and lots of diet coke (and wondering why they never lose weight and have terrible headaches, to boot), this is probably a very eye-opening new away to look at the world.
…So you can say all sorts of horrible, fat-shaming, woman-hating things you want as long as you take it back in the end with some half-assed paragraph saying “just kidding!”
At any rate, the thing that seems to be the sticking point here–that the whole book is about shaming people about their body weight, well, I suppose it is there if you want to quote certain bits, but isn’t the overall message.
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
It’s not a perfect book. But it does focus on why eating chemical food is not good for you, and how eating well can make you feel good.
So does French Women Don’t Get Fat, but at least that book is up-front about what it’s trying to do and not pretending that they’re oh-so-concerned about the health of all of those fatties.
the “psyche! fooled you!” school of anti-feminism.
And they have really shitty poetry readings! Wait, that’s Vogons.
I was having this discussion on the train today with another ‘merkin about McMansions, which lead to a similar one on status symbols and conspicuous consumption.
If you are thin, athletic, and tanned, it means you are well-to-do, because you have leisure time to devote to working out and sunning yourself.
If you’re fat and out of shape it’s because you are a working stiff and/or too poor to afford healthy food.
The “sin” here is being poor, or more precisely, being in the weak underclass. The powerful over-class (is that a term used?) ever justifies its cruelty and dominance with morality. At one point they used the Church to endorse their bullshit; now you can plainly see that they’re superior, just look at them.
That said, I will admit to this much: when I fail to work out or when I stop for a kebab on the way home from work instead of cooking myself something healthy, I beat myself up and I feel as if it is a moral failing. I feel like I’m allowing myself to be lazy or something, and I feel happier when I work out…because I feel superior to people who don’t. So obviously I have internalized this idea more than I thought.
French women do so get fat. So.
I understand that vegan spokepeople are self-appointed. I do not understand their black-and-white all-or-nothing approach. Reeks of evangelism, and oh what a rank smell that is. Why not simply try to get people to eat less meat, to seek out hormone-free meat and free-range chicken? Why not lobby for more humane means of raising and slaughtering animals? Do they really think if they’re just shrill and sophomoric enough, human consumption of meat will vanish from the earth?
Again, I don’t paint all or most vegans with the brush so vividly illustrated by the self-appointed evangelists. But vegan-zealot tactics and woman-body-shaming are actually more related than has been acknowledged in this thread. At the least, those two forms of scolding dovetail perfectly.
“The “sin” here is being poor, or more precisely, being in the weak underclass. The powerful over-class (is that a term used?) ever justifies its cruelty and dominance with morality.”
The worst aspect is the dichotomy between the Over-Class’s intrinsic “morality” and the reality of how their lives are often conducted. Yet, somehow there are only a very few who will state flat out that the emperor has no clothes…
I don’t think this is OT, or not much, but I’m just going to drop a link to a Community-Supported Agriculture resource site. It’s the time of year when CSAs are starting to sign up members for the coming season, so get one while you can.
I’ve been a CSA member for over 15 years, and my observation is that this kind of local food makes for healthier vegans *and* healthier omnivores. And it tastes better, too — I never knew what a fresh potato tastes like, before, and the heirloom tomatoes from my NJ CSA are a religious experience. The strawberries are practially a sacrament.
Although people *can* certainly be OCD about local food, I think it tends to draw you away from that — partly because it’s much less controllable than more artificial food regimens. What you get varies from week to week depending on the season and the weather, in a very old-fashioned way. Also, there’s more likely to be dirt in what you get.
Some of my best friends are black.
Norbizness — if you don’t appreciate the profound beauty of Vogon poetry, you must be a fat worthless underclass lump.
Interrobang — yeah, the parallel is pretty gross and pretty weird. As a devoted hypocrite meat-eater, it also really upsets me because I think the case for animal rights should be made, and I’m even kind of grateful to PETA For making it (um, I do think rich people should be shamed for wearing fur!) — but I just would like to see it made NOT in that “because they are higher in the hierarchy of perfection that we previously supposed” way. I’d like to see the case for animal rights made in a “because the hierarchy of perfection crap is crap!” way.
Because if you think something is really, fundamentally wrong, you can’t argue that it should be reformed. It would be like arguing that the way to deal with female infanticide is to kill babies in a more merciful way. If you genuinely think that eating meat is murder, then you can’t settle for half-way measures. I don’t think that animal-rights activists should be required to lie about how they perceive the meat industry. If you think it’s slavery and murder and that the only way to rectify the situation is to abolish the practice of raising animals for food or clothing, then you should be permitted to say that.
Huh, Rasmussen was just on CBC this morning criticizing this book. She was good. The book sounds like it combines the worst qualities of misogynist fat-shamers and self-righteous vegans.
I heard this too — and the interview with one of the authors that preceded it. Rasmussen was quite wonderful, pointing out that it’s just a new spin on ‘good food/bad food’. The author was underwhelming. I sympathize with veganism as an ethical stance but she trotted out a lot of old, impossible canards as Truth! No, the intestines of meat-eaters are not packed with pockets of rotting meat, unless by ‘rotting’ you mean ‘digesting’; intestines are tubes through which things pass, as anyone who’s ever had a dog eat an important object will testify (I know what an iPod looks like when it’s been through a beagle).
I think, with Rasmussen, that the roots of body-hatred lie with the authors and not in their veganism, which is only a supplement to the fat = unwholesome skinny = virtuous mantra. I’d think that the eating disorders would lie in their background in the fashion industry, which frames a form of normalized, institutionalized anorexia for all its participants.
Oh, and all Vogons are skinny. That’s how you can tell they’re superior.
That, and the poetry.
If you think it’s slavery and murder and that the only way to rectify the situation is to abolish the practice of raising animals for food or clothing, then you should be permitted to say that.
You can certainly say that, but you shouldn’t expect to be treated any more seriously than someone who thinks that a zygote is the same as a fully-formed human being and so abortion should be abolished.
Yes, Sally, but such absolutism is kind of like abstinence education. We want the poeple believe that non-marital sex “is absolutely WRONG, and nobody should do it EVER,” to acknowledge that such a thing is just NOT going to happen, and so they should at least get behind harm-reduction measures for the reality that exists. We argue for such compromises all the time: I don’t think people should be locked up for nonviolent drug offenses, but that doesn’t mean I won’t argue for more humane treatment of people in prison at the same time.
We have to live in the real world and work for what is possible. You can think of attempts to get people to at least get their meat in a more humane way as a step in the right direction toward the desired world, where non-human animals are more valued. You’re trying to effect a HUGE change in a society’s worldview, and it’s not going to happen all at once; baby steps are at least steps. And when people feel shamed and castigated, they don’t take any steps at all, they just ignore the message entirely.
Amanda:
Matt, anorexics usually eat something.
Yes, I am quite familiar with the behaviors associated with anorexia nervosa, and apologize for my silly misuse of the term. It was a clumsy attempt to shore up my joke with a recognizable term, and English doesn’t have a good word meaning “someone who doesn’t eat anything”. I am all too familiar with the sound of an anorexic chewing; I just chose that word because it was the closest match I could come up with.
Aside from the dumb joke I lead with, though, I’m curious about what people think the solution is here. The anti-fat crowd can smell the disingenuity of the pro-fat crowd’s arguments about the separation of moral and aesthetic categories, and they’ll continue to stick to their “thin” fetish unless someone present a more convincing argument than “there’s nothing morally relevant about the decision to be obese in a society that pays some of my medical expenses”.
We pass judgment on people’s body shapes and eating habits all the time. An “eating disorder” is classified as a pathology for a reason. To pretend that overeating is any healthier than anorexia or bulimia is incoherent. And the social costs of unhealthy overeating are much greater overall. Look at the latest mortality figures on obesity and anorexia if you ever have any doubts.
Sure, both “skinny bitch” and “fat cow” are used to unfairly attack people with healthy eating habits all the time. That doesn’t mean that overeating and undereating can both result in pathological, socially destructive behavior that has moral consequences.
Hey, let’s play Mad Libs!
“If you genuinely think that ABORTION is murder, then you can’t settle for half-way measures. I don’t think that PRO-LIFE activists should be required to lie about how they perceive the ABORTION industry. If you think it’s slavery and murder and that the only way to rectify the situation is to abolish the practice of ALLOWING WOMEN TO KILL THEIR UNBORN BABIES, then you should be permitted to say that.”
See, the issue isn’t that vegans are too strident, or that animal-rights activists should STFU. It’s that this particular book pushes that agenda with misogyny and fat-hating. And the defenses of the book people have been posting are, what the hell, as long as it gets people to stop torturing cows, why not call women pussies or tell them that skinny and healthy are the same thing?
So should labels and identities be defined by whoever wants to take them, irregardless of how they fit it? Should we never, ever say Feminists for Life aren’t really feminist since they don’t care about women’s lives or choices or rights, since they “claim a feminist cache and that means something”? If Camille Paglia gets enough articles in the media that rape apology is sex positive feminism does that make it true? Hell, is Ted Haggard straight if he says it enough?
Veganism, as defined by the major organizations and groups going back to the founder, is more than just a diet, it’s about trying not to use animal products at all. That’s why my shampoo says “vegan” on it, which it wouldn’t if veganism was just a diet. Can we all accept the official definition instead of letting the mainstream media make up a very negative meaning that has nothing to do with the reasons most people who identify as vegan do so?
I’m pretty sure that my ‘vegan’ shampoo says ‘cruelty-free’. If it said ‘vegan’ I would be concerned what my shampoo was eating.
Matt - because you’re conflating food abuse with body shape. To pretend that the issue is actually pathological eating, rather than fat-shaming, is dishonest.
jrochest:
You can’t say something like that and expect us not to get distracted.
My question is, did it still work?
Well, Sally, nobody’s arguing vegans shouldn’t be permitted to say what they believe, and to be intractable, insufferable, even, should they so choose.
Such folks will change precisely zero during their years on this Earth. But hey, at least they’ll get to feel like the Lord’s Elect — and that’s the real victory for any Evangelist, no?
Sheesh. For some perspective, there actually are vegans out there seeking pragmatic, achievable ends. One of them, an Aspie, was profiled in one of the Oliver Sacks books — she has designed a type of slaughterhouse that minimizes the fear that animals experience during the process. That’s an actual achievement. Pontificating at a campus-area coffeehouse, god love it, never will be.
Maybe I missed something, but I think the only person defending the book (#76) is actually a meat eater who just thinks it’s good to tell people not to drink soda. The vegans on this thread I’ve just seen defending veganism, because, try as people might, every thread on this book on every blog or msg board devolves into attacking veganism instead of just the book.
See, the issue isn’t that vegans are too strident, or that animal-rights activists should STFU. It’s that this particular book pushes that agenda with misogyny and fat-hating. And the defenses of the book people have been posting are, what the hell, as long as it gets people to stop torturing cows, why not call women pussies or tell them that skinny and healthy are the same thing?
Sally was saying that vegans shouldn’t compromise their beliefs and work for harm reduction because they think that using animals is morally wrong. I pointed out that just because you think something is morally wrong doesn’t automatically give you moral weight over anyone else.
Or, as has been said throughout this thread, you’re not morally superior just because you’re a vegan, any more than being “pro-life” makes you morally superior. It’s the difference between choosing to be vegan because you feel it’s a more moral way to live and deciding that because you’re living in a way that you feel is moral, that means everyone who doesn’t do the same is immoral.
Sadly, the answer was “browner, with surprisingly small molar marks on one corner”.
If you mean “Work” as in “actually play things”, well, no. If you mean “work” as in “functionally hold together into a coherent Ipod shaped plastic square” it was as good as new! *
* Barring the earbuds and wires, which are apparently digestible. Who knew?
which would be exactly what most people in this thread are SAYING.
should we IGNORE the fact that Feminists for Life and Paglia are trying to co-opt labels they probably don’t deserve? No. Can we actually STOP them from doing that? NO. Does it do any good to stick our fingers in our ears and go la la la la la doesn’t matter they’re Not True Vegans la la la?
No. What DOES work is addressing their arguments, and the Skinny Bitch arguments, on their (lack of) merits, and not just saying “but they’re not reaaaaaaal vegans!” over and over.
Kajey, I read enough of the book to get to the part where they say that you should never take pain meds for menstrual cramps, because God-I-mean-Nature wants you to suffer wrenching pain in preparation for childbirth, which they must think women are not allowed to opt out of either.
Oh, they also tell you to stop taking medication for everything, and I do mean everything, else.
Face it. They’re misogynist douchebags.
(The proof.)
Giving more time to the stupid vegan propaganda than to this shit, which is actually intended to hurt and kill women for real, right away, is a little disturbing. There’s way worse in that book calling fat women worthless.
stuck in mods. but was replying to Marle’s idea that acknowledging that these authors call themselves vegan is somehow an attack WE are making on veganism. It’s too uncomfortably close to the idea that criticising lawbreaking, hypocritical Christians is an attack on ALL christians, everywhere.
I’ve seen the Anthony Bourdain threads on Salon, THOSE are attacks on veganism. This thread? not so much.
(And I don’t mean that hating fat women is a minor matter. It’s just that if you took out all the fat-loathing, it would still be a dangerous, sick book.)
Those two aren’t related. I can’t force you to be vegan, but that doesn’t mean I have to advocate for better farm conditions if I still don’t think that “better” is good enough. I can just be vegan and tell you why it’s awesome if you ask.
I also don’t think I’m morally superior because I’m vegan. I don’t buy fair trade chocolate (unless the vegan kind just happens to be) and I shop at Walmart and try not to worry if my stuff was produced in sweatshops. Nobody’s perfect, and I don’t judge people on the stuff they buy. Of course it’s better to buy stuff made without cruelty (to animals, humans, or the environment) but all of us can’t do that and none of us can do it perfectly. So I don’t put up a scale, I just don’t eat meat and you do choose what works best with your life.
Mnemosyne — I don’t think the parallel you are drawing works quite the way you think it does. I mean, what if obeying the speed limit made me feel moral — would I have NO right to promote laws to make everybody else do it too, but should instead keep my big fat ideas to myself?
I do think people have different ideas about what makes for a good society. Animal rights’ advocates ideas about this are more congenial to me than are anti-choicers’ ideas about this, but I don’t think they both need to shut up about ideas because they make them feel moral.
If a law was passed saying everybody had to be a vegan, I do think society would be better off than it is right now. (I say this as a meat-eater). I think championing veganism b/c it supposedly makes you sexy and superior is a bunch of crap, but again — b/c I think those ideas about sexiness and superiority are general social bads, not because they make certain people feel cool who are not me.
If a law was passed saying women could no longer get abortions, I think society would be worse off. I also think all kinds of shaming associated with abortion are social bads for *everyone*, but not b/c they make certain people feel cool who are not me.
but the vegans and the anti-choicers are welcome to make their arguments as part of a general argument about what society ought to look like. My version is pro speed limits, pro eating a lot less meat, and pro-choice. If that gives me some kind of moral pleasure, do I have no right to advocate any of those positions to anyone else?
Matt, I think the problem is the equation of unhealthy and morally wrong. I do think that some of the claims made by fat activists about how there’s no relationship between overeating and being fat to be disingenuous, but the claims about there not being a moral component are fair. Considering that fat women get it much worse than fat men, there’s also an unfair indication that women are morally obligated to be what’s commonly considered a minimally acceptable sex object. I reject the idea that presenting yourself as an aesthetically pleasing sex object is a a moral obligation. Do it or don’t, but acting holy about it is weird.
Even working with the idea that obesity is linked with poor nutrition and therefore bad health outcomes, I’m unconvinced that there’s a moral component to maintaining good health. I am also deeply annoyed about the way people who hate smoking are claiming a moral high ground. Sure, it’s disgusting to smoke and bad for you, but does it make you a bad person? No, and anyone who thinks that needs to rethink their priorities. Some of the kindest, most generous people I know are smokers.
I don’t think we’re attacking veganism as we are attacking the sanctimony behind it.
Historically, trying to “shame” the neighboring populace into avoiding particular actions only works if it’s an activity that the populace was sort of feeling queasy about anyway. An example is slavery–even the handful of people mining the Bible for quotes in justification of slavery knew damn well that without Human Sin, slavery was not supposed to occur.
The further way you are from what is considered standard morals, the more of a jump you have to cross. Imagine a People For The Ethical Treatment of Vegetables organization and see if you can think of them as existing anywhere outside an article in The Onion.
Going around trying to shame people about activities they don’t feel ashamed about isn’t going to work–it’s just going to piss them off. I never feel as determined to chow down on a juicy hamburger as right after being the (unwilling) recipient of a Holy Vegan rant.
(Oh, and about the fur coat thing–don’t even try to be anti-fur here in Chicago, especially when it’s 0 degrees Fahrenheit outside with a wind-chill factor of -40. You’ll have better luck trying to convince Eskimos.)
Oh, they also tell you to stop taking medication for everything, and I do mean everything, else.
Oh, sweet chocolate Jesus. I loved the diatribe about how you have to stop taking all medication because:
Gee, thanks. I guess next time I get strep throat, I shouldn’t take my antibiotics, because they’re going to do more harm than good. Gotcha.
I love how it’s quickly followed by the please-don’t-sue,
Here’s an idea — how about not making sweeping statements about what strangers “should” do with their health to make you happy?
Sorry, mythago, but I stand by my statement comparing people like this to “pro-life” whiners. It’s the same assumption that because they believe it’s better to be a vegan and live life without aspirin, that automatically means that it’s bad for anyone else to not do it and they only deserve abuse and ridicule for not following the sage advice laid out here.
Sally #88, I’m totally in agreement with you on Happy Meat. If meat is murder, you can’t reform it.
Amanda, have you ever heard of Sheese? Its a fake cheese made in Scotland that is flavored to taste like different forms of cheese. I’ve tried it before, and its really good.
http://www.veganstore.com/218——-blue.html
Once you get dairy out of your system, it really does become, for most people, just as unappealing as meat. As Colleen from Compassionate Cooks lays out in her podcasts, people don’t crave meat or dairy; they crave the texture and the flavorings and the fats and the sugars. For maybe one dollar’s worth of ingredients, I can make a bowl of cashew paste that is flavored (using lemon juice, apple cider vinegar, nutritional yeast, and soy sauce) very similar to cheese.
You’ve missed the point. Militant vegans have a right to say what they think just as much as “pro-life” people do. They can do whatever they want to promote it … right up to the point where they start telling people that they’re weak and bad if they don’t do the same. Which, if you look at the excerpts from the book, is what the authors of this book are saying to their readers.
Speed limit is not a good analogy because if you’re speeding and you crash, your inability to follow the law has directly impacted someone else’s life who’s a stranger to you (or, god forbid, a passenger in your car). You can advocate for things all you want up until the point where you start impacting the lives of strangers.
Do we really have to say “it’s not about you” once again? Criticizing a book that uses veganism to fat-shame women is not about you.
For maybe one dollar’s worth of ingredients, I can make a bowl of cashew paste that is flavored (using lemon juice, apple cider vinegar, nutritional yeast, and soy sauce) very similar to cheese.
Dear lord, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. “Cheese” is not a flavor. Is your cashew paste flavoried like brie, like gorgonzola, mozarella, parmesan, cheddar? “Similar to cheese.” Not even cheese tastes similar to cheese.
Here is the thing. There are foods that are really delicious that it is not ethical to consume. Luckily for me, I think foie gras is disgusting, so it’s not a hardship to refuse it, but even if I loved it, I’d never touch it, because it’s wrong. I understand that vegans feel the same way about all dairy products, and I respect that. And I know it’s hard to talk about ethics without being mocked and derided for having the nerve to feel compassion for tortured animals. But you can’t win converts by pretending that cheese basically tastes no different from fancy nut paste. Come on. Culinary ignorance is not convincing.
Well, no, but it does mean things won’t change much if all vegans feel the same way.
That poor dog! Getting rid of your iPod “the natural way” musta hurt. (hums “Ring of Fire” …)
Does anyone else find it interesting how long this comment thread is in comparison to some of the comment threads to more politically “salient” topics? And I am saying that with all due respect and a sense of bewilderment.
Godmonkey, you’re thinking of Dr. Temple Grandin. She is not a vegan. She’s also not an “Aspie”; she’s autistic, albeit high-functioning.
sophonisba, I neglected to finish that statement. It should have continued:
…very similar to the way cheese is, in that you have a base ingredient (dairy/cashews) that is then flavored to create a taste. It wasn’t culinary ignorance, it was multitasking
The thing about calling meat-eaters murderers is that you’re calling 96% of the humans that ever trod this mudball (this figure comes from my ass) murderers. Let alone calling cheese eaters murderers. Great god, people! Look at what you’ve become! You expect this to appeal to the rest of us?
It’s just not a tenable thing. Unless you were raised vegan your entire life, or at the very least adopted it thoroughgoingly at a very, very young age, you yourself are confessing to murder. Which is a permanent stain on the soul, not something that’s absolved once you quit doing it.
So drop the melodrama. Move a few more blocks from the Student Union. Whatever it takes.
Brag of your glowing complexion, your boundless energy and your refreshing bowel movements if you must — these things do have a certain appeal. Bearing the sanctimony of a schoolmarm while enacting the dramatic, self-aggrandizing rhetorical flourishes of teenager? Not so appealing.
mythago, my mistake. She’s vegetarian, though. Not vegan. Right you are.
I heard her on my local NPR affiliate. Smart lady.
Sorry, mythago, but I stand by my statement comparing people like this to “pro-life” whiners.
Uh…I actually agreed with you on that one.
And the excerpt sophonisba posted is pretty much case-closed on proving that these authors are not only misogynists, they’re buttbag stupid. Cramps “prepare” you for the pain of childbirth? A runny nose expels bad humors? WTF?
I’m gonna plug Veganomicon again. Not only does that book make veganism appealing, it’s written by people who clearly enjoy food and cooking, and want everyone to be able to have yummy, affordable vegan food that isn’t painfully proper. But you know, women who like to eat just aren’t as marketable as skinny bitches who put other women down.
You know, people have said this sort of thing to me about all sorts of vegan products, and all I think after tasting them is, “obviously this person has forgotten what real cheese/bacon/ice cream/whatever actually tastes like!”
I’m fine with promoting the eating of vegetables and fruits and grains and such, just don’t try to make them look and taste like something they are not; it is overwhelmingly unsucessful.
Still glancing through the book on Google. Hey, look, it’s the old myth that sugar causes ADHD! I’m also wondering what the mechanism is that makes sugar weaken your immune system and enlarge your kidneys and liver all by its magical self.
(scrolling through …)
It’s the “aspartame turns into formaldehyde in your BRAIN!” scare story! And I say that as someone who hates the taste of all artificial sweeteners. Also, the oh-so-popular conflation of “carnivore” (which humans are not) and “omnivore” (which humans are) to “prove” that humans are never supposed to eat meat. Not to mention that I was unaware that humans require colonics (aka enemas) to be able to digest meat. Good to know that I’ve apparently been pooping wrong for the past 30-odd years.
Seriously, the vegans on this thread should be kinda pissed about this book. It’s poorly thought-out and perpetuates a lot of myths.
I’m fine with promoting the eating of vegetables and fruits and grains and such, just don’t try to make them look and taste like something they are not; it is overwhelmingly unsuccessful.
Yep. I’m fine having veggie burgers sometimes (Morningstar Farms — yum! Boca Burgers — weird and oily) but they don’t taste like a hamburger. They’re yummy and have a good flavor, but that’s not the same as tasting like a beef (or turkey) burger.
julie klausner, the author of the salon piece, is the funniest feminist comedian ever!
she and her partner in laughs jackie clarke are performing at ucb (28th and 8th ave in nyc) tonight at 9:30!
find out more at ucbtheater.com
I do think that some of the claims made by fat activists about how there’s no relationship between overeating and being fat to be disingenuous
I don’t know about fat activists, but I think that making assumptions about the eating habits of fat people based on their appearance is really shitty.
The 5 minutes I spent flipping through this book at the bookstore made me think it was just juvenile. Feh. I’d much rather whip up something from the “Voluptuous Vegan” cookbook, and eat yummy vegan food, regardless of my body size.
Then again, I live in an unfashionable, flyover-country place, and can’t fathom why *anyone* who is out of high school sees fashion models as “role models” to aspire to, instead of overpaid, useless, dysfunctional people who get heaps of unjustified attention for being a walking freak show.
Oh, and I’m north of Chicago, and nobody here, even carnivores, seems to wear fur, unless they killed it themseves. (somehow that doesn’t bother greatly, but factory farming revolts me.)
I do think that some of the claims made by fat activists about how there’s no relationship between overeating and being fat to be disingenuous
I don’t know of any FAs, other than maybe one fanatic who used to post around the Fatosphere and very noisily removed herself from the discussion months ago, who ever claimed that there was no relationship at all between food intake and weight.
What we do say is that it’s not so cut and dried that all or even most fat people are consuming “whopping” amounts of “junk food” calories on a daily basis (and that by inverse implication, all or even most thin people are not) — i.e. that you really cannot tell at all what a person’s eating habits are simply by looking at them or knowing their pants size. Oh, and also that naturally thin people (with rare exceptions) really can’t permanently eat themselves “officially fat,” not even if they try. (Just ask my boyfriend to try to eat himself 50 pounds heavier and keep it on for good. He’d have to be hooked up to IV hyperalimentation for the rest of his life to pull that off.)
But that’s not even close to being the same thing as saying, “No fat person ever eats him/herself way over their setpoint ever.” I (speaking just for me here) just don’t think that’s nearly as common as CW would have it, or that also as per CW, that most fat people are going to sustain losses of 50 or 100 pounds or more just by ditching the fast food and the car and eating veggies and going for walks. (If that “worked,” I and most fatasses I know should be completely invisible by now.)
Now, about this “book.” PETA and the authors of SB cling furiously to the idea that there is no such thing as a fat vegan or vegetarian because that is a huge selling point for them. Do this and don’t do that and you’ll be thin, you stupid fat cow! Period! End of sentence! They have been told over and over again that they are dead wrong that going veggie = thin and they don’t care, they don’t care, they don’t care. As long as that idea brings them money and attention (let’s not forget the attention part), they will keep shoving it down people’s throats. One of these days someone will write a book telling women how to lose 25 pounds quickly by cutting their heads off with a chainsaw, and it will sell like hotcakes. Only problem is, no one will be around to purchase the sequel.
Vegan, if I want fake cheese made of vegetable oil, I’ll just get cheap cheese slices. I’m not fond of fake food. Veggie burgers have become their own kind of food, and since they’ve quit trying to make them taste like real burgers, I like them better.
I’m wary of vegans or vegetarians who try to lay claim to the idea that no sacrifice is involved. It reminds me of anti-choicers who try to argue that carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and handing the baby over to another couple is just an inconvenience. If you have to conceal the truth, that’s a problem.
“If you genuinely think that eating meat is murder, then you can’t settle for half-way measures.”
The problem with this is that human food production and transport kill huge numbers of animals, even if the food produced is vegan (pest control, harvesting, traffic). So, at some level it’s always about minimizing damages, not all-or-nothing.
(and yes, food transport occasionally kills people too, but those responsible are punished - there is no realistic way to similarly outlaw “collateral damage” on animals, at least not one that I see)
Just wanted to jump in here to respond to a comment that really hit me in the gut, in much the same way articles about anorexia are talked about.
“but I know that for troubled individuals, especially troubled young girls, I have seen a not-at-all-subtle association between veganism, annorexia, and extreme hatred of the physical body. One girl in particular that stands out in my mind had suffered abuse and tried to self-medicate the feelings of mortification she had for her body. She went from pesco-vegetarian to vegetarian to vegan to raw foods, without really understanding the nutrition of any of it, just wanting to get away from her body and seeing food as a frustrating reminder of her body’s needs.”
I know similar people, Mighty Ponygirl. It’s unclear if this is even in the same category as anorexia, from the way I often see anorexia constantly derided as people who just want to be thin and beautiful and don’t know when to stop. So, I guess that’s what anorexia is.
I’m not sure what people who simply want to be disassociated from their physical being, and who are not starving themselves to be noticed, but rather so they’ll literally, physically disappear, I’m not sure what we call them. The ones who won’t put food in their mouth because that’s being kind to oneself, and the emotional pain of caring for oneself becomes an overwhelming admission that they deserve better treatment from themselves and others. There must be a name for it.
I don’t know about fat activists, but I think that making assumptions about the eating habits of fat people based on their appearance is really shitty.
Agreed. Luckily, that’s a much different thing than denying that there’s any real link between eating more calories than you burn and weight gain. Obviously, genetics is a huge factor in why some people get fat more easily than others, and why some people are really healthy when they’re fat and others are sickly when they’re thin. The firm link between healthy and skinny is simple-minded and part of this weird moralizing trend about fatness. Plus, like Meowser said, there’s a world of difference between trying to lose 10 pounds and trying to lose 100. The problem is that a lot of us out there who’ve managed to drop 10 or 20 pounds make the mistake of thinking that the same methods we used would be equally effective in making a fat person skinny. There’s no real reason to think that.
But there is a link between the overconsumption of some kinds of foods and heart disease and diabetes. This fact doesn’t justify being nasty or judgmental to a fat person. First of all, their health ain’t none of your business. Second of all, it’s disingenuous. Skinny people with bad health habits don’t get bashed. Hell, women with eating disorders often meet substantial social rewards for it.
You know, that makes sense. I never thought about it that way.
I’m sort of amused to be the defender of veganism here, since I’m not even a vegetarian. Actually, I had ground beef for lunch. I just don’t believe that vegans should have to pretend that they don’t think that eating animal products is wrong. And I think that comparisons to anti-choicers don’t entirely hold, I guess because I believe that the right to bodily autonomy is fundamental, while the right to eat meat is not. I also think that the majority of anti-choicers are motivated by a hatred of pleasure and female sexuality, while that’s a minority of animal-rights types. (Maybe not an insignificant minority, but a minority.) I don’t really see them as the same thing. But I guess I can see the analogy. Maybe it’s just that animal rights activists don’t feel threatening, since they aren’t backed up by the enormous power of the Christian right.
Have those people heard of /moderate/ amount, and um, working out? Muscle > Underweight, Muscle > Overweight. See; Angelina Jolie.
I just don’t believe that vegans should have to pretend that they don’t think that eating animal products is wrong. And I think that comparisons to anti-choicers don’t entirely hold, I guess because I believe that the right to bodily autonomy is fundamental, while the right to eat meat is not. I also think that the majority of anti-choicers are motivated by a hatred of pleasure and female sexuality, while that’s a minority of animal-rights types.
I was more thinking of the rejection of harm reduction — just as some “pro-life” people reject anything that could prevent pregnancy because it would be immoral, some vegans and/or animal rights advocates reject anything other than everyone giving up all animal products. I’m thinking of the kind of people who refer to pet ownership as “slavery.”
It’s trying to point out that refusing to even consider harm reduction steps as steps towards the goal is adhering to dogma, not taking rational action. It’s the all-or-nothing attitude that bugs me.
Man, I leave the thread for a few hours and I come back to find that vegans are being compared to anti-choicers. No wonder I’m touchy.
Vegans (the real kind–and yes, I’m not backing down on my definition of vegan) aren’t as judgmental as y’all make us out to be. At least no more judgmental as any other liberal who thinks she knows what’s best for the planet.
Self-righteous vegans who use veganism as an excuse to get all black and white and high and mighty on people, and who use the same ridiculous arguments as anti-choicers, Rebecca. If you are one of those people, then you probably should step off. If you’re humble about your veganism and open-minded to others, we aren’t talking about you.
I don’t know if it was mentioned yet, but a vegan diet can be pretty expensive, especially if you don’t have access to cheaper health food venues like farmer’s markets and have to go to chains like Whole Foods (aka “Whole Paycheck”) to get your soy goodies.
I was a vegan for a year and never felt better, but I eventually couldn’t do it anymore because I just don’t have the money. I would *love* to be able to buy exclusively organic/fair trade foods, but it isn’t a realistic prospect for someone in my income bracket.
There’s a reason why in America you’re more likely to be overweight if you’re poor and it’s not due to a lack of moral fiber…more like a lack of the disposable income that the “Skinny Bitch” authors obviously have.
I know that your criticism is meant to be focused, Amanda. But if we’re devoting multiple blog posts to tiny minorities of folks who make larger groups of nice people look bad, why not write about those phantom women who have free and easy access to birth control, take no precautions, then go get abortions? Why not write about the handful of people who accept public assistance but who make no effort to find a job? There are any number of annoying and exceptional people out there we could write critical blog posts about, but we don’t, because we acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of people within these groups are good-natured. We don’t write about those minorities because we know that the people who target those abusers are doing so because they distrust women and non-whites; we recognize persecution and prejudice when we see it.
People write posts critical of “judgmental” vegans (and commenters chime in in agreement) because these problematic vegans are not seen as a minuscule minority, despite what the truth may be. (And, unless the topic of food comes up, you actually have no way of knowing when you’ve met a nice vegan; we look the same as you!)
In NO WAY do I mean to imply that vegans are politically persecuted or disenfranchised. Please don’t take my analogy that way. What I mean to say is that people will hold up exceptionally annoying people as representative of a problem with their way of life if that way of life rubs us the wrong way for an unrelated reason (e.g., women having the audacity to control their own bodies, blacks having the audacity to procreate, or vegans having the audacity to find something that you do every day of your life morally repulsive).
I participate in that same form of prejudice whenever there’s a church sex scandal, for example. (Though it could be argued that the structure of the church itself fosters sexually exploitive relationships. But you get my point. Almost everyone has prejudices.)
For a lot of omnis I’ve eaten dinner with, me just sitting there, not eating the same thing they eat, is so threatening that they’ve decided that I’m quietly judging them. I have no way of knowing if the commenters on this blog are indulging in this form of projection. But I know I’ve encountered it innumerable times in real life, and I think it structurally mimics the forms of prejudice I’ve mentioned above.
Anyway, that’s why I can’t butt out when the criticism “doesn’t relate to me.” Of course it relates to me.
But we’ve stopped discussing the book at this point. My apologies.
It’s because the “tiny minority” has published a bestselling book that sells a vegan diet by fat-bashing and holding themselves up as morally superior because they’re thin. So you’re kind of in the position of a Christian who has to explain that, no, you don’t believe that the apocalypse is going to happen just like in the “Left Behind” books. It may not be what you believe, but you’re being outshouted by the “tiny minority” of people who say otherwise.
Rebecca, think of it this way: this book is yet another example of the Braindead Megaphone so beloved by the media.
It certainly occurred me to, but in the reverse direction. Going vegetarian (and later vegan) saved my ass from a years-long battle with anorexia. I realized, fairly early in my Starvation Period, the extent to which I’d internalized the cultural dictum that eating was morally wrong, and I steeped myself in all the best feminist counter-conditioning materials—but I didn’t truly feel healthier until I reframed my eating as morally RIGHT by making more humane choices about the food I put into my body. Mealtime became an opportunity to do something good in the world, not just another chance to feel like shit for “overindulging.” The food I ate no longer began and ended with me and my intense self-loathing; it became a point of entry into the larger society of people, animals, and environment that I’d more or less ignored while I was busy starving myself.
I’m not prescribing vegetarianism as an antidote for every eating disorder, and I’m well aware (and rather sad) that it’s so often used to enable and mask anorexia. But I’m happy to report that in my case, it helped me go from Skinny Bitch to Healthy Happy Person.
Rice Dream is nasty. Soy Delicious Purely Decadent, however, is awesome.
We vegans are what, one tenth of one percent of the US population?
We can’t make a book into a bestseller. That sort of accomplishment requires the complicity of mostly nonvegans. Is it any surprise that a trash-talking book that preys upon body image sells well? That happens constantly; the veganism here is incidental.
So all vegans now have to answer for this one atrocious book?
Even though the thousands of books on veganism have been published before, the small sellers that have actually brought long-term committed people into the movement (which a faddish “lose weight fast” book will not do), have largely been about animal rights, environmental protection, and coronary health?
I have always and will continue to recommend Why Vegan, long after this book’s fad has passed.
But the vegans aren’t the ones making the book a bestseller—that’s the folks who never would have considered going veggie until someone told them it would make them skinny.
The complaint isn’t that these women are vegans, the complaint is that the book is a bait and switch that tries to use fat-shaming to get people to go vegan.
Going vegan doesn’t make one skinny, and pushing veganism as a diet fad a terrible idea anyway.
Unfortunately vegans are caught in the crossfire since these two are such poor representatives. But it really has nothing to do with veganism at all and everything to do with the fact that these two particular vegans are incredible assholes.
Here here, comments 139-144.
All this having to think hard and be articulate is making me hungry. My husband promised me tofu and vegetable stir-fry tonight.
Rice Dream is to Soy Delicious as Budweiser is to Beer That Doesn’t Taste Like Watered-Down Pee. No offense to anyone with soy allergies.
I would hazard a guess that the authors’ motivation actually works the other way around: Veganism is their “hook” to get people to feel shitty about their bodies. Their language suggests to me that they’re secretly much, much more offended and outraged by fat than they are by cruelty to animals.
Yes, they’re assholes, in oh so many ways.
Well put, Margalis.
In my many years of veganism, I’ve never shed my extra fifteen pounds that I could do without. I guess if I was really bothered about it, I’d spend more time on the bike. Ah, fuck it.
My motivation is the advancement of animal rights, and I see this book as a net detriment to that goal. Fad diets are bad in and of themselves, and a fad diet attached to a social movement is likely to hurt that movement. Barely anyone trying the Skinny Bitch diet will be sticking with veganism as a lifelong choice, but they will come to associate veganism with undereating.
The more I think about it, the more upset this makes me. Time to cry into my beer.
Same problem exists for omnivores who want organic and fair trade foods. It’s perfectly possible to eat a vegan diet on seven dollars a day; I’ve done it. But yeah, it doesn’t involve shopping at Whole Foods.
Rebecca:
I don’t doubt that this happens. But what if the situation were reversed, and you invited some omnis (never heard that term before!) over for dinner and after you served the food you spent a good deal of time and effort making, they reached into their bag and pulled out plastic containers of their own food? I know a CR person who did this (brought her own food) to a family Thanksgiving, BTW.
Food clearly is political, and its politics don’t involve just the relationship between the eater and the eaten (and how the eaten is raised/farmed/cultivated/slaughtered). It also involves the relationship among the various eaters. I’ve never been more aware of this than in watching my kids grow up, and seeing how their peers influence their food preferences. Kids, young kids especially, want to eat whatever their peers are eating, whatever it is — until they start having conscious preferences, and then they are very deliberate about who their food-peers are and who their food-peers aren’t.
I guess I’m longwindedly trying to say that there’s always a social price paid for eating something different from the people around you, whatever that might be. People may think that a medical condition (e.g. wheat allergy) or religious restriction (no hametz during Passover) is more familiar and acceptable, but being different about food is socially almost always a big deal.
I take your point, but I don’t know, I just don’t feel like I’m making any sacrifices. Should I pretend to feel a complexity that I don’t?
kajey:
So fat-shaming is fine so long as it is in small portions?
Sure. But let’s also note that our current methods of agriculture are not by any means the only possible methods.
So many animals are killed during food production now because they are seen as disposable, so the industry does not bother to account for their lives and habitats.
If we could reach a point where the majority of the public recognize animals’ rights, public opinion would drive changes in agriculture. This “animals will always be killed” stuff is not written in stone, only in habit.
Agreed. Luckily, that’s a much different thing than denying that there’s any real link between eating more calories than you burn and weight gain.
Well, sure, except that’s not what you originally said. I’m really not trying to be pedantic here, but you described the behavior of ‘over-eating’ as causing people to be fat.
I dieted for 10 years, and because of that I now have the metabolism of a hibernating bear. In order to lose weight at this point, I would need to consume about 500 calories a day. I don’t. Instead, I consume a healthy 1300 calories a day. And I’m fat. So, am I over-eating? I dont’ think so. The problem is my injured metabolism, not my ‘over-eating’.
Sigh. Okay, I’ll try this one last time, and then I have to go make cupcakes.
Using fear and shame to pressure people to adopt a vegan diet is not ethical. It’s trickery. It’s the same kind of tactics that PETA uses, thinking that if they just publicly humiliate people enough, they’ll go vegan out of sheer embarrassment. This book is doing the same thing.
This is what I’m reacting to. If all you can say upon seeing this completely misinformed book is, “Well, they can’t be real vegans!” then I can’t help you, because you’ve brought the conversation to a grinding halt with your No True Scotsman argument.
Oh, and you should probably tell the people at Vegetarians in Paradise that they’re not real vegetarians, because they gave the book a glowing review and even highlighted some of the nuttier claims, like aspartame causes lupus. Because, you know, lupus didn’t exist until aspartame came along.
Still wrong, Godmonkey. Temple Grandin is an omnivore, not a vegetarian. She often rails against veggie diets as “unnatural.”
Just who here is doing that?
I was a vegetarian for a while and I didn’t feel like I was making any sacrifices either. Almost the opposite, to this day I can’t eat red meat because it tastes disgusting and I’m glad to be rid of it. You don’t realize how nasty red meat tastes until you don’t eat it for a couple of years. At least that was my experience. Seriously it’s putrid.
I’m no longer a vegetarian but mostly because it was too inconvenient for a variety of reasons, not because I was craving meat.
I would say that I did not and could not give up cheese. Luckily cheese is not an animal.
Whether or not being a vegetarian or vegan is a sacrifice depends entirely on the person.
Beth:
The problem with abstinence education isn’t just that people are advocating for it, it’s that people are advocating for it and it’s dumb. It’s dumb because (1) teens generally like to fuck, and (2) there is nothing wrong with fucking. If teens didn’t like to fuck, or there was something wrong with fucking, then advocating for abstinence would be at least worth considering as a strategy. Apparently a lot of people disagree with (2). Then the chief problem is that they’re wrong, not that they’re saying it out loud.
Maybe people shouldn’t promote veganism because (1) people generally like to eat meat and (2) there is nothing wrong with eating meat when you don’t even have to. (1) Seems to be true, but I disagree with (2). Given that I disagree with (2), it seems reasonable for me to decide to advocate for not eating meat. I gather that asserting NOT (2) automatically makes me one of those moral absolutists, but the issue to debate is whether (2) is true or not, not whether I should or shouldn’t hurt people’s feelings by telling them I think they probably shouldn’t eat meat when they don’t even have to.
But what if the situation were reversed, and you invited some omnis (never heard that term before!) over for dinner and after you served the food you spent a good deal of time and effort making, they reached into their bag and pulled out plastic containers of their own food? I know a CR person who did this (brought her own food) to a family Thanksgiving, BTW.
You know what we normal omnivores call vegans who go to the trouble of preparing and bringing their own food for a large communal gathering like Thanksgiving, rather than ask for the host to go to a lot of trouble in preparations and shopping just for them?
“Polite.”
Shockingly, vegans and vegetarians and people who keep Kosher and people who can’t eat salt and people who are allergic to tomatoes don’t decline your tasty food because they have a desperate crying need for broccoli right that second. They decline it because they can’t eat your food.
There is no omnivore equivalent. That’s what “omnivore” means.
Sophonisba,
I take your point. I’m not blaming people for their dietary choices. I’m just trying to introduce a point about food and eating that I haven’t seen in this discussion so far: that sharing food is one of the ways we form bonds with other people, and that it’s important to understand the implications of our dietary choices in that light. We should think about the effect of the food on our own bodies, and our affect on the food source and the larger environment. We should also recognize how our food choices fit into our larger social context.
There are a lot of explanations for the complex laws of kashrut (I don’t keep kosher, never have, and have no desire to start). The best explanation I’ve ever heard — and this was from a very observant Jew — was that it was simply a way to make it impossible for Jews to eat with gentiles, and thus it was a way to ensure the continuation of the community. That’s pretty extreme, but it speaks to the sense in which what we eat expresses and, in turn, helps determine our identities. That’s clear, I think, from the discussion over the definition of veganism.
I suppose my feeling is that the ideal for a group of people eating together is that they share the food communally. When I invite vegan friends over, I make sure to cook a vegan meal, even though I’m not vegan, because I want everyone to be able to share the meal together. And I also ask people what their dietary restrictions or choices are if I’m not sure, so that I don’t cook something they can’t/won’t eat.
Food is so much more than production, nourishment, and even individual, sensual pleasure. It’s even more than an trigger for people’s anxieties. Preparing food for others, and eating food that someone has prepared for you, are remarkable acts of giving and trust. And I think it’s worth recognizing that in our food discussions here.
It’s certainly worth keeping in mind, Pesto. I have had the same experience Rebecca C. mentioned. I have even had people become angry with me just for mentioning that I am vegan, and not even in the context of refusing some food that was just offered to me. I’ve wondered if some of that reaction may come from a distrust or even visceral revilement at people who do not share one’s community’s traditions.
I don’t know an easily understood way of saying “no, I don’t share your traditions, but I’m trying to not be a dick about it”, because in many cases it seems “no, thank you” isn’t enough. It can be exasperating. I would love to know more about why this happens.
Appeal to Common Practice. I was not moved to veganism by coddling. An acquaintance, whom I respected, explained the moral problems clearly when I gave him time to do so. And the murder aspect was not ignored by either of us.
Now, I don’t spend my time with a bullhorn on a street corner yelling “you are all murderers!” because I don’t think it works.
In my experience, people are most often moved to change their lifestyles by honest conversation among trusted friends, whose opinions they value and whose judgments they trust. There are some exceptions, as when a highly honored person in the community offers guidance, but I’ll bet in those cases some people are convincing themselves that they do know that important person intimately. Mass media magnifies this effect. But I am not well known. So I don’t expect that I will change minds except when I speak with my friends. (Yes, here I am to some extent advocating veganism among strangers, but for me, sharing ideas on the Internet is something between a hobby and an addiction. I don’t know if I change any minds, but I am nevertheless compelled.)
So I don’t scream at strangers “you are all murderers!” But that is a question of tactics, not a question of truth. I was participating in institutionalized murder when I was not vegan. I don’t believe in “stains upon the soul”, as you put it, but I’m not happy that I didn’t become vegan sooner. Nevertheless, a person can always choose a new path from this day forward, and at least contribute to the reduction of suffering. Where were you going with that, Godmonkey? Did you think that a veggie burger was supposed to be like a communion wafer?
And if you kill an animal, or pay someone to kill an animal, you have caused harm to another being who had an internal experience, a self, and a life of his or her own. Seems to me that the analogy works well. We aren’t talking “victimless crimes” here.
It sounds like you’re saying that there is no truth value to moral claims (moral noncognitivism). I would disagree, but that might be at least a consistent worldview.
So, to be consistent, would you say that you are not morally superior to people who beat their children every day?
Only if you think that human beings and animals are morally equivalent, which I do not. I’d also be curious to find out why you think humans and animals are morally equivalent but fully-developed humans and embryos are not — is it strictly that they’re not fully developed? If that’s the case, why is it wrong to eat eggs?
I’m saying that animals do not have the same moral claims on us as our fellow human beings. Animals are not human no matter how much people anthropomorphize them.
I love my cats dearly, but if I had to kill them to feed a starving child, I would do it.
As I said, I do not feel that humans and animals are morally equivalent. I am shocked by cruelty towards animals, but I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as abusing another human being.
If I don’t consider it morally wrong to eat animals or use animal products, why would I think that eating a chicken and beating a child to death are the same thing?
In re: McArdle, my understanding is that she’s just a kind of dilettante vegan; she gave up meat for Lent. I don’t know that she’s committed to remaining vegan after Easter.
Not in my house, we don’t!
I ask every single person who comes to dine in my home whether they have any dietary restrictions, or even any strong dislikes. I plan and prepare my food accordingly. Anyone who pulls out their own food at that point is very rude indeed.
And there are, in fact, people who cannot abide eating vegetables, and will not even eat meat which has touched vegetables (I’ve met a few). I think they’re physically unwell and maybe crazy, but they are unlikely to be able to bring themselves to eat anything a vegan offers.
From the book:
WTF do they think food is made out of? Phlogiston energy? All matter is made of chemicals.
Sorry to post three in a row, but an edit to my first comment: I will happily accommodate any guest to the degree that I am able. I don’t know kosher rules, and as I understand it, strict adherents would require my entire kitchen follow those rules, which is not going to happen. Any dietary restrictions which would require me to have separate tools to prepare the food, I’m not going to be able to adhere to. I’ve never had it happen, but at that point, I’d consider it not rude for a guest to bring his or her own food. Otherwise, it is my responsibility as host to provide food my guests can and will eat.
Maybe I misunderstood what what you said, mnemosyne. Veganism is no moral trump card. I could be a terrible person for all you know.
No, the statement I made, “And if you kill …of his or her own” is fact. It doesn’t invoke morality yet. The analogy to the speed limit works for that reason, I think. I guess the judgment of which analogies work is quite personal, but in my opinion it’s apt. As to “victim”, unless for some unforeseen reason you think an animal cannot be a victim, I don’t see what the disagreement is.
I neither make that claim nor disagree with people who make that claim. To be honest, I’ve never been in a non-hypothetical position where I had to choose between a human and an animal. I guess I’d say that I don’t think there’s something wrong with choosing to save a nice dog instead of a mean person from a fire, nor with choosing a loved person over a pet. Both seem situationally understandable. Was that the question?
Correct, morally. No possibilty of experience of pain or consciousness before X weeks. Legally, after that point the only sane thing is to rely upon women and doctors to make the right choice.
The question is whether a person or the state should make this decision concerning said person’s body. No brainer.
But I don’t support your decision to buy and eat dead bodies who were killed for sale. See how it’s different?
For one thing, egg layers are slaughtered for meat when they stop laying. Milkers and beef, same. There is no economic difference between the meat industry and the non-vegan vegetarian industry. They are often the same corporation, even. The vegetarian who thinks they are doing good things may even be contributing to the harm of numerically more animals if they are replacing meat calories with dairy and eggs. Either way, contribute to one and you sustain the other.
Sure. You could well be right. In our prosperous (relative to the past) society, I don’t think most of us are often faced with questions that ask us to “choose only one (1).”
I agree.
And you’d probably prioritize your cats over a rapist. I’m with you all the way.
But surely you do not say you only owe moral consideration to the cats you love. Other domestic cats too? Tigers? Other mammals? Birds? I don’t know what triggers your care but I’m anticipating positives here, yeah?
You are not being asked to choose between killing your cats and letting your children die.
The question is whether to choose between killing unfamiliar animals and pleasing your palate.
One of the differences between a cow and a carrot is that one can be a victim, right? You have the means of sustaining yourself either way.
I don’t know. Is that a rhetorical question? I didn’t suppose that either of us claimed a perfect equivalence.
My question boiled down to whether you believe in imperatives, whether statements concerning morality have any legitimacy outside of your cranium.
Since you appear to be saying yes, I next wonder why you appear to be saying that a pig has no claim upon his or her own life.
Of course, there’s a lot of room for improvement there. But:
Are you implicitly only thinking about large, noticeable animals here? How will you avoid killing insects, earthworms, mice, frogs, etc? Same here:
It is very likely that not all animals are selves. Internal experience? Depends what you mean. Sensations perhaps, but internal representation is probably limited to some few animal groups (see the work of Peter Gärdenfors).
Note: unlike some I’m not disputing moral claims about eating meat, I’m just questioning some of the assumptions.
It seems to me that the women who wrote that book like to think of themselves as martyrs. As in, “we use food to make ourselves miserable, and that makes us better than people who derive pleasure from eating.” I’ve flipped through the book, and the tone throughout is one of, “we’re miserable, and we’re going to guilt and berate you into being miserable with us.”
These women are assholes, plain and simple. They’re capitalizing on their own warped attitudes towards food, and using their warped personalities to market the idea.
I really hope nobody I know is buying into their pathetic pathological bullshit.
ps- Part of what also bothers me is how it’s marketed exclusively to women. “We make ourselves suffer by eating nothing but kidney beans and broccoli… while our husbands chow down on whatever they like.”
But surely you do not say you only owe moral consideration to the cats you love. Other domestic cats too? Tigers? Other mammals? Birds? I don’t know what triggers your care but I’m anticipating positives here, yeah?
I do not have a moral responsibility towards other domestic cats, except to the extent of not actively harming them. It is not my job to go out and rescue animals, whether they’re dogs, cats or birds. Some people feel otherwise and make that their life’s work. That’s fine and noble, but it’s not my responsibility any more than it’s my responsibility to become a priest because other people have become priests.
Tigers do not show any moral consideration towards me, so I’m not required to give moral consideration to them.
The question is whether to choose between killing unfamiliar animals and pleasing your palate.
Again, I see nothing morally wrong with killing unfamiliar animals to please my palate. Unfamiliar animals do not have a claim on me the same way that my pets do.
Humans have one moral responsibility towards animals, and it is to not make them suffer needlessly. If I eat beef from a grass-fed cow that was killed humanely, I don’t consider that any more wrong than if a mountain lion pounces on me during my hike in the mountains.
Humans are not at the top of the food chain, but to pretend we’re not even on the food chain is ridiculous.
My other comment is in moderation, so while we wait:
Grammar, you need to define what you mean by “moral consideration.” Looking at those two words together, I think what it means is that I have to weigh the balance between myself and an animal and decide where each of us falls. I see nothing wrong with thinking that a chicken should be humanely treated up to the very moment where it’s killed to feed me — that’s the moral consideration that I make.
I have a feeling that “moral consideration” means “humans and animals deserve equal moral consideration” to you, but I would like to be sure before we continue.
Amanda said:
I’m wary of vegans or vegetarians who try to lay claim to the idea that no sacrifice is involved.
And rightfully so. The intial move to a vegan lifestyle can be difficult for most people, particularly in that period when you’re learning what gelatin, casein, polysorbate 80, and glycerin are, and grocery shopping is a chore. But eventually you move to where it almost seems easier to go to a restaurant and only have to choose from a few options than a whole menu, or walk down two aisles in the supermarket as opposed to ten.
But what many of us aim for with these types of foods are showing how easy a transition can be. When I first went vegan, I ate a lot of processed soy products and Soy Delicious “ice cream.” Almost 5 years into my vegan journey, and my diet has changed dramatically. I consume mostly raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds, and eat little cooked or processed food. I run several miles a day, and lift five times a week.
All on only a few dollars a day
Pesto said:
We should think about the effect of the food on our own bodies, and our affect on the food source and the larger environment. We should also recognize how our food choices fit into our larger social context.,
You said it better than I could. The choice of what we eat impacts ourselves, the people involved in getting it to us, the environment, and of course, the animals killed for that food.
mnemosyne said:
I am shocked by cruelty towards animals, but I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as abusing another human being.
You’re shocked, but where’s the follow through? Michael Vick was (rightfully) raked over the coals for dog-fighting, but what about the billions of animals who live painful existances for the sole purpose of feeding people, the vast majority who would do perfectly fine eating some other food source.
Grammar RWA said:
For one thing, egg layers are slaughtered for meat when they stop laying. Milkers and beef, same. There is no economic difference between the meat industry and the non-vegan vegetarian industry. They are often the same corporation, even. The vegetarian who thinks they are doing good things may even be contributing to the harm of numerically more animals if they are replacing meat calories with dairy and eggs. Either way, contribute to one and you sustain the other.
Well put!
If I eat beef from a grass-fed cow that was killed humanely…
How can one kill humanely? I know we throw the term around, particularly with the modern “oh so humane” execution methods that some countries still use, but is there anything humane or ethical in killing an animal for food when other options are available?
Should I pretend to feel a complexity that I don’t?
“I don’t feel I am sacrificing” is different than “YOU won’t feel you are sacrificing.” I would assume most people who become vegetarian or vegan for reasons other than body-hatred feel that whatever they’ve given up is well worth it. That’s not the same as telling them they’re not going to notice a thing because TVP is just like meat.
Pesto, fantastic post - although I think sophonisba’s point is actually in agreement with yours. i.e., she wasn’t saying “if you’re a vegan, bring your own damn food”; she was pointing out that when somebody quietly brings their own food, they’re (usually) not doing it as a snub.
The pumpkin baked ziti? To die for.
So, is using shame and fear (i.e., “YOUR BONES ARE GOING TO SNAP AT 30! IT’S REALLY, REALLY EXPENSIVE! GROWING CROPS KILLS ANIMALS, TOO!!!”) to pressure people *out of* adopting vegan diets ethical?
Two points here:
First, I fail to see how your argument is any different than the one of the people who disagree with point (2) in the first example. That is their firmly held belief, and it is one that is not shared by everyone, despite their belief that it should be. And, similarly, there are people who feel that the point (2) in your second example is equally “dumb” and “wrong”, that the whole world functions by something eating something else, and that is the natural way of being. Very many people believe that their god designed things that way. And a lot of people feel that the principle of meat-eating is not wrong, even though they abhor the ways in which we acquire most of our meat in this country.
Second, no one here has ever suggested that people should not ADVOCATE whatever they do believe. What has been questioned is the usefulness of ONLY advocating for a reality that is extremely unlikely to come to pass any time in the near future, and rejecting any harm-reduction efforts in the meantime. I still see no difference between that stance and the one taken by people who believe fucking is wrong, and so will not advocate the use of birth control or STD testing/vaccines, etc. Even though those things would reduce the amount of suffering in the world they are rejected because they run counter to their absolutist belief that fucking is wrong, and they refuse to allow anything that does not create the complete absolute reality that they believe is right.
Again, the issue here is NOT one of advocating what you believe in — that’s great, advocate away! What is being questioned is a rejection of any harm reduction, of any smaller-than-total steps in the right direction. It makes no sense to me to refuse to acknowledge reality and take steps to reduce suffering, because the perfect world you insist upon does not in fact exist.
The point about the sharing of food being social is very valid. I am allergic to shellfish, and I live in New Orleans, so I am often confronted with food I can’t eat. Even though it is a physical allergy, so no one actually gives me a hard time about it, I do feel a little bit isolated when I can’t fully participate in the crawfish boil — I will bring myself something to eat and attend for the socializing, but my “differentness” is salient to me, for sure, and others (who do not already know me well enough to know of the allergy) do notice and will sometimes ask why I’m not eating the food piled on the communal table. Again, no one gives me grief for being allergic, but it makes me feel somewhat “separate.” Then there’s the issue of being invited to someone’s home for a meal (again, someone to whom I am not close enough yet that they already know this about me) — do I warn them ahead of time? Sometimes people ask about food allergies, for which I am grateful, but often they don’t. And given my location, there is a high probability of the meal featuring food I can’t eat. I know it is not polite to try to dictate menu to a host/ess. But I also know that, when I am hostess, I would be very sad to have prepared a meal for someone only to find out at serving time that they were unable to eat most of it. So if it’s a small gathering, I usually do try to politely mention it somehow, but it can feel awkward.
Mythago, thanks! I agree that sophonisba and I aren’t disagreeing. If someone reacts to a vegan bringing his/her own food to a dinner or whatever by getting all “STOP JUDGING ME WITH YOUR TABOULEH SALAD!!!” on them, then they’ve got issues beyond what’s on the plate.
Still, I think that 8 people sharing a table together with 6 eating one selection of foods and 2 eating the tabouleh salad that they brought with them is a different experience than all 8 people sharing the same food together. And I’d say that everyone sharing the same foods is a better experience, and if the way to get that is for everyone to share a really, really big bowl of tabouleh salad, then that’s what I’d do as host.
Of course, sometimes people’s dietary choices are incompatible — if 1 of the 8 is an Atkins dieter, and 1 is a vegan, well, then you’re not all eating the same thing! But even in that case, I’d ideally prefer a pot-luck, so at least there’s communal sharing going on. And pot-luck is a great way to open up people’s palates to new foods, or to experiment with something that is new to you. I’ve never liked tempeh — but you know what? If someone brought something with tempeh to a pot-luck I’d try it. Maybe I’ll like it this time and find out how to cook it! And if I don’t, what have I lost by trying?
Here’s one practical suggestion: host and guest need to be open about food choices and diets — hosts need to ask and not judge, guests need to explain and not feel judged if the host can’t/won’t accommodate fully. And not to get too elementary school here (”Did you bring enough for everyone to share?”), but if you end up bringing some of your own food, offer to bring enough for everyone. Ask the host if they’d mind you bringing enough tabouleh salad for everyone. And if you’re the host, don’t say “no,” say, “That’s such a generous offer! Thank you!”. People get to share together at the table, without compromising their principles/dietary needs. What’s more, I can’t imagine a better way to introduce people to vegan food than to make some yourself and offer to share it with them!
I’m with you, Beth. Except that people DO give me crap about my allergies. I’m allergic to coffee, peppers, and ginger. Even the smell affects my lungs, so I can’t go to coffee shops, and there’s pretty much nothing for me to eat at Thai restaurants. When people find out, they say things like, OMIGOD, I would DIE if I couldn’t drink coffee, or eat Thai food!!! It’s a bit isolating.
Oh yeah, I do get that sort of reaction all the time! How life would just not be worth living without oysters & crawfish & crabs! I never quite know how to respond, it’s like they expect me to bewail my pathetic existence and maybe just go kill myself since I can clearly experience no joy…
Vegan: How can one kill humanely? I know we throw the term around, particularly with the modern “oh so humane” execution methods that some countries still use, but is there anything humane or ethical in killing an animal for food when other options are available?
I guess that’s where we disagree. I don’t think that death is the worst possible thing that can happen to a person or an animal — there are far worse things. Comparing dogfighting, which is done purely for entertainment, to eating animals and using animal products is a scare tactic right there. “OMG, that cow on the organic farm is suffering just as badly as a dog that slowly bleeds to death during a dogfight!”
zuzu: So, is using shame and fear (i.e., “YOUR BONES ARE GOING TO SNAP AT 30! IT’S REALLY, REALLY EXPENSIVE! GROWING CROPS KILLS ANIMALS, TOO!!!”) to pressure people *out of* adopting vegan diets ethical?
Osteoporosis is not a valid concern when you’re eliminating calcium sources from your diet? Yes, you can make up for it by taking supplements, but people should know that they will need to take supplements. There’s a lot of ignorance about nutrition out there, and a lot of vegans and vegetarians don’t educate themselves before they switch over. It’s not a reason to tell people not to do it at all, but why is telling people that there are nutritional needs that they have to think about a horrible thing to do? Wasn’t it at Feministe that someone was insisting that a vegan diet was nutritionally complete because you could scrounge for mushrooms to get all the Vitamin B you need?
And before you argue that all vegans are well-informed about nutrition, you make want to take a look at this case.
Eating fast food is cheaper than eating fresh food. We’ve gone over that a million times. Why does it suddenly not apply any more when we’re talking about a vegan diet instead of a healthy omnivore’s diet?
If you’re going to adopt a vegan diet strictly out of animal rights concerns (as opposed to environmental ones), a reminder that a vegan diet is not costless to animals is something to consider. Since I consider that dietary choices are made on a sliding scale, I don’t find it overly hypocritical that animal-rights vegans are still killing animals, even if inadvertently. However, people who insist that it’s absolutely immoral to ever harm an animal, even accidentally, should be reminded that their hands aren’t as lily-white as they’d like to think.
You can minimize harm in the way you prefer, but it’s impossible to live without ever harming any other animals in any way, and pretending that you can just makes you look like a hypocrite.
Guests owe no explanation in my house. I invite guests over for their company, not to get offended over food or pry into their personal health and eating habits.
is there anything humane or ethical in killing an animal for food when other options are available?
Well, like it or not, large amounts of animals every year are killed by the agriculture industry as a natural side effect of widespread industrialization of farming equipment (field rodents getting caught by the combine or run over, etc.) It isn’t for certain that any food bought in America didn’t come at the price of dead animals. I would argue that it is more “ethical” to eat the animal as opposed to having it be chopped up by farm equipment and left to rot.
That said, I’m a vegetarian, but not for ethical reasons.
It’s not a reason to tell people not to do it at all, but why is telling people that there are nutritional needs that they have to think about a horrible thing to do?
zuzu’s question was whether shaming or scare tactics were appropriate to argue *against* a vegan diet. Your response suggests that yes, they are OK, as long as you’re conveying some nugget of accurate information. I assume you didn’t mean that. But “you need to be careful about B12″ is not “OMFG osteoporosis!!!!” any more than “High consumption of animal protein is correlated with heart disease” is the same thing as “If you eat meat you’ll get FAT and DIE of a heart attack!”
zuzu’s question was whether shaming or scare tactics were appropriate to argue *against* a vegan diet. Your response suggests that yes, they are OK, as long as you’re conveying some nugget of accurate information.
Shaming and scare tactics aren’t appropriate to argue for or against anything. How you got anything else out of my response, I don’t know.
Some vegans I’ve talked to online seem to think that any mention of the downsides — like the need to take supplements — is “scare tactics.”
Osteoporosis is not a valid concern when you’re eliminating calcium sources from your diet? Yes, you can make up for it by taking supplements, but people should know that they will need to take supplements.
Calcium is found in numerous plant based sources as well, and in great abundance in leafy greens. There are no needed macronutrients that cannot be sourced from veg-friendly things.
Calcium is found in numerous plant based sources as well, and in great abundance in leafy greens. There are no needed macronutrients that cannot be sourced from veg-friendly things.
I didn’t say, “You MUST eat animal sources of calcium!” Even the Vegetarian Journal says that getting enough calcium and Vitamin D are important. Are people not supposed to mention that you have to make sure to get enough calcium from your food for fear of scaring them away from being vegetarians or vegans?
Again, you have vegans who thought that their 6-week-old infant could live on apple juice and soy milk. Are you going to argue that their nutritional ignorance means they weren’t “real” vegans, so it’s not something that “real” vegans have to worry about?
Telling people that their bones are going to snap if they become vegans is different than telling them that they have to be careful about nutrition. One is a scare tactic (used in this very thread, in fact); the other is not.
Milk isn’t the only source of calcium in the world, you know. And even people who do drink milk develop osteoporosis.
Did you even read that article? It wasn’t about veganism, it was about a couple starving their child. Maybe they were idiots, but their veganism had nothing to do with that. They gave the kid soy milk and apple juice, not soy formula.
And again, being uninformed about nutrition is not exclusive to vegans (and I never said *all* vegans are well-informed; strawman). But nice use of a scare tactic there! If you become a vegan, your baby will DIE!
Why is the comparison between vegan food and fast food, again? There are non-fast-food omnivorous diets, after all. But pretending that the only food that vegans can possibly eat are expensive fancy fake meats is dishonest. As is pretending that a can of beans or a block of tofu is more expensive than a steak.
Just because you can’t imagine eating any other way than you do is no reason to scare-monger about the way other people eat.
Plenty to respond to, and little time to do so at present. Hope to be more thorough later…
The Naturalistic Fallacy. “I’ll damn well eat whatever blind nature allows me to eat, and I will because I can.” Honestly, you have chosen the absolute weakest of all possible arguments for meat eating. This one is on par with Manifest Destiny.
Did you notice that you just said “might makes right”?
And it doesn’t matter that one of you can choose otherwise, has options and is not bound to act solely from biology. Uh huh.
Actually, I call bullshit. This ad hoc rationalization cannot actually be part of your reasoning. If it were, you would at least admit your obligation to not live at the expense of cattle, defensive herding creatures who, after getting to know and trust you, will position themselves and even do battle to protect you from predators.
Neither do terrorists who do not recognize the Bill of Rights or the Geneva Conventions. Do they not deserve habeas corpus under the state you finance with your taxes? This is the position of the Bush Administration, not your usual ideological allies.
Neither do severely mentally handicapped humans. Do you have any obligation to not take their lives? This is a bad corner for you to have backed into, because if you say “no,” you sound like a monster, but if you say “yes,” then you admit that morality is not dependant upon reciprocity, and your previous statement falls.
Let’s assume that you’ll take the position that doesn’t condemn you to ostracism and social purgatory, and you’ll say “yes, I do have an obligation to not take the lives of mentally handicapped humans, even though they cannot conceive of any such obligation toward me, because morality is not dependant upon reciprocity.”
In that case, please explain why you have no obligation to not kill a cow, yet your local cannibal has an obligation to not kill you while you hike through the mountains.
I already said I do not make that claim. I am only asking about “some” moral consideration, as opposed to zero.
You’ve now made clear that you think animals deserve some moral consideration (”to the extent of not actively harming them”), so next I ask you why you think a cat has the right to not be tortured, but not the right to not be killed.
Why doesn’t a cat deserve his or her own life?
But you aren’t advocating a minimization of harm. And you aren’t acknowledging that while death is preferable to torture, healthy life is preferable to premature death.
You are saying that it is good that animals are being systematically killed, and it is good because you like the way they taste.
And you are providing no justification for this statement. You have only asserted that it is the way it is. Might makes right.
May I remind you that just because torture is bad, that doesn’t mean that murder is good?
You’re right. I would love it if, if you have any vegan acquaintances, you would send them a link to the American Dietetic Association’s position paper on the subject.
Let me point out that previous to zuzu’s statement, someone in this thread was talking about “snapping bones at age 30″ not simply as a reason to be a careful vegan, but as a reason to be an omnivore. That’s where it becomes a scare tactic. I’m not sure that it was intentional on tzs’s part, but I’ll bet that’s why zuzu spoke up, and speaking up wasn’t to say that one should not inform vegans of dietary needs, respectfully and without coercion or duplicity.
Strawman. Nothing else to say about it, but you aren’t going to slip in a non-position as though it was representative of the commenters here.
And it doesn’t matter that one of you can choose otherwise, has options and is not bound to act solely from biology. Uh huh.
So you are admitting that humans are different than other animals? I haven’t encountered that very often.
My stance is that I have a greater responsibility to my fellow humans than I do to other animals. It is also that, because it’s quite common in nature for animals to eat other animals, it is not intrinsically morally wrong for humans — who are animals — to eat other animals. You can argue about production methods and right or wrong ways, but I do not believe that eating other animals is in and of itself wrong. This may not be what you believe, but it’s what I believe.
Neither do terrorists who do not recognize the Bill of Rights or the Geneva Conventions. Do they not deserve habeas corpus under the state you finance with your taxes?
Terrorists are human beings and have all of the rights of other human beings. Are you arguing that all animals have the same rights as human beings?
Neither do severely mentally handicapped humans. Do you have any obligation to not take their lives?
Of course I do, because severely mentally handicapped humans are human beings (it’s right there in the name). I have moral obligations to my fellow humans that I do not have towards other animals.
You keep trying to claim that human beings and other animals are morally equivalent. I reject that claim. Pretending that because I don’t think that all animals have moral claims on us means that I’m in favor of killing the mentally handicapped is a strawman.
In that case, please explain why you have no obligation to not kill a cow, yet your local cannibal has an obligation to not kill you while you hike through the mountains.
Because human beings have moral responsibilities towards one another that we do not have towards other animals. Why is this so hard to understand?
You’ve now made clear that you think animals deserve some moral consideration (”to the extent of not actively harming them”), so next I ask you why you think a cat has the right to not be tortured, but not the right to not be killed.
So when my cat was dying in the end stages of kidney disease, unable to eat or drink, barely able to stand on his own, I should have let him die “naturally” instead of doing what we did, which was take him to the vet and have them give him a shot that would stop his heart and end his suffering? Because, yes, as his owner, I had the perfect legal and moral right to have him killed.
And you’re claiming to be on the side of animals?
Did you even read that article? It wasn’t about veganism, it was about a couple starving their child. Maybe they were idiots, but their veganism had nothing to do with that. They gave the kid soy milk and apple juice, not soy formula.
That’s exactly what i said right above you: “apple juice and soy milk.” There is no such thing as vegan baby formula — even soy formula has lanolin and other animal products in it. You can get vegan formula for 12 months and up but not for infants. They wanted to stay with a strict vegan diet, there is no vegan baby formula, so they fed it apple juice and soy milk instead.
And again, being uninformed about nutrition is not exclusive to vegans (and I never said *all* vegans are well-informed; strawman). But nice use of a scare tactic there! If you become a vegan, your baby will DIE!
If you become a vegan so fanatical that you refuse to even give your child soy formula because it has animal products in it, what other result for a non-breastfeeding mother are you picturing?
Why is the comparison between vegan food and fast food, again? There are non-fast-food omnivorous diets, after all. But pretending that the only food that vegans can possibly eat are expensive fancy fake meats is dishonest. As is pretending that a can of beans or a block of tofu is more expensive than a steak.
If only I had said that, instead of saying that a vegan diet is comparable in cost to a healthy omnivorous diet, both of which are more expensive than a fast-food diet. Beat that strawman harder!
Just because you can’t imagine eating any other way than you do is no reason to scare-monger about the way other people eat.
How am I scare-mongering? You think a vegan diet is more ethical than an omnivorous one. I disagree. I think that it’s easier to get nutrients from a balanced omnivorous diet, and most of the science backs me up on that. Not that it’s impossible to have a healthy vegan diet, but that it’s more difficult to keep balanced than an omnivorous one because you are limiting your food sources.
Huh. They knew that but they didn’t know that babies need formula? I’m also surprised that she homebirthed but didn’t breastfed.
Hey, if I find a story about a baby who died drinking regular milk instead of formula, does that cancel this out and we can agree that some people are just stupid, not just vegans?
I’m really shocked that soy formula isn’t vegan (I googled it to make sure). Who do they think they’re selling it to, if not vegans?
When I became iron-deficient anaemic (result of 15 years without red meat), I had two choices: take iron pills, or eat meat, particularly liver or other red meat. There was no vegetable option, because getting your iron from vegetation, while possible, is inefficient. When you get to the point of anaemia, you need lots of iron, fast, and vegetable products don’t cut it.
Vegetarian and vegan propaganda aside, humans are not designed to live without meat. I could get into the whole physiology, but a doctor could explain it better. But think about our teeth for a moment-we do not have the teeth of herbivores, we have the teeth of omnivores. Your canine teeth were designed to shred meat. Unless you believe, like those crazy creationist museum people, that there were T Rexes in the garden of Eden, and they did not eat other animals-the sharp teeth were for cracking coconuts!
I should mention-I’m vegetarian.
How are you scare-mongering? You keep bringing up that dead baby, for one. The one who would have been just as dead had its parents fed it only cow’s milk instead of infant formula. And presenting this as the natural result of not being well-informed about nutrition or about being vegan instead of simply child abuse. Why should this one extreme case be used against the very idea of veganism? Especially when vegans who are not completely insane like these parents are fine with breast-feeding.
But it’s interesting that you’re claiming that I think that a vegan diet is “more ethical” than an omnivorous one. I’ve never mentioned ethics at all. In fact, I have no philosophical objections to eating meat whatsoever. I just decided for myself that it would be healthier not to.
And I find the “limiting food sources” argument specious. If anything, my food choices became broader and more varied after I stopped eating meat and dairy. And they only rarely involve any expensive fancy soy products.
If only I had said that, instead of saying that a vegan diet is comparable in cost to a healthy omnivorous diet, both of which are more expensive than a fast-food diet. Beat that strawman harder!
So, do you try to discourage people from eating a healthy omnivorous diet *because it’s expensive*? Do you gasp when you see someone reach for a head of lettuce and warn them that eating vegetables just costs too much, so they’re better off eating fast food?
No, you don’t, and that’s exactly what I’m talking about. We’ve had people on this thread jabbering on about how very, very expensive being a vegan is because of all the *special products* and *pricey produce* you “have” to buy, and because you suddenly are barred from every grocery store except for Whole Paycheck. But with one exception, nobody who has issued this dire warning has actually tried to eat a vegan diet. Yet the person who said she ate a vegan diet for less than 7 dollars a day was ignored.
Really, what is it with you and vegans? Did your mother get a “Meat is Murder” pamphlet pressed into her hand while she was pregnant with you? Every time the subject comes up, you personalize it.
I’ll pretend that’s genuine surprise and not just your emotional attachment to your strawman.
I said it over twenty posts ago. Are you reading what I’m saying with an open mind that can listen? If you make me say it three times, Gary Francione will appear in my mirror tonight.
Fine, fine. And this would come up as an actual choice to be made, an actual weighing of responsibilities, when you actually have to choose between the life of a human and the life of a nonhuman. How often has that happened to you? Never? Once?
That’s nice, but you’re wrong. The Naturalistic Fallacy really is a fallacy; that’s why it’s called that. If there are reasons why it is acceptable to kill and eat animals, “might makes right” is not one of those reasons, despite your protests.
“Because it was quite common in nature, and prehistoric societies, for men to rape women, it is not intrinsically morally wrong for modern men to rape women.”
There, now do you see the fallacy in that form of argument?
Way to miss the point. I was demonstrating that morality is not dependant upon reciprocity (as you were previously claiming and are now disavowing), and I said so several times. Did you fail to address that because it was inconvenient, or did you really miss it?
Ridiculous, of course. It’s nonsensical to say that animals have the right to freedom of religion, for instance.
I am saying that animals do have the most basic right: to live, unmolested and unharmed by humans who ought to know better.
Tautology. You’ve dodged the question. Why do humans have the right to not be killed?
I already said that “I already said I do not make that claim.” I am going to email this discussion to your fourth grade English teacher, and she is going to be very disappointed.
Of course, I’m not pretending that, because I immediately said “you’ll say ‘yes, I do have an obligation to not take the lives of mentally handicapped humans.’”
I mean, to lie about what I said, when it’s right there in front of everyone’s eyes, takes real guts. Your characteristic dishonesty is unmarred by caution or tact. I gaze upon your works in shock and wonder.
It isn’t, but you won’t explain why recognizing one’s right to one’s own life is not one of those responsibilities that humans have toward nonhumans.
You just keep saying “humans are humans!” Tautology, again. Stonewalling does not make your case. Yes, humans are humans, and A equals A. Turn right at this sign and you’re on the road to Randtopia.
No, but I guess this wouldn’t be any fun for you if you couldn’t keep shoving hyperbole in my mouth. Everyone, human and nonhuman, has the right to euthanasia. The cat is better off dead than slowly dying of kidney failure. I’ve done the same. There is no reason at all to suppose that the cat would rather have continued to suffer, and there is nothing wrong with trying to intuit a human’s or an animal’s best possible future and then bringing that future into realization.
Again, saying that death is preferable to ceaseless, terminal suffering is not equivalent to saying that death is an acceptable imposition upon a healthy animal. That’s why I emphasized it already: “healthy life is preferable to premature death.” Can you address this? Why do you think a healthy cat has the right to not be tortured, but not the right to not be killed?
JPlum, I’m an omnivore. I still think the “you were designed for….” argument is ridiculous. Yes, humans are evolved to be able to eat meat. Being able to eat a wide variety of available foods is an evolutionary advantage–you don’t have to ignore nutritious dead animals when plants are scarce or vice versa. And yes, animal products are nutritious. That says nothing about what an adult human should eat.
On iron deficiency, it’s flat-out not true that your choices are “pills or meat”. If you have an actual medical condition, no responsible doctor is going to tell you not to bother with iron pills because you can have steak instead. And they’ll certainly recommend foods other than ‘meat’ to boost your iron levels. (Chicken is meat. You’re better off eating raisins.)
I am not denying the existence of such unfortunate and damaging propaganda, often from vegans who hold lots of other irrational and new-agey beliefs. The crowning irony is that not only is it factually wrong, it’s yet another form of the Naturalistic Fallacy. *sigh*
I just want to point out that it’s certainly not coming from the majority of us, and respectable information sources like Vegan Outreach do not perpetuate such nonense.
It’s not unusual for very young babies to be allergic to cow’s milk and even cow’s milk-based formulas (these same children, when older, might tolerate cow’s milk just fine). Also, families with a strong history of food allergies will try to avoid the introduction of allergenic foods (of which dairy is a big one) until after a certain age. It has nothing to do with veganism. There aren’t enough vegans in the world for Enfamil to make a product for them.
This whole thread kind of reminds me of the childbirth thread, where all these people were getting up in arms about how some judgmental, ignorant pro-natural childbirth, pro-breastfeeding woman made them feel bad about their c-section so everyone who has an opinion other than “Epidurals for everyone!” should STFU. Oh, and somebody I heard about once had a home birth and the baby died!
I had not even heard of this book until this thread. It sounds like a stupid book. But I don’t think you can compare a philosophy and lifestyle touted by a tiny minority - even if some of them are assholes - to a force like the Christian right that so dominates our political and cultural discourse that we find ourselves defending things that should be a given like sexual pleasure and contraception.
This whole thread kind of reminds me of the childbirth thread, where all these people were getting up in arms about how some judgmental, ignorant pro-natural childbirth, pro-breastfeeding woman made them feel bad about their c-section so everyone who has an opinion other than “Epidurals for everyone!” should STFU.
Would that be the same childbirth thread where all these people were getting up in arms about how some judgmental, brainwashed, pro-patriarchy women made them feel bad about their home birth so everyone who has an opinion other than “If an OB comes within 10′ of a pregnant woman he should be shot on sigh” should STFU?
Or do you have a mysterious blind spot when the control-freak propaganda cranks up from people with whom you agree?
re the book, it is interesting how much it sounds like a Christianist tract, isn’t it? Women are bad and need to control themselves; fat and illness are god/nature’s way of making you better and preparing you for suffering, which is a sign of virtue.
Apparently so. Thanks for setting me straight.