Ingrids response just made my head explode. Let me collect my thoughts first and respond in a few minutes. lol. I just...exploitation of women's bodies for the sake of advertising.(sigh)

The use of women's bodies to protest animal suffering certainly is problematic I think because it denigrates the suffering of women at the expense of attention to the suffering of animals. On the other hand, 'soft' pornographic images have not crossed the taboo threshold as much as explicit images of, say, cows, pigs, or chickens being slaughtered. There is less transparency in the suffering of animals than there is in the suffering of women. Many so-called feminists who strive to reduce the suffering of women, for instance, still go to McDonalds and ignore the suffering of animals at their expense.

How about this for a radical solution: all women who wish to reduce the suffering of other women due to pornography, for example, should work to also reduce the suffering of animals, and perhaps the environment, by not eating meat or consuming dairy products. I think there are clear parallels between the suffering of animals and women because men are expected to consume as much pornography as they are expected to consume charred meat products. Why not then exercise some of the other options and work to reduce the suffering of both simultaneously?

The fact of the matter is that no cause should undermine nor degrade another cause in order to further their own.

By doing so you are pushing back the degraded cause and inherently applying less credibility to the one that you are fighting for.

For example, it would be dead wrong to exploit the cause of feminism and equal rights to raise awareness for animal advocacy. It's the equivalent of approaching a hunting organization made up of women and saying "for every animal you kill, we will donate $10 to a women's organization of your choice" - you are undermining the other cause, which greatly hurts credibility and compassion.

The idea of disrespecting women and how far we have come in society to further the advocacy of animals is absurd and ironic. How can we expect people to respect animals if we ask them to do so by having a woman strip while discussing the horrors of factory farming?

Yes, the woman chose to do so, however, NO cause should ever be degraded or undermined to further another. It is simply not conducive and creates even larger cleavages between causes.

This method perpetuates a few different things. it perpetuates the idea that women's bodies are a commodity to use as a company sees fit, it perpetuates the notion that women who disagree with these methods are prudish and frigid, and it certainly perpetuates the sexualization of meat.

Ingrid Newkirk, you are setting you cause back indefinitely by employing these methods. And I say this as a feminist and an animal advocate.

Ahem.. My name is Amy, and I love bacon.

And I'm a vegetarian.

So how did I come to be a vegetarian? Certainly not from PETA ads, which I always thought were ludicrous and laughed as I ate my delicious BLTs. I was clued in to animal suffering and health benefits through writing and reason, specifically in Herbivore magazine, and if you're really going to change a person's views, disembodied tits won't do it. I don't think the people who go to their pages looking for nekkid Alicia Silverstone are sticking around much longer than that, and it's not for the facts on factory farming. There's no getting through to these people, because they are focused on one cause, and one cause only, at the expense of credibility, taste, and respect.

Just keep calling them out, doing what you're doing. But they're making money, and they're not going to change.

@shaun,

Why should I stop eating meat and dairy products so that PETA can get a clue? Seriously. That shouldn't matter, the fact is PETA has consistently degraded women to appeal to a broader audience, (read: young men), and they do so at this expense of our integrity. How about PETA goes back to the drawing board, and stops using the same tired ass marketing scheme!

I am going to play devil's advocate here for a moment and make an argument that may not be very popular.

First let me say that animal rights is an issue very close to my heart. I was raised on a farm by a woman who built an SPCA from a burned out trailer that now has been established and successful for 20 years.

That being said, as a feminist I do disagree with the blatant use of the female body for advertising purposes. But let's not forget, PETA isn't trying to sell cologne to men, it's trying to sell an ideology of animal rights.

Don't yell at me yet...

Secondly, I think the nakedness is symbolic, in the sense that often times they are concerned with the links between fashion and animal rights. Therefore stripping off your clothing made from animal hides or what have you can have a deeper symbolic meaning than titties. Too bad she didn't express that.

Thirdly. I think that if women want to use their bodies in a political fashion, they should be able to. I personally don't believe that it is feminism's place to tell a woman when to cover up and when not to. If everyone volunteered and it was for a good cause, hey, what's the problem. If you disagree with that particular stance, don't take your clothes off to make a statement.

One point though that PETA falls short on is displaying naked men (to acheive the same symbology discussed above) and women who don't look like Brigitte Bardot, Pamela Anderson, and Alicia Silverstone. If they want to use this approach and do it responsibly then they should display a more accurate picture of what women and other animal rights activists really look like.

We cannot deny that sex is a very powerful tool, however unfortunate that may be, and removing that option from the table for women removes the option of wielding that power in a way that women see fit for their own bodies and lives.

I don't agree 100% with the approach that PETA takes with their advertising, but I can see their point and how they are trying to achieve it.

If we want to battle someone over images of naked women why don't we start with billboards for "gentlemens clubs", Maxim, and other's like that.

I am just sayin' sometimes you have to pick your battles.

She so needs to STFU. I support animal rights (although I'm not a veg... yet) and her PETA tactics rub me the wrong way, enough to turn me off vegetarianism and animal rights.

Thirdly. I think that if women want to use their bodies in a political fashion, they should be able to.

hey man I totally understand. but the fact is, the media (and many, many males) love naked women. It doesn't matter what kind of statement a naked woman is trying to make. They don't care. They just wanna stare at her boobs and ass. So the political message almost ALWAYS fall flat and it's a waste of time.

LOOK AT HER BOOBS AND HER ASS!!! *giggles*

There, I said it.

I love how she argued against a string of straw arguments, and then admitted to the real thing we have a problem with when she had to explain why they do it. Not harming animals isn't SUPPOSED to be sexy. It's supposed to about NOT consuming living things for our pleasure however and whenever we want, about respecting living things as having their own lives that have to do with a lot more than tasting good or feeling good or looking good to us. I'm not even a vegetarian, but I get it more than she does.

She's a sellout, basically.

Mikela,
How about not eating meat in order to not perpetuate the fact that young illegal immigrant women work in disgusting conditions for next to no pay in factory farm and packing facilities? Or the women who are displaced from their homes in South America due to clearcutting of their land in order to produce more land to manufacture meat?

The cause of women's rights is inherently connected to the cause of animals/meat consumption/environmentalism due to meat consumption. Human rights, environmentalism and animal rights are all part of one singular fight.

I am certainly not trying to get people to go vegetarian here, I am simply pointing out that the two are related, and to go vegetarian for women's rights does not necessarily mean doing so for the sake of PETA (who i despise for a freaking multitude of reasons).

Have you read The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams?

Although it is hard, I would like to have faith in humanity that if a naked woman spoke, and was intelligent, made a strong argument and took a strong moral stance behind her political beliefs that her nakedness would become secondary to her message. However, I hate to admit that we may not have come far enough along yet....maybe someday.

In the meantime I am seriously on the fence on this one.

Jenn Astle,
Yes, this - http://www.peta.org/feat/stateoftheunion/ - is certainly "symbolic".

It appears to me that you are missing the point, much like Newkirk does.

As I said above, it is absolutely not conducive to degrade one cause to further another. It creates a lack of credibility and a complete misunderstanding of both causes - the exploiter and the exploitee.

PETA's methods perpetuate the sexualization of meat and do no favours to its cause.

Maybe I missed it, but I am surprised feministing didn't raise the issue a few weeks ago about the PETA ice cream fiasco where they recommended that Ben and Jerry's start buying milk from new mothers....THAT I had a big problem with. I wrote about it on a site that I write for if anyone is the slightest bit curious or hasn't heard of that yet.

http://www.farrunningfatman.com/2008/09/25/no-peta-im-not-going-to-eat-that/

I always find it very sad when people refuse to question the status quo like this. Just because naked women is a proven tactic for eliciting consumer behavior and interest doesn't mean that it should be accepted and/or ignored as an issue.

I also find it somewhat absurd that Jen Phillips could show such passion for the rights of animals, yet at the same time choose to ignore the relevant issues against her own gender in American society.
Actually, not only ignore, but SUPPORT these inequalities.
Like you said, no one is saying that these women should keep themselves covered up for shame of their bodies, but instead it is a much deeper issue that needs a more in depth analyzation than a simple, "it's anti-feminist to refuse women the right to be naked".
No one is saying being publicly naked as a woman is wrong, the real issue is the way women are being perceived in our media, time and time again, as sex objects and nothing more.
We all know the argument, so I won't get into it, I just find it upsetting that someone would simplify an issue down to something so trivial sounding like Phillips seems to have done.

Jenn Astle, indeed, that one made me laugh out loud.

It was one of those "oh where do I begin" things.

I'd shut up if PETA proved that their ads were at all effective. I truly believe they aren't. I think, if a man is so disposed to stare at tits and ass, that's what he's going to do, and he's not going to become a vegetarian because of it. I did the strip-tease thing on their website, and I took nothing from it. Sex sells, sure, but it doesn't sell vegetarianism, it sells beer and smelly deodorant.

And I hate the argument that it's okay because these women are choosing to do it. They are more than entitled to protest naked, but PETA needs to say that their beliefs are worth more than sex appeal.

I totally agree that she made it too simplistic by saying "well, sex sells"...she could have drawn links between the abuse of animals and the abuse of women, or the fashion point I made earlier. There were definate theoretical arguments that she could have made which may have validated her point further.

"No one is saying being publicly naked as a woman is wrong, the real issue is the way women are being perceived in our media, time and time again, as sex objects and nothing more."

Can we really instill massive change to these perceptions through the media or does it have to be a little bit more "ground up"....just asking for opinions....

PETA has a porn website?!?!?!

I'm glad other feminists see the cause of animal rights and women's rights as linked. For me, the first time I saw these two movements as linked, was when I realized how much we abuse female cows in our obsession with cheese and dairy. For their entire lives, female cows are impregnated constantly against their will so that their bodies will continue to produce milk. Can you imagine the strain and stress of being pregnant your entire life? For me, there is something not just speciesist there, but also kind of sexist. The way we use female cows - as baby and milk machines - seems like an issue that all feminists can agree is wrong.

hbwpg
Watched the video you recommended and I have to admit I see your point.

@hbwpg

Ok. I can see the connection. Again, though how does this justify PETA's constant, and annoying usage of naked women in their ads? I'm not disagreeing with you that eating meat can be linked to the issue of women's rights. That wasn't what I was saying, so you can just get off of your soapbox b/c you're proving a point that I agreed with and didn't even mention. My main point was that PETA is wrong for continously exploiting women's bodies. And while it is an effective tool and has worked for them in past, it is dissapointing that a group that views themselves are radical and above the "stupidity" of eating meat, always resorts back to the most base principles of marketing, which is: sex sells. How boring and unoriginal.

sorry for the grammatical errors in the last posts, I was really trying to get my point across and through spellcheck to the wind. lol

Uhh... it's "sexist" to milk female cows?

o_O

What's next? it's "sexist" to breed female dogs with male dogs to breed a particular species?????? Or it's "sexist" to groom nice beautiful female horses with long manes?

Geez. Stop trying to equate animal cruelty with sexism, because seriously, that's just fucking silly.

I think that an enviornment that is conducive to violence against animals can also be conducive to violence against women and vice versa, so BTP there is a link, albeit not a direct one there.

To further this point, animal abuse is often an indicator for partner abuse...so there's another link.

On a side note, if you want to support a cause linked to both womens and animal rights you can support animal shelters that care for the pets of women who are going through a transition period when they choose to leave an abusive partner. These shelters take in the animal until the woman is better able to care for it thereby relieving the stress of having to worry about the animal's welfare in the hands of the abusive partner. My mother adopted this method at her shelter and it has been wildly successful...just sayin'...

True there have been more women than men used in PETA ads but don't forget there has been a few men too including; Stevo, Dennis Rodman, Ami James, and Tommy Lee. It is all about shock value. I would rather take my clothes off for animal rights than in Maxim magazine. I am split on this situations...both sides make good points.

Jenn Astle, we did have that conversation here on Feministing, re: the breast milk. If I get a chance I'll find the link if you want to read it.

I used to care enough to make a big speech about it, but now I don't. Like she said, women's freedom of choice. So why then should PETA as an organization give a shit? They get more hits on their website, mission accomplished.

They won't get any of my support though. My money goes to the SPCA.

And frankly unlike others, I see these tactics as no different then MAXIM type magazine or advertisers. They are using that same bait, just trying to hook different fish.

Thanks, I would like to back link to it if I could....

By the way, I have to say that when we do get the chance to have a debate minus trolls, this site is the best. I am constantly learning something every time I read what the women here (and the men too) have to say.

So thank you all for making my life that much richer!

As far as I am concerned, PETA are nothing but a group of nut cases. Having a university degree in nutrition (as well as one in womens' studies), I can assure you that anyone who turns to PETA to be educated on nutritional issues is being sadly misled. Given the many ethically questionable campaigns PETA has staged over the years, coupled with their gross misrepresentation of nutrition information, I believe that anyone who represents PETA is seriously psychologically disturbed. Personally, I am disgusted that an organization that has the potential to go some good in the world stoops to such low-brow tactics.

Shaun said: How about this for a radical solution: all women who wish to reduce the suffering of other women due to pornography, for example, should work to also reduce the suffering of animals, and perhaps the environment, by not eating meat or consuming dairy products. I think there are clear parallels between the suffering of animals and women because men are expected to consume as much pornography as they are expected to consume charred meat products. Why not then exercise some of the other options and work to reduce the suffering of both simultaneously?

While I understand your goal in attempting to guilt people into a "you can't be feminist unless you're also a vegetarian" stance, I would like to point out that people can have varied beliefs across many topics and can agree on some issues while disagreeing on others.

@ BROWN TRASH PUNK!

You missed my point. I'm disturbed by humans' aggressive use of female bodies to produce cheese, dairy, and ice cream. I could see your comparison if cows just naturally produced milk; however, they don't produce milk anymore than women produce breast milk when not pregnant. The repeated impregnation and use of the bodies of female cows just seems wrong from a feminist perspective. I know it's not a view point that people hear everyday, but I think it's a valid point.

And, I might add, the fact that we use the bodies of female cows for our benefit seems to parallel society's use of women's bodies to sell things. In the former, humans are the oppressors benefiting from the use of female bodies; in the latter, patriarchy is the oppressive system that benefits. Anyway...just wanted to clarify my point because I know it sounds a little crazy.

I just find it "funny" that she's holding a pet dog in that picture, when PETA is actually against pet ownership.

Get with it people. PETA is a radical organization. I am completely for animal welfare--but to claim animals have rights and thus cannot be owned as pets or service animals (because that would be a breech of autonomy!) is absurd.

Peta like to wage campaigns against celebrities that wear fur like the Olsen Twins and were very critical of Jessica Simpson just because she wore a t -shirt saying "real girls eat meat". You would think that they would come down hard on Sarah Palin but they have not. Why? This is a woman who idea of "hunting" is chasing animals in a helicopter until they are exhausted in order to shoot them! A woman who has animal skins in her office! Where are the ads Peta? Or are you more concern with Jessica Simpson t-shirt and J-lo's fur coat? Whateva.

So wait. There's a lot of "women's rights"/"animal rights" talk flying around and maybe this isn't the intent, but it's starting to sound like:

1. Women's issues and animal rights issues are connected.
2. Therefore, PeTA using tits as a marketing ploy is okay.

What?

Shouldn't number 2 be something like:

2. Therefore, PeTA using tits as a marketing ploy makes no fucking sense, as it panders directly to the patriarchy.

See, if an ad campaign wanted to make a connection between animal's and women's rights, they could start by NOT EXPLOITING EITHER.

(Possibly, those pointing out the women's rights/animal rights correlation are completely against these ad campaigns, but I am always thinking of the lurkers, so consider this clarification for their sake.)

@ Judith Jewcakes

I think the people, including myself, who have been discussing the connection between feminism and animal rights have been discussing that separate from the PETA issue. Personally, I deeply loathe PETA for their ad tactics and I would love to see them disappear from the animal rights scene forever.

Well, PETA is just generally a hot mess and despite my involvement with animal welfare issues and ethical food production I just avoid them like the plague. They are batshit crazy and terrible for animals. Last year PETA euthanized over 90% of the animals in their care according to their own records (sometimes you've got to do what you've got to do but 90% is a unjustifiably large number) and they've done "actions" like going to an outdoor dog show, releasing the dogs from their crates, some of the dogs ran into the road and were killed by cars. To hell with PETA. Their stupidity about sexism is but one of the very serious problems with those clowns.

If you're interested in supporting animal welfare groups HSUS has its problems but they're a much saner *and* much more productive organization than PETA.

"But if you say would you like to see Alicia Silverstone without her clothes, most people go, 'Good Lord, yes. Let's have a look at that.'"

I thought we were past the notion of "male" as the default?

Despite the problems of some of PETA's ad campaigns, I'm more than a little tired of Feministing's focus on it. There are a million sexist ad campaigns and organizations out there, plenty of them much worse in many ways than PETA (see: the way male-geared alcohol ads glamorize sexual assault), and yet every week, there's another PETA entry. A few have been warranted, but it's getting a bit old to me. Feministing claims to be interested in intersectionality - yet I can't think of a single post that's been related to the long-established feminist animal rights and environmental movements. I also haven't seen a single post that's dared to criticize the way most of the sex industry operates, apparently out of the fear that it would be disrespectful of sex workers. I'm not saying PETA should get a free pass (especially on one or two ads that were quite horrible) or that every feminist has to be an animal rights activist. But the way it's been approached here seems unproductive at best, and, though I hate to say it, in the context of how non-political/voluntary sex work is treated, hypocritical. In short, it seems to me that the PETA crowd isn't the only one that needs to rethink its priorities here.

Here's a puzzle: PETA is putting out these disgusting ads to appeal to the heterosexual male. The men of the country love seeing boobs and ass. So why would they go vegetarian/animal rights when that would mean that the ads would have no purpose any longer and would go away. The situation behooves the men to keep doing what they're doing in order to keep getting those naked pictures.

I'm not a vegetarian, and I'm not exactly what you call pro-animal rights. I love hunting and I love my fur coats, though I'm not crazy about unnecessary suffering. I really don't like most of what PETA is about, and it makes me happy that they trash their cause by putting up these ads.

The situation behooves the men to keep doing what they're doing in order to keep getting those naked pictures.

While an interesting idea, it's trivially easy to see naked pictures. I doubt other men are thinking, "gosh, I really want to go vegetarian, but then I'd miss seeing this group of slightly erotic advertisements."

be careful Destra. Now that you revealed yourself to be a hunter, you're gonna get harrassed by some animal rights activists. Hah.

@ theminutepast

While I can see some parallels in attitudes towards the bodies of oppressed/suppressed peoples and some historical and contemporary attitudes towards domestic animals (an analysis of the language/terminology used in both contexts could be very interesting, for example), your points here seem to be over-simplistic in that they are focusing only on one half of the equation. Namely, domestic animals are both male and female.

The bodies of all domestic animals, male or female, are used for human benefit, and biological differences between the sexes in various types of domesticated animals will necessarily cause functional differences in the particular manner in which the animal is utilized. This can be done both morally and immorally (perceptions on where this line is drawn will of course vary--I for one find unnecessary suffering abusive but do not find the domestication and use of animals for human benefit immoral in and of itself), and may even be a difference in treatment/utilization essential to the survival of the humans dependent upon the animals.

To focus solely on the issue of milk production in cattle and use that as basis for a link between feminist issues and animal abuse issues, for example, would ignore the many ways that male cattle are used and/or arguably abused within modern domestic farming. Again this is just using cattle as an example, but if you would like to include castration, stud fares, bull-riding/fighting, horn cutting, differences in slaughter rates/practices between male and female cattle etc. into your reading of things I'd be interested to see it.

I'm always cautious in discussions linking human rights with animal rights, however, because I am wary of imposing human ideas and ideals onto animals as it can take from the animal the very thing that it is supposed to protect: the animal's right to act in accordance with its own nature. It also poses the danger, as can be seen with PETA in its sexist promotional materials and inter-office practices, of diminishing the rights of the humans involved, bringing them "down" to the level of the animal (if it is not already presumed that they are "down" at the same level to begin with) rather than bringing the animal "up" (if not elevating the animal over the human altogether!).

I know I'm missing the point of this topic, but as a cat lover and breeder, I fully support PETA. In Fact, I just sold a beautiful Russian Blue. Without question, one of the most intelligent breed of cats.

Gandhi said “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” As a feminist (probably an eco-feminist, if I remember my feminist theory correctly) and a vegan, I have to say that I am far less offended by PeTA's ads than I am by people's reactions to them. I believe many people miss the connection between the way we view/use women's bodies and the way we use animals' bodies. Some PeTA ads expose this very thing, for those who are able to see it.

Yes, sometimes PeTA's ads are objectifying and I believe feminists truly working to end all forms of oppression could constructively give PeTA feedback where it is needed. I find it thoroughly disturbing that people are more concerned with a naked women in an ad than they are about billions of animals being imprisoned and tortured on a daily basis.

It is nothing but privileged speciesism when you support an industry that tortures and murders other sentient beings, not to mention the humans that suffer in the horrendous working conditions, as well as the damage done to the environment, all because you like cheeseburgers.

@ consciousnessrazor

I think the reason people look at the materials of PETA and similar organizations so closely is one of "walking the walk and talking the talk." If an organization is centered around bringing light to what they believe is unjust treatment of a group (in this instance, animals) but does so at the expense of or in ignorance of their own unjust treatment of another group (in this instance, women), then many people are going to question just how effective they'll be at enacting real change.

In the case of feminism/vegetarianism, if you don't see the connection or just don't care, you are quite possibly either a) cognitively dissonant, or b) a hypocrite. Oppression of women and oppression of animals are linked in an overall theory of oppression. If you believe oppression is wrong in any particular sense, then you are dissonant if you don't think oppression is wrong in another sense. You are a hypocrite if you recognize this but only support the ending of oppression for one group. Both women and animals are oppressed, and we should put an end to the oppression of both. PETA, though they believe it doesn't harm feminist movements, should stop portraying women as objects. PETA furthers objectification and commodification of women by portraying women as sexual consumables, even if they believe (ludicrously) they are making a political statement in favor of feminism. Anyway, a movie recommendation for you all: "Earthlings". Its posted on Googlevideo and Youtube. And someone mentioned this earlier, but I think it should be reiterated. Everyone should read "The Sexual Politics of Meat", by Carol J. Adams.

"Well, it's rubbish because the organization is run by a woman, who is me."

Replace 'organization is run' with 'policies I propose are made', and then Imagine Palin saying this in response to a question about her faux feminist politics. You'll see how silly it truly is.

Wow.

I never really had a huge issue with PETA until I saw the video that was linked by hp.

You see, it always seemed that these women were making their own decision to use their body for their cause, so who am I to judge? Some of their demonstrations, such as painting naked/bikinied women like tigers and putting them in cages, while not entirely necessary, at least were relevant to the point being made, and the women were utilizing their sexual appeal in a relevant manner.

That video was not at all relevant to anything animal related.

"I marched in rallies" = "My best friend is black!"

Some feminist this woman is. She's basically admitting that PETA's audience consists completely of hetero men. What does taking one's clothing off "for animal rights" actually accomplish for animal rights? It will draw attention, yes, to a naked (female) body. It won't turn people into vegetarians, or more thoughtful consumers.

theminutepast, I agree with you about the links between the oppression of animals and the oppression of women. Just wanted to throw my support your way. Consciousnessrazor and mrblimp put it very, very well.

anthony, if you just sold a cat you don't "fully support PETA."

I'm really, really sick of having my feminism called into question because I'm not a vegetarian. Although I see the link between animal cruelty and the oppression of women, diet is a very personal thing, and I don't think that anyone has a right to judge me based on any conditions that I may have/had that effect my diet.
I've been dealing with an eating disorder since I was 12 or 13. I'm at a healthy, if above average weight now, but this is an issue that requires daily handling. I've found that if I cut out one item from my diet, it quickly escalates into cutting more and more until I'm eating nothing but brown rice and ice cubes. I know I'm not the only one like this from my support groups and I really, really wish that the more passionate feminist/vegetarians would think of things like that. It may be easy for you to say, "Just replace meat with tofu!" but that's a luxury that a lot of us don't have.
And not particularly in this thread, but in past PETA/animal rights threads, particularly during Montygate, I've had my feminism called into question because I won't give up meat. That kind of response just makes me want to say "fuck you" to feminism and vegetarianism.

MoxieHart,
We aren't better than other animals, so we can keep eating other animals. Circle of life and all that. You can protest by buying from local, humane farms whenever possible.
Protesting by vegetarianism ... Animals kill to eat, and we are animals... so what's the point?

She suggests that people criticising the ads in question think women should be covered up, but isn't this softcore porn approach buying into that very idea (women revealing or almost revealing "naughty" - taboo and appealing - body parts)?

feministing, i love you. all of you ladies, all of the community. but seeing this post made me want to make a "leave britney alone" style video about peta.
i am not a peta supporter. i am vegan. i don't believe you have to be vegan to be a feminist, just as you don't have to be a feminist to be vegan. but as a person that is fighting for social justice and activism for all exploited and subordinated life forms, the connection is clear to me. live lovingly, treat other beings with respect, no unnecessary suffering. there is plenty of literature online and in print demonstrating the ties between women's rights and animal rights, so i won't rehash them here.
i don't agree with peta's approach, but they are not the designated flag-waving leaders of the AR movement. so please, stop with the veg-bashing in these comments. we're all working to make it a better world here. keep an open mind.

I have to agree with MoxieHart, my mom has a severe soy allergy that prohibits her from consuming soy milk and tofu, which if she went vegetarian or vegan would result in a very unhealthy diet.

I personally am vegetarian and almost all of my closet friends eat meat but I do not force my opinions upon others, just as much as I do not force any of my beliefs onto others, but that does not mean that I will not practice them.

PETA to me is like the extremist to most vegetarians/vegans (almost like extremists in any belief) , it is quite sad they go about getting an arguably good message across by using offensive methods with detracts from their goal.

I have to agree with MoxieHart, my mom has a severe soy allergy that prohibits her from consuming soy milk and tofu, which if she went vegetarian or vegan would result in a very unhealthy diet.

I personally am vegetarian and almost all of my closet friends eat meat but I do not force my opinions upon others, just as much as I do not force any of my beliefs onto others, but that does not mean that I will not practice them.

PETA to me is like the extremist to most vegetarians/vegans (almost like extremists in any belief) , it is quite sad they go about getting an arguably good message across by using offensive methods with detracts from their goal.

I have to agree with MoxieHart, my mom has a severe soy allergy that prohibits her from consuming soy milk and tofu, which if she went vegetarian or vegan would result in a very unhealthy diet.

I personally am vegetarian and almost all of my closet friends eat meat but I do not force my opinions upon others, just as much as I do not force any of my beliefs onto others, but that does not mean that I will not practice them.

PETA to me is like the extremist to most vegetarians/vegans (almost like extremists in any belief) , it is quite sad they go about getting an arguably good message across by using offensive methods with detracts from their goal.

MoxieHart,
Thank you for bringing that up. Honestly, as a feminist and a vegan I *do* struggle with people- especially feminists- who don't at least respect the idea of abstaining from animal products and recognize its connection to feminism. But I, in turn, respect your point about struggles with diet. Today, I was at the market with a vegan friend of mine, and learned that she abstains completely from sugar and any kind of dessert. That led to her revealing she's recovering from an eating disorders.

At that moment, I realized how an intensive diet like veganism could create a situation in which someone could justify micro-managing and minimizing their food intake. So again, I genuinely respect your perspective. HOWEVER, I also have to believe that there are a many, many individuals who simply "couldn't live without cheese" or "can't imagine not eating steak." Hey, I've been there. But those same individuals are often purposefully avoiding facts about the factory farming industry that could, at the very least, raise awareness as to what they're putting in their bodies.

And in regards to PETA: I worked at a vegan restaurant this summer, and whenever PETA came up a heated discussion would insue: me against all the boys. Funny, none of them saw an issue with using naked women to draw attention to their agenda! Though they did offer their own bodies to the cause.

Meh.

I'd shut up if PETA proved that their ads were at all effective. I truly believe they aren't. I think, if a man is so disposed to stare at tits and ass, that's what he's going to do, and he's not going to become a vegetarian because of it. I did the strip-tease thing on their website, and I took nothing from it. Sex sells, sure, but it doesn't sell vegetarianism, it sells beer and smelly deodorant.

As a straight dude who does in fact enjoy looking at tits and ass, let me assure you that you are indeed right. I've looked at the PETA ads, like the one with a naked Eva Mendes, and my thoughts were:

"Wow, great ass! Now where's the best place to get a ribeye steak around here?"

And I hate the argument that it's okay because these women are choosing to do it. They are more than entitled to protest naked, but PETA needs to say that their beliefs are worth more than sex appeal. Posted by nightingale

The only thing PETA has to offer is naked pictures of airhead celebrities. Even other animal rights groups are repulsed by PETA's deranged views on nature. I'm just glad Holocaust deniers and creationists can't get multi-talentless celebrities to do ads like PETA does.

Peta like to wage campaigns against celebrities that wear fur like the Olsen Twins and were very critical of Jessica Simpson just because she wore a t -shirt saying "real girls eat meat". You would think that they would come down hard on Sarah Palin but they have not. Why? This is a woman who idea of "hunting" is chasing animals in a helicopter until they are exhausted in order to shoot them! A woman who has animal skins in her office! Where are the ads Peta? Or are you more concern with Jessica Simpson t-shirt and J-lo's fur coat? Whateva. Posted by penny rose

The Olsen twins can eat shit and howl at the moon for all I care. I don't need to be lectured about what I consume from a pair of niwits who think it's better to ply Heath Ledger with pills than to eat a cheeseburger.

Uhh... it's "sexist" to milk female cows? o_O

Milking a BULL might raise eyebrows.

What's next? it's "sexist" to breed female dogs with male dogs to breed a particular species?????? Or it's "sexist" to groom nice beautiful female horses with long manes?

That would depend on whether the stallion objectifies the mare before mounting her.

Geez. Stop trying to equate animal cruelty with sexism, because seriously, that's just fucking silly. Posted by BROWN TRASH PUNK!

You do realize that you're trying to get someone with an infantile view of nature to think rationally, right? The PETA crowd are by and large mentally diseased. Any group that claims a chicken farm is the equivalent of Auschwitz is 100% fucktarded.

I watched the video that a previous poster pointed out (http://www.peta.org/feat/stateoftheunion/).

This is one of the most distgusting, degrading things I have seen in a while. Not because I find the female body disgusting (quite the opposite, actually), but because of the explicit exploitation of her body. This was not a serious "naked protest." This almost seemed like a joke someone was making to make fun of PETA. And the leering stares and laughter of the men (who I know weren't actually watching, but the implication remains) was absolutely horrifying.

This did not make me take more interest in PETA's cause; in contrast, it DIMINISHED the seriousness of their cause. Animal cruelty is serious and ads like this one not only objectify women but diminish the very casue PETA is trying to further.

They may think they are going to gain heterosexual male support, but I don't think so. Most of the guys there to see the naked body will just close the window after the "naked chick" is replaced by pictures of animal suffering. I did.

I have supported PETA for many years, and now is the time to quit. The organization may not find these ads sexist, but I do, and it's my money. I will still support elimination of animal creulty, but through a different medium. Any suggestions?

Walls, walls, walls. Animals also rape each other, geeky_girl, should we do that, too, since we are animals? As for people with food issues... somehow, I imagine you can adapt. The people who claim that they are dependent upon eating animal products... slave owners used to claim that their lives depended on having their slaves. Allergic to tofu? Don't eat tofu, eat seitan instead, or maybe a variety of other produce like beans, potatoes, broccoli, carrots, peas, tomatoes, oranges, plums, on and on and on and on and on and on. There are plenty of other types of plant products. If you eat ANY type of varied diet, you get enough protein. You'd have to eat pretty much nothing but sugar and jelly to not get enough protein. All of your Beef Council based nutrition education is less than astounding.

I doubt the animals that you eat are concerned that people's eating preferences and disorders makes it hard to want to give up meat. If you are feminist because you are against oppression, and not merely because you think men and women should have equal opportunities and treatments, then as a person against oppression, it is inconsistent to not be against oppression of animals. It is all still oppression. I seriously doubt it is impossible to give up meat and other animal products for ANYONE.

"diet is a very personal thing, and I don't think that anyone has a right to judge me based on any conditions that I may have/had that effect my diet."

Unfortunately, the animals you eat and oppress disagree. Its not a personal thing on many levels. You are eating another being with interests of its own. The meat and dairy industries in the U.S. are subsidized with taxes - from other persons. The meat industry, as another person pointed out earlier, oppresses women and migrant workers who work for them. I feel sympathy for people who have eating problems, but not at the expense of other sentient beings who have interests in not being oppressed, marginalized, eaten, tortured, etc. There is hardly anything personal about diet. Eating meat oppresses people and other animals. No level of inconvenience excuses this stuff.

"I've had my feminism called into question because I won't give up meat. That kind of response just makes me want to say "fuck you" to feminism and vegetarianism."

Aren't you already saying "fuck you" to oppression, feminism, and vegetarianism by eating meat?

Why do people think ads have to be shocking in order to get attention? The more shock-factor is used in regular life, it increases its normalcy. Then stuff has to be even MORE shocking and so on and so on.

Personally, I think sincerity and subtly are much more powerful stuff. I think PETA's most successful ad was one featuring Paul McCartney stating the exact moment he became a vegan. It was personal and real and none of that IN YO' FACE crap to which we've grown to accustomed and so sick.

I honestly don't see how naked bodies can make such a big difference. Most of the time, people look at these ads for their own pleasure and don't change their mind about eating meat.
I just think there is a more productive way to get others to become vegetarian or vegan. Sex doesn't always sell, it just gets your attention for a second or so.

Veganism is only intense because the masses refuse to give up their "meats". If it was mainstream, there would be no problem with people letting go of this misperception. It is not an extreme diet at all.

MoxieHart, I would never call into question your feminism because you are not a vegetarian, I don't think anyone here is. But, I do think it's important to recognize, as mr.blimp said, that animal right's and women's rights are interconnected, as all forms of oppression are.

This is why I think this statement made by BROWN TRASH PUNK! is extremely ignorant:
"Geez. Stop trying to equate animal cruelty with sexism, because seriously, that's just fucking silly."

Not only does it reek of "oppression olympics" But the connection between the animal's oppression and women's oppression (as well as other forms of oppression), does exist. And it's certainly NOT "silly". hbwpg suggested the "Sexual Politics of Meat" which I suggest to anyone interested, to check it out. I definitely see the connection between keeping female cows in a constant state of pregnancy, essentially using them as "baby factories", and the connection to societal expectations of women as "breeders". There is also a huge parallel to the meat industry in women/animals being seen/used solely as an amalgamation of body parts for consumption:
http://www.triroc.com/caroladams/images/slideshow10.jpg

In my opinion I think the connection is clear. Also, BornSlippery, you talk about the treatment of male cows...I just want to point out that even male cows are linked to women's oppression. It has to do with the way meat is associated with sex. For example I'm sure you've seen many advertisements for burgers and other meats that features a scantily clad woman...eating meat is also associated with masculinity. i.e. "real men eat meat". For example:
http://voiceofdissent.info/animal-rights/sexy-meat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P82hABWq1To
Again, the book "The Sexual Politics of Meat" is interesting and goes into the issue a lot deeper.

And finally, and don't yell at me here, this is my opinion...I happen to agree consiousnessrazor when she said this:
"I believe many people miss the connection between the way we view/use women's bodies and the way we use animals' bodies. Some PeTA ads expose this very thing..."

As far as sexist ads go, in my opinion, I think there is a difference between, say, Axe bodywash ads, and the naked Peta ads. I know many will not agree, I understand that. But when I see the Peta ads, the message that I see is the connection/critique between how we use women's and animal's bodies as products for consumption. Also, there is actually a history of women getting naked as a form of political protest for many issues including anti-war, anti-violence, LBGT issues, etc. etc...The Salon.com post has a brief overview of where this originated...
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/03/21/naked_protesters/
There's also a link from Salon.com to this site which has a some photos and stories about "naked protesters".
http://www.nakedprotesters.com/

I don't agree with everything Peta does, and I do think they should be using more men in these ads, but personally, I'm just not that offended by the whole naked Peta thing. I guess, maybe because I consider it a political issue/political speech, (versus trying to sell a product to make profits, as is the case with Axe bodywash)...I'm usually really offended by sexist ads...I just hate hate hate Axe. But for some reason, I'm just not offended by the Peta stuff.

Newirk is delusional if she believes objectifying human women somehow mediates substantial concern for animals. PeTA takes real, complicated ethical issues about animal agriculture and research and distills them to vapid propaganda which is easily dismissed. yeah, someone's really going to quit drinking milk because this woman will take off her clothes to tell you it's bad.

I've been vegan for 7 years and I have never been a supporter of PeTA. If one objectifies women, how are they ever going to quit objectifying animals -- ie, viewing them as biological machines who's value and treatment is based solely on their usefulness to humans?

"but when I see the Peta ads, the message that I see is the connection/critique between how we use women's and animal's bodies as products for consumption."

I agree that that's the connection being made. Packaging naked women as "meat" complete with fake blood attempts to make the point that viewing animal's bodies as a product is parallel to viewing women's body as a product for consumption.

However, the objectification of women is not a clear injustice in this society as evident by the rampant and unchallenged (in the mainstream) ads like Axe.

The actual effect is the perpetuation of objectification of women. They aren't effective in helping animals. That's really what it comes down to. Becoming vegan is not like buying a brand of bodywash or following a fad so why market it as such? PeTA isn't changing the culture by pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Lol @ NewbombTurk's 'That would depend on whether the stallion objectifies the mare before mounting her.'

I'm coming from 'typical' middle-class, tertiary educated white Australia and I agree that veganism *is* extremely difficult. The social pressure, the unavailability of 'vegan options' and the sheer omnipresence of meat/animal products makes every day as a vegan a struggle. Living with an (ex)anorexic also complicates what I eat in front of her

'Meat-eating' is also almost synonymous with 'manly'; instead of naked dolls on the screen, how about positive frickin' rolemodelling for men? McGuyver ate bean sprouts in one episode while he was staking out a Baddie. My fiance loved McGuyver, and fiance now will, despite having grown up in MeatCulture, eat vegetarian meals without complaint. I rest my case.

"The actual effect is the perpetuation of objectification of women."

However, that is not the effect that the ads have on me, which is the point I was trying to get across. I realize that most other people on this site with be of a different opinion, but please realize that the ad has a different effect on me, than it does on you. I totally understand that you see objectification. But, again, I see a form of political speech conveying a critique of women's bodies/ animal's bodies and how they are used for consumption.

"Becoming vegan is not like buying a brand of bodywash or following a fad so why market it as such?"

Again, how I see it, this is because of the connection between how women's bodies and animal's bodies are both treated. Both are oppressed. And us being humans, we can relate to the animals because we can connect it to our own experiences (i.e. objectification by a patriarchal system) The other reason for the naked bodies is the whole "naked political protest" thing which I already explained and go into a little more down below...

"yeah, someone's really going to quit drinking milk because this woman will take off her clothes to tell you it's bad."

Check out the link I posted about political protest and being naked, or do a google search. Just because someone is naked, doesn't necessarily mean that their form of political speech is "vapid" or "ineffective". I have no problem if a person wants to take their clothes off for a particular political belief/cause that is important to them- that's their decision. I do get offended however when companies like Axe tries to fill their pockets (i.e. profits) by using women to sell their products.

Meeneecat: Agreed that the image of meat conception and marketing of meat as a whole is very gendered, and human and women's rights issues within the meat industry itself are huge problems. My comment, though, was addressed more at sex-specific (or even just reproduction and reproduction by-product specific) uses of animals, given theminutepast's example of repeated impregnations as a means to induce lactation in dairy cattle. A bridge between the two views (consumption of the animal as a whole versus consumption/assimilation/can't-think-of-the-right-word-sorry-ation of the animals reproductive organs) could be found in the mystique centered around the eating of bull penis and testicles.

mrblimp: I must point out that dietary concerns are not so easily dismissed for all. Protein (not a simple issue in and of itself!) is not the only concern people have when giving up meat (alas, poor B-12, we knew thee well!), and not everyone has access to the kinds of foods and/or supplements required to maintain a healthy vegan or vegetarian diet even without the limitations imposed by food allergies etc. As it is, in many parts of the US and elsewhere class and geography makes access to even the most basic of fresh produce--much less things like seitan (which I honestly had to google)--a sign of privilege.

And just as I think it is wrong for McCain to dismiss the health of the mother as a concern within the abortion debate, I find it wrong to dismiss the health concerns of individuals who chose not to go vegan or vegetarian. Essential animal-based medications like insulin aside, differences in individual body chemistry and overall health affect people's reactions to different diets. Many people are simply healthier on one diet compared to another. Their commitment to feminism or any related cause should not be dismissed because of their choices concerning their own health and quality of life.

mrblimp, I put off becoming vegan for many years, because I thought that if I did, I had to become a ranting asshole. It wasn't until I met vegans who would explain their point of view without being jerks that I decided to move from vegetarianism to vegainsm. Being a ranting asshole does not win converts for your cause.

I'm coming from 'typical' middle-class, tertiary educated white Australia and I agree that veganism *is* extremely difficult. The social pressure, the unavailability of 'vegan options' and the sheer omnipresence of meat/animal products makes every day as a vegan a struggle. Living with an (ex)anorexic also complicates what I eat in front of her

'Meat-eating' is also almost synonymous with 'manly'; instead of naked dolls on the screen, how about positive frickin' rolemodelling for men? McGuyver ate bean sprouts in one episode while he was staking out a Baddie. My fiance loved McGuyver, and fiance now will, despite having grown up in MeatCulture, eat vegetarian meals without complaint. I rest my case.
Posted by hallidite

I know what you mean. I live in Texas where, as a friend of mine once said "chicken is considered a vegetable". I'll put it bluntly: I eat animals. Like any other animal, a human has to kill other living things to survive whether it's animals or plants. I enjoy eating cows, pigs, chickens, ducks, quail, sheep, goats, deer, bison -you name it. Is meat (esp beef) part of the culture here? Does a bear shit in the woods? But I would eat it even if it wasn't the norm because I think a grilled ribeye with a baked potato rocks. Blackeyed peas and rice wouldn't be the same without baked ham. I eat things that appeal to my taste buds. I've never heard of meat being "manly", except that some restaurants and frozen dinners are advertised that way because they are either large portions or very simple food (nothing fancy). Not that it matters. If it was considered "girly" or "faggy" to roast a chicken I'd still do it.

If you don't eat meat or eggs or milk, that's fine. I don't eat pizza with pineapple on it. The idea of one person insulting or harassing another based on what they eat is moronic as far as I'm concerned.

I don't care if Ingrid Newkirk places animals on the same level as people. I also don't care that her organization uses the display of tits and ass to get attention. In fact, I enjoy some of the pictures since I enjoy looking at naked women. What annoys me is the trolling disguised as guerilla street theater. They run the tits and ass photos to piss off feminists and fundies. They run the piece by a guy who thinks chicken farms are equal to Auschwitz in order to piss off Jews. They've run other racist crap and acted like some of the world's most obnoxious assholes. They are nothing but attention whores and they can fuck right off.

mrblimp, I wouldn't dismiss the concerns of people who can't go vegan because of dietary concerns. Like BornSlippy said, not everyone has access to the alternative foods. I know quite a few people with specific food allergies/intolerances (often more than one) and it can be very difficult finding good food to meet their nutritional requirements. Often, food they can eat is been contaminated with the substance they're allergic to (eg. peanuts, soy, gluten - speaking of which, what are soy allergic coeliacs going to do with seitan?). Making more restrictions on top of those is really not as simple as it seems like you think it is. And we all live in or near the city, where there's the most access to the greatest variety of food!

"Being a ranting asshole does not win converts for your cause."

I don't think mr.blimp is a "ranting asshole"...despite whether or not you agree with im or not, at least he didn't call other people on this thread expletive names...I would define a "ranting asshole" as someone who throws curse words around at other people like you just did.

"I know I'm missing the point of this topic, but as a cat lover and breeder, I fully support PETA. In Fact, I just sold a beautiful Russian Blue. Without question, one of the most intelligent breed of cats."

I'm confused...so you breed and sell cats, and yet you support PETA? Considering that PETA thinks it's immoral for cats to even live in your home (let alone be bred and sold by humans) it seems like everything you're doing is contrary to PETA's views. lol...

Also, I read The Sexual Politics of Meat and I still disagree. I just don't really see anything more than a tenuous connection.

There's no doubt that a vegetarian/vegan diet can be very healthy for many people, and North Americans in general eat far too much meat, but I just don't see the inherent problem in eating meat. For the record, I was raised vegan but I began eating meat 10 years ago when I developed serious health problems as a result of my vegan diet. I balanced my diet very carefully (and my doctor agreed), but my body just wasn't getting the nutrients it needed.

Many so-called feminists who strive to reduce the suffering of women, for instance, still go to McDonalds and ignore the suffering of animals at their expense.
...

Um.

You don't have to be involved with animals rights to be a feminist.

How about this for a radical solution: all women who wish to reduce the suffering of other women due to pornography, for example, should work to also reduce the suffering of animals, and perhaps the environment, by not eating meat or consuming dairy products.
I don't think there's anything unethical or immoral about eating meat. So, how about not. Not for this feminist anyway.

PETA irrevocably lost me years ago when I tried to support them and they kept sending me pictures of tortured animals in unmarked envelopes. I actually wrote a long letter begging them to stop sending me the animal torture photos... I was already a supporter, they didn't need to sell me on the cause. I received more photos of animals being tortured instead.

And so I moved on to support other animal causes instead and made sure that PETA did not have my address when I moved. The organization's early tactics alienated me so much that there is, quite literally, nothing they could do to regain my support. They aren't the only animal rights organization. My support goes elsewhere.

It seems funny to me that at some point they realized that they had alienated people like me and changed their campaigns, but instead of seeking to get back their core supporters they opted try to replace us with 14 year old boys.

Good luck with that PETA. I don't miss the letters.

I'm hesitant to argue PETA is bad BECAUSE they sexualize women in their imagery. I have other problems with PETA as an organization, and often the context of how they sexualize women is problematic, but arguing sexualization = BAD throws a number of feminist, sex positive, organizations under the bus. Feministing is friendly with groups like Big Moves which advertises and displays women's bodies in a sexual way, but in the context of size acceptance and body positivity. Essentialist arguments that ignore the context of an act aren't helpful in arguments against oppression. I would love to see more posts on here focus on discussion of exploitative sexuality vs. positive and subversive sexuality. It's natural to want a clear yes/no, good/bad categorization to make sure you're on the right side of an argument but it's a lot more complex than that.

ahhh the ole' bait em with a naked female and switch to the slaughterhouse films routine!
hahah- WOW.

I was a vegetarian (much of the time vegan) for 20 years. I have not ever been a fan of PETA. I think they insult the intelligence of their audience repeatedly. This bait and switch tactic is actually one of the less offensive of theirs.

I was able to do the research that led to my strict vegan diet and lifestyle (I'm not veg anymore) at age 14 without any help from PETA. I always felt they gave veg's a bad name and made people more staunchly defend their meat eating habits. While I was a veg, I can't count how many people-
room mates, boy friends, people in my theater business, etc.
became veg. because I set an example and I can cook.

If you really want to convert people, cook some good tasting food and bring it to the potluck.
Lecturing, showing repulsive video's and bait and switch tactics are not nearly as effective.
became

Peta gives a whole other meaning to "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

@Mr blimp and the other "we're vegans and if you're not you're an evil meat eater" people:

I was in Covent Garden in London some years back. I saw a nice young woman at the PETA table (they had one regularly out there at the time -- 2001?)

Anyhow, she had all the pictures of cute animals getting tortured in medical experiments. And we got to talking. And I asked if she eschewed all animal products. She said yes. I asked if she realized she ate animals all the time whenever she drank water (there are small crustaceans called copepods that routinely live in the water we drink, they are harmless and you can't get rid of them without distilling the water. Going to a fresh stream won't help -- they are there anyway).

She said no, but that since they were microscopic it didn't matter. Fair enough.

Then I asked her if she'd ever been to a place where people couldn't grow vegetables. Like the Arctic, for instance. She said as a matter of fact she had. Wow, I thought, maybe she wasn't as doctrinaire as I thought. She said she had lived for a few weeks in an Inuit village.

"But we had to bring our own vegan food. We couldn't eat theirs."

My jaw dropped. I come from a culture that understands dietary restrictions, sure. (Kosher ain't always easy either). So I could dig that someone might have problems eating certain things.

But I also know that if I went to someone's house and brought my own food to dinner, that's deeply insulting. It's taking her privilege and throwing it in the face of people who eat whale meat because crops don't grow in the tundra and a single whale can feed a village for a month or more -- plus the fuel and building material.

"Weren't you willing to save the packing weiight and just join them?" I asked. "I mean, you could have had some fun there, no?"

"Well, I can't stop being a vegan just because other people aren't as far along, though I understand they can't grow vegetables there."

Ah, the poor benighted natives! If only they wre as morally advanced.

This is why I am not a vegan, and why I see it as an extension of an unhealthy obsession with diets and food that pervades American culture especially. No, you won't be immortal by being a vegan, anymore than being an ascetic will get you immortality with God. It is the same impulse -- reach holiness through some kind of self-denial.

In this case it's often couched in the language of health, though often the facts are so far off it's ridiculous. (Cows are not constantly pregnant, for instance. They are bred to "overproduce" milk and if they aren't milked they get udder infections).

But too many vegans I meet take all the joy out of eating, to say nothing of having zero respect for other cultures and no understanding of their relation to food.

Outrage over PETA is an amateur pro-feminist move. There are tremendous and highly important intersections between ending oppression for women and the ethic of care regarding animal rights. It is a pity more people do not see it. Do yourselves a favor, cut the crap and drastically reduce your consumption of meat and dairy. It would do more for the environment, among other things, than everyone in this country getting a stupid Prius. But, yes, I know, you like your bacon, you like your ribeye. Oh, yes, and other animals, they eat meat too! How about that? Those are all perfectly "sound" and "unselfish" arguments! You defend your meat like a two year old defends, I don't know, cookies! Pathetic.

Ah, shaun, as long as you're going to draw parallels between women and animals, I might suggest that a vegan will not win allies by insulting meat eaters just like feminists will not will allies by insulting men.

"You're stupid and pathetic and immature! So join my cause!"

Yeah...I don't think so.

"win allies" not "will allies." frackin' typos.

Eating meat is not pathetic and immature, it's the reasons people give to defend its consumption. They don't make much sense in 2008 and people get very defensive about it. So, they make me the vegan or vegetarian look like an activist lunatic. Yet, with issues of life or death, I have little patience for courtesy.

Peta is but following a history of sensationalist kind of marketing in promoting vegetarianism/veganism. Henry Bergh, father of the American animal rights movement, did equally shocking tactics for his time. Still, I would have hoped we've evolved from Victorian times.

I'm a committed vegetarian and animal rights activist and yet I refuse to join or otherwise financial support Peta precisely because of its exploitation of women. I don't believe you should try to get people to stop eating meat by treating women like a piece of meat. I've written in more detail on this here.

Ingrid Newkirk is on Time magazine's upcoming list of interviewees in its 10 Questions feature. All questions are reader-submitted. You can ask your own question of Newkirk here.

Lots of tween boys love masturbating to PETA posters of hot naked women. True story.

I really wanted to scream when I read the phrase "privileged speciesism."

Well, no shit. Manipulating our environment (including other species) is what makes us human.

Does that give us the right to abuse animals before we eat them? No, I don't think that's moral. But I do believe that killing things in order to eat them is not inherently immoral.

Does recent technology and habits make meat production unsustainable and not environmentally friendly? Yup.

In the philosophical sense, I think purely vegan or vegetarian diets are more "unnatural" than diets that include animal products when you consider how humans evolved.

However, I certainly respect the dietary choices of vegans and veggies--whatever blows your hair back is how I look at it.

I'm a meat-eater. Why? Because I think meat tastes good and my body feels good when I include a good amount of protein in my diet. Yes, I know I can get protein from vegan sources, but it's not as effective (for my body at least) as eating animal sources.

But I try to be an "enlightened" omnivore. I eat less meat than the "traditional" American diet. I try to buy humane and sustainable animal products. I don't buy them all the time--whether it's cost or convenience that hinders me--but I think being aware of these issues is at least a step in the right direction.

@ Jess

As someone who has tabled before, it's impossible to have a full, real discussion about the kind of topics you raised. If you have tabled or canvassed before, you probably know what I'm talking about. Having a discussion here even is probably impossible because there's just so much to say.

In a very condensed response, veganism is not about moral purity. It is impossible to live as a pure vegan because animal products are everywhere - in our tires, in paper, in ink, etc. However, one can reasonably and significantly reduce their consumption of animals by living and eating vegan.

I find your point about native communities very interesting. I'm currently studying environmental history and learning a lot about how humans have, historically and currently, been poor environmental stewards and how hunting has actually triggered ecological crisis and collapse. Though I'm sure it is unpopular to argue here, I believe people that live in the arctic shouldn't live where they are. It's unsustainable for them. We weren't meant to live there. Anyway, like I said, this is a huge topic that cannot possibly be done justice in just a paragraph, but you might want to check out this fascinating book called Collapse by Jared Diamond.

I always get irritated when posts about PETA turn into yelling back & forth between veg*ns & meat eaters about who's "more feminist" and who's ideology is "smarter".

It's not accomplishing anything. Are there parallels between the oppression of animals and that of women?- YES. Are you automatically not a feminist if you don't see it that way?- Or if you do get it but still eat meat-NO.Haven't we learned yet that there are different kinds of feminism and that we have to learn to respect other people's interpretation?!

The thing is, PETA does a lot worse for their cause than just use degrading advertising. PETA members have been responsible for arson, assault, harassment and threats (they famously have threatened Ted Nugent that they would murder his children if he didn't stop hunting) and they EUTHANZIE ANIMALS- something they're supposedly against. They are a bunch of hypocrites and they are dangerous. Even as a feminist and a vegetarian, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could continue supporting PETA knowing the truth about their actions.

And if you're reaction to PETA as a feminist is to say "Fuck all veg*ns!" than you're being an asshole.
If you're reaction to non-veg*n feminists as a PETA support is "Fuck all meat-eaters!" than you're being an asshole.

Some people need to grow up and learn to see grey. That's the last I'll say on the issue.

Obviously this is a very emotional topic for everyone. What I have tried to convey in my previous posts is that it is inconsistent to believe feminist theories of oppression, and then ignore animal oppression. I did not declare unto the world that you must be a perfect vegan. BTW, vegans typically don't care about microscopic crustaceans in their water, because they can't do anything about - further, there is no scientific, or otherwise, reason to believe microscopic 'crustaceans' are capable of suffering.

I mean to claim that if you are against oppression in any form, you should TRY to not eat animal products. For most everyone, it is achievable to be vegan. I am not a ranting asshole, and save for my disdain for people who refuse to try, I have not condemned anyone here for not being vegan, just pointed out inconsistencies.

It is not difficult to cook vegetables, and it is not hard to figure out that most nutrition education in america is unknowingly supplied by the Beef and Dairy industries (go look at their websites and they will have links to which school networks they supply - they are proud to provide this information to the public. Gee, I wonder why?). They perpetuate the myth that meat and dairy is necessary for a healthy diet. There are many reasons people eat meat: 1: they think it is nutritionally necessary, but most of the time it is not. I suppose its possible that a person could be unhealthy on a vegan diet, but more people per capita are healthier on a vegan diet than on an omnivore diet. Someone mentioned B12 - it can be synthesized, or you can eat organic. It comes from bacteria that float around in the atmosphere, they settle and land on the ground, including on vegetables. You are more likely to get b12 if you eat organic produce. Pesticides kill B12. It is not expensive to by B12 dots. If you are actually concerned about the cost of supplements, try instead eating produce that provides those nutrients. Brocolli has a lot of vitamin C and iron, for example, and it does not have the excess protein to push out the nutrients you would consume. Leafy greens, save iceburg, provide many nutrients and a lot of calcium - where do you suppose cows get their calcium from? Yes, the plants they eat. I myself have been a vegan for over a year now, I eat a varied diet and have not taken any supplements (because they are largely bogus, and many foods are fortified with vitamins and minerals of many types), and my doctor check-ups say that I am a normal, healthy, and fit human being. Your actual health concerns are marginalized by your USDA food pyramid, which largely bases the food pyramid on what is being produced agriculturally, not by what is healthy for you. 2. They believe it tastes good - but if you can cook at all without meat, which isn't hard, you will find that many plant-based dishes taste delicious. Humans are adaptable, taste is relative from person to person, and taste hardly accounts for the suffering that went into your 'delicious' meal. 3. An issue of availability or because of socializing. It's 'manly to eat meat' and such nonsense. Meat is largely available and harder to get veges. Well, get together with your community and ask your grocery store to carry more plant products. Someone said seitan was a privileged vegan food. Lol, I laugh at this. Anyone can make their own seitan. Especially those of you accessing this page. Mix vital wheat gluten with water. Cook it if you want. Bake, saute, crock-pot, whatever. Smother it in sauces or marinate it. I myself like to make seitan 'buffalo wings'. All I do is make seitan, as I just described, and smother it with 'buffalo' sauce. Wheat gluten is common. It is carried in most mainstream grocery stores, is cheaper than meat, and it takes little to no effert. TADA! Anyway, you don't have to eat soy products or wheat products to be a healthy, happy person. Research what is available in your area, and then vary your diet. Try, at least.

"In the philosophical sense, I think purely vegan or vegetarian diets are more "unnatural" than diets that include animal products when you consider how humans evolved."

You must know very little about philosophy. Further, you must have a very strict definition of 'natural'. If a species is capable of something, it is 'natural'. Humans evolved a capacity to be vegan, so it is 'natural' to be vegan, too. But this is not a good reason to be a vegan or an omnivore. As far as philosophy... philosophers probably would deny that ethics should be modeled after nature. If we did, it would be OK to rape people, kill people, etc., because that's how we evolved, and other animals do it and its only natural. Natural vs. unnatural and an appeal to evolution is probably one of the single worst ways to model human ethics and behavior.

A philosophical argument, if you will.

1. causing gratuitous suffering is wrong;
2. The animals that humans eat have interests and can suffer, so causing these animals gratuitous suffering is wrong;
3. eating animal products is largely unnecessary in civilization for human happiness, health, and survival;
4. so eating animal products while plant products are available causes gratuitous suffering and is wrong.

Take it as you will, but its hard to refute. Anyway, I won't hate you if you think I'm a nut.

Hey, everyone, look at this:
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/10/uber-cool_ads_f.php

Some PETA ads from Germany. Some contain male nudity, and some are pictures of women of colour. I mean, it's a step in the right direction, right?

"Though I'm sure it is unpopular to argue here, I believe people that live in the arctic shouldn't live where they are. It's unsustainable for them. We weren't meant to live there."

theminutepast,

This is a pretty astounding (and condescending) assertion. As a native of the Arctic, I *am* insulted and really curious as to why you believe this - people have been living in the Arctic regions for 10,000 years.

(I've read Collapse, and Diamond's Greenland theory is not universally accepted, btw.)

As one of the "arguments" Ann linked to as a supposed defense of "the lowest-common-denominator advertising tactic...to put a big ol’ pair of disembodied boobs front and center," I want to clarify that my actual argument was much more nuanced than this.

While I do point out that "sex sells," that's only one part of a much larger post; in fact, I go on to argue that:

1) Using sex to "sell" your message isn't necessarily sexist, though it certainly can be done in a sexist manner;

2) PETA's "Breast is Best" campaign is not sexist, for reasons I outline in the post; and

3) Feminists who all but ignore animal welfare issues unless it's to rip into PETA for their sexism, whether real or imagined, are in fact part of the problem.

I also go on to describe some PETA campaigns that I DO find sexist, such as the bulk of their celebrity print campaigns.

And while I can't speak for Debbie Rasmussen @ Bitch, I suspect that her argument wasn't quite that "simplistic," either.

But, you know, thanks for making me into a caricature.

view PETA now as afeminist. not anti, not pro-feminist. Understand that many people may view repeated nudity as denigrating women. But as I watched the link, I will admit my mind was thinking, SHOW ME DEM TIITES. And I felt obliged to listen to what she was saying after viewing said mammaries. After seeing them (titties) I finished out of a sense of obligation. Aside from this, my GF is anti KFC and haven’t had a delicious chicken tender with all the herbs and spices (what are they?!?!). It makes me wonder if my beloved Hormel (makers of my bacon, sausage and corned beef hash) are justifiable. I personally think that without pressuring, threatening, or forcing their models you cannot really call it exploitation. I might be making a grammarian distinction, but convincing women to willing use their bodies to garner the attention of men isn't exploitation, its marketing.

@the minutepast

I don't believe in creating unnecessary suffering. Kosher slaughter practices are actually designed to mitigate against it. You won't find a factory farm that's kosher or halal.

That said, you should understand that Diamond's book points out that the Greenlanders didn't make it because they wouldn't eat like the Inuits and refused to learn how the Inuits survived. They wanted to be Europeans. But Greenland wasn't and isn't like Europe. Iceland is another interesting case. There are no trees on Iceland anymore. They didn't disappear on their own. But the Icelanders learned to be very careful environmental stewards.

Diamond's hypothesis may be wrong, but the evidence he provides form the middens is pretty compelling that the problem was both environmental and cultural. Any environment has a certain carrying capacity. The Inuits did fine for thousands of years, after all, right down the lane from the Greenlanders, as it were.

In marginal environments-- such as the Arctic or the deserts -- large-scale agriculture is a really bad idea. I believe in locally-grown food. But that means that there's going to be some animal matter in there in some cases unless you live in the tropics or places where it never snows. And it means that people in some areas aren't going to be able to be vegans without a big technological investment.

Why? Because the veggies that are native to many areas won't by themselves provide enough of the myriad of things we need. They just won't. If they did then you'd see a lot more 'vegan' diets in hunter-gathering societies from temperate climates, because it's a heck of a lot easier to pick a plant than to hunt down a deer or buffalo. Given the choice people will always go for the food that is easy to get -- it's one reason agriculture was invented in the first place. It is also why meat was historically a rare and prized item in many diets until the 20th century -- your great grandparents (in the United States) ate big meat meals twice a month, if that. Cows and herbivores have several stomachs to get all that they need from eating grasses. We can't do that.

Does that mean I think the modern American diet is a good one? No. I think the meat/fat intake is far too high. I think the USDA has to get a new mission, and that the whole food pyramid thing is a frankenstein's monster of competing interests more than a guide to nutrition. PETAns and vegans, please read the paragraph again.

But I also recognize that there are a lot of supplements that have to go into purely vegetable diets to make them work properly (fortifying foods with vitamins does not happen by magic). Anyone over 50 here might remember the 'goiter belt' and why we iodize salt nowadays. If you eat no fish and have no other source of iodine, you get goiter really bad. Look at the pictures.

On top of that, there are animal products that are more sustainable than their vegetable/artificial counterparts. Take your shoes. If they aren't made of leather they are made of all kinds of plastics which are environmentally far worse than using an animal skin. And there simply isn't a viable vegetable-based alternative, especially if you live where there is snow. There is a reason people decided to use wool in cold climates. It isn't because they were evil sadists. It's because it works.

PETA doesn't think out these issues tho. They treat animal experiments as though a bunch of scientists went around saying "mwah ha ha I will kill a puppy today!" I don't see any of them volunteering for medical experiments or offering any other reasonable way to test certain drugs. (And no, computer simulations don't cut it because the simulation only has in it what you know already, not what you don't know. Don't you think most scientists would do it if it worked? It would be a whole lot easier). In fact, most PETAns I have met (yes, there are exceptions) don't have the slightest understanding of science at all. None. It's frickin' scary.

Vegans don't often think this stuff through well either. And it irritates the hell out of me. i don't think it's an accident BTW that most every vegan i meet is a white upper-middle class kid. Not all of them, but a lot of them. They can afford it. And they don't think through the implications of that. It makes me scream.

I'd like to see a PETAn go to a Lakota settlement and tell those folks that it was all so unnecessary, they caused so much suffering to the buffalo, and it was evil. See if they get out with their legs unbroken. Or send them to someplace where the choices are a little more limited.

then there's the issue of domestic animals. They are domestic animals for a reason. They are bred for their 'jobs' -- there is no such thing as a wild guernsey cow. They would all die without us. Same for most cats and dogs. (Their brains are actually smaller than their wild cousins, the result of 10,000 years of selective breeding).

So what do we do? Kill em all? Keep a population at the same level? Cull them gradually? And what of the milking that would still need to be done (unless you want to see Bessie die a painful death)? A lot of PETAns never consider any of this stuff. It's a poorly thought-through philosophy, and I have zero tolerance for poorly thought through, because it leads to terrible policy.

Or dogs. We could actually reduce our use of land tremendously and have more sustainable diets if Americans ate dogs. It would solve a lot of other problems as well -- reducing unnecessary suffering of stray animals.

But no. PETAns go off on how evil anyone who ever ate a burger is, or how anyone in the biosciences plans to make a five-assed monkey and loves to watch particularly cute photogenic animals die. Screw 'em. I'll base my policy considerations on something a little better prepared, thanks.

"But I also recognize that there are a lot of supplements that have to go into purely vegetable diets to make them work properly (fortifying foods with vitamins does not happen by magic). Anyone over 50 here might remember the 'goiter belt' and why we iodize salt nowadays. If you eat no fish and have no other source of iodine, you get goiter really bad. Look at the pictures."

seaweed has iodine in it.

"On top of that, there are animal products that are more sustainable than their vegetable/artificial counterparts. Take your shoes. If they aren't made of leather they are made of all kinds of plastics which are environmentally far worse than using an animal skin. And there simply isn't a viable vegetable-based alternative, especially if you live where there is snow. There is a reason people decided to use wool in cold climates. It isn't because they were evil sadists. It's because it works."

Hemp is a more viable alternative for most people as far as clothes and shoes. Use recycled tires. If companies would take some more responsibility, synthetics would be more sustainable, because often times they can be reused and recycled. I doubt you realize how many animals it takes to make leather products, and I doubt you have really considered how many resources go into raising animals for leather.

"i don't think it's an accident BTW that most every vegan i meet is a white upper-middle class kid"

Perhaps that's the age group you associate with? IDK. Regardless, most vegans I know are well into their 40's and 50's. Go figure. You act as though its a fad diet. Somehow I doubt that a diet that's been around for hundreds of years is only going to consist of 20 somethings.

"then there's the issue of domestic animals. They are domestic animals for a reason. They are bred for their 'jobs' -- there is no such thing as a wild guernsey cow. They would all die without us. Same for most cats and dogs. (Their brains are actually smaller than their wild cousins, the result of 10,000 years of selective breeding)."

Here's an idea, then. Don't breed anymore of them, while we take care of the remaining ones.

"Or dogs. We could actually reduce our use of land tremendously and have more sustainable diets if Americans ate dogs. It would solve a lot of other problems as well -- reducing unnecessary suffering of stray animals."

Wow, I'd think the dogs would disagree that eating them prevents them from suffering. While this would maybe decrease land use, it does not decrease exploitation, or suffering in the dogs. Here's a better idea - use the land that we raise our livestock with and raise plants for people to eat. Eating dogs still wouldn't be nearly as sustainable as eating plant-based diets.

"And what of the milking that would still need to be done (unless you want to see Bessie die a painful death)?"

You do realize that to lactate, a female must be pregnant or have given birth? How about we stop impregnating them?

"I'll base my policy considerations on something a little better prepared, thanks."

Wow, most of what you said after the first half of your statement was illogical. But hey, irrationality is preparedness, right?

As for people with food issues... somehow, I imagine you can adapt. The people who claim that they are dependent upon eating animal products... slave owners used to claim that their lives depended on having their slaves. Allergic to tofu?...
I doubt the animals that you eat are concerned that people's eating preferences and disorders makes it hard to want to give up meat...I seriously doubt it is impossible to give up meat and other animal products for ANYONE.
Wow, I didn't realize that I just wasn't trying hard enough! Thanks! I'll tell my nutritionist, psychiatrist, and psychologist this, they'll be pleased. I'll let the people in group know too, I'm sure they'll be glad to know that after multiple relapses, heart damage, rotting teeth, lost hair, and permanent muscle damage that they just weren't trying hard enough to save the chickens. And it's really pleasant to know that a person with a DISEASE is akin to a slave owner. Yes, I own animal slaves because I have a psychological disorder! Sweeet, I hope this metaphorical chicken can sweep my floors too.
Unfortunately, the animals you eat and oppress disagree. Its not a personal thing on many levels. You are eating another being with interests of its own. The meat and dairy industries in the U.S. are subsidized with taxes - from other persons. The meat industry, as another person pointed out earlier, oppresses women and migrant workers who work for them. I feel sympathy for people who have eating problems, but not at the expense of other sentient beings who have interests in not being oppressed, marginalized, eaten, tortured, etc. There is hardly anything personal about diet. Eating meat oppresses people and other animals. No level of inconvenience excuses this stuff.
So what's your suggestion? You know me so well, please help me be a better person. WHen I cut back one item in my diet, it tends to spiral out of control. For me, it started with red meat and pork, then no chicken and fish, then no honey, milk, cheese, or eggs. Then it was nothing that touched meat. And I lost a lot of weight and people treated me like I was a model. And I was doing so good for the environment that I decided to not eat anything that was mass produced or bleached. No more bread or cakes. At my lowest, I was eating nothing but brown rice at dinner, carrot sticks throughout the day, watered down juice, and ice cubes if I needed filling. I was 90 lbs and 5'6" at age 17, was cold all the time and was losing my hair. But you know what's best for me, and if my EXISTENCE is oppressing minorities, chickens, and cows, maybe it would just be better if I died?
Veganism didn't cause my eating disorder, but I know myself and I know that I have the kind of personality that's prone to micromanagement.
Aren't you already saying "fuck you" to oppression, feminism, and vegetarianism by eating meat?
Again, I thought I was just trying to live as healthy a life as I can. But apparently I'm offending everyone, but it's a comfort to know I'll never, ever be offensive as you. Why don't you rag on a diabetic for using insulin that comes from pigs?

It's not just a matter of being naked, that nakedness is So Bad--of course it's not.

The problem is the creepy, grimy sexualized way that PETA USES the nakedness of women (and it is ALWAYS women) I'm sorry, cramming sexed-up women with nothing but high heels on into little cages? That's the best you can do to get people to pay attention to you cause?

Same exact problem with Peta as there is with American Apparel.

And citing your "feminist cred" doesn't make you incapable of being sexist. Just like saying "but i have 3 black friends" doesn't make you incapable of being racist.

I don't think I'm picking up on mr-blip linking eating disorders to people who aren't trying hard enough...
Although I've never suffered from an eating disorder, I can say that I had a disfunctional relationship with food for a very long time. After I went vegan, that stopped. Because I didn't do it to loose weight, and because the focus of eating moved from being about body image to being about a cause, I can finally eat without guilt, and without feeling like my worth is determined by how many calories I consume. I'm not saying that everyone would have this experience, I'm just saying that their is a big difference between cutting something out of your diet because you hate yourself and cutting something out because you love animals or hate oppression in all forms, no matter who the victim is. Eating becomes about what you are doing right rather than what you are doing wrong.

M0xieHart. If you read my posts carefully, and you actually believe that you are trying your best, then my acknowledgment that an effort was all that was necessary to be morally consistent should have been recognized. So, if I offended you early on and you are feeling insulted, then I apologize.

mr.blimp, I actually agree with a lot of what you have to say, I know this is not going to make me very popular here...But I'll come out and say what I think despite this.

I've have also had these conversations with many meat eaters that I know personally (most of my friends and family are meat eaters) and the discussions always seem to follow the same lines. What you say is true about eating a veggie based diet being more sustainable, healthier etc. It is correct that vegans as a group are much healthier than meat eaters...and raising an animal causes much more pollution than raising plants. So, except in rare cases (because very few people will suffer health-wise with vegetarian diets- again compare the health of vegans and look at the health of meat eaters- thus the majority of people would actually BENEFIT from a veggie based diet)...so it's always interesting to me when meat eaters argue that veganism isn't "healthy" or "natural". Just to point this out there's also plenty of native diets and traditional diets that are plant based and these populations survive just fine...so I don't buy the whole "it's not natural" or "it's not healthy"...there's plenty of data on it, and what it boils down to is that vegetarians/vegans as a whole are much healthier than meat eaters.

One thing I'm sure you are aware of is that the meat/factory farming industry has done an extremely good job of separating us from our food. So most people don't think twice about things like how their chicken was tortured or how that farm polluted that river so much that it is now destroying the ecosystem that depended on said river, or all the human rights violations that occurred to kill and package that container of sirloin. When most people bite into a burger, they don't think about all that stuff...they think "yummy!"...I realize that food can be a very personal issue with some people...But, what I try to point out to the people I talk to, is that at some point, given the current state of the world, with human-rights and environmental issues, we are going to have to face the moral and ethical implications of what we choose to consume...especially given that we have become a "nation of consumers" and are thus responsible for much of these problems.

So, you are right that the beef industry puts out a lot of propaganda on meat eating and diets. You are correct that it's included in our food pyramid and in our schools. So in a sense, we are brought up already indoctrinated into the idea that we must eat meat...and not only must we eat meat...but the current belief is that we must eat meat every single day.

Again, I don't want to go to much further with this subject, because I already know I'm going to make more enemies than friends. So I certainly understand how you feel that in many instances vegans/vegetarians are colored as a "fringe-crazy group". However, in my experience people come to veganism/vegetarianism out of their own free will, and it takes a lot of understanding of the need for this type of diet and the consequences of a meat-based diet, to get into it. Not only the personal health consequences of a meat-based diet, but the consequences of an entire exploding population on a meat-based diet. I personally (and most environmental groups have recognized this) do not believe that everyone on this planet can AFFORD to eat as we currently do, given the state of our fragile environment and growing population. There simply will not be enough land to raise that many animals. It's a difficult thing for most people to recognize...especially in this country where we put so much more value on the "individual" than on the "commons". But again, it's up to others to realize this...and as far as that goes, I'm pretty cynical.

Also to those who said they don't like it whenever a Peta post is turned into a veggie vs. meat thing...yeah, I also agree with that...So I won't make any more posts on the issue.

Also, I wanted to ask if anyone has any comments about the info/ideas/opinions I provided on the whole "naked protesting" thing. Just wondering 'cause I don't think anyone has responded to it thus far.

"Why don't you rag on a diabetic for using insulin that comes from pigs?"

First of all there is such think as insulin made from vegetable sources.

With most of the products that we use there exists a non-animal alternative. However, even if there is not one available, or a person is using an animal-based product simply because they want to...I have never "ragged" nor would I ever "rag" on those people. I am rather insulted that you would characterize people who choose not to use animal products for themselves, as people who would harass others who do so. I don't recall anywhere in this thread, anyone who has "ragged" on someone for using animal based medicine. Furthermore, I have never met any vegans or vegetarians who ever would "rag" on someone because they needed life threatening medicine. I'm sorry, but your implication that we would do this is insulting.

Well, meeneecat, I find it insulting to be compared to a slaved-owner for eating meat when I have a legitimate disease. If you scroll up, you'll find mrblimp's post asserting that, among other things. I just wish that radical vegans would acknowledge that there are loads of people with different health issues that, unless you're a doctor too, you may not actually understand. Get it? I won't die if I stop eating meat, but I will die if I stop eating altogether, and I know I can't be trusted to cut items out of my diet. There are many people like me and we deserve the respect for our dietary choices that you would wish shown for yours.

Moxiehart: "There are many people like me and we deserve the respect for our dietary choices that you would wish shown for yours."

I actually was sorry that I had offended you, but you just don't let up on your, "I have an eating disorder in spite of my unethcial diet, so I am excused." B.S. Yes, you have a problem. So yes, I AM asserting to compare you to a slave owner. Even worse. You eat your slaves. You exploit, marginalize, objectify, and commodify. And then, "its ok", because you have a disease. I can feel sorry for you having a disease, but I feel more sorry for the animals you eat. The biggest difference here is in the species that you enslave. You have decided not to enslave humans, just other animals. I do NOT respect this kind of behavior even in a disease. Good job. I should respect that? Wow. You really just don't get it. Regardless of your disease, creatures with interests don't appreciate being treated the way you treat them when you eat them. I will never respect your dietary choice to continue to oppress animals, and I doubt that anybody can think oppression of animals is wrong and respect your (you, Moxiehart, not people who actually try not to oppress animals) diet, despite your disease, without being cognitively dissonant. Good day to you. You are way to emotionally attached to your diet to have a pragmatic conversation on this thread.

I think I'm in love! Jess, one more post like that one, filled with sound logic and unassailable facts, written in such a concise manner and I'm going to ask you to marry me!

One reason so much land is devoted to livestock in Texas and some other states is that the soil is very poor and in many places, highly acidic. So it's not a realistic option to just stop raising cows or sheep and start growing carrots or lettuce or apples. I'm sure the same holds true for Australia, large parts of Africa and Asia, too. Ruminants have a digestive tract that turns inedible plant matter (inedible to humans) into edible meat. Pigs turn garbage into meat.

Feed lots are a very recent development and are mostly the result of government subsidies to corn growers, who are then compelled to try to unload their crops in any way they can (this has changed somewhat thanks to bio-fuels). If feed lots were all shut down, livestock would simply be fed grass, hay and chaff from other food crops (grape stems, apple cores, banana peels, etc).

"One reason so much land is devoted to livestock in Texas and some other states is that the soil is very poor and in many places, highly acidic. So it's not a realistic option to just stop raising cows or sheep and start growing carrots or lettuce or apples."

The soil is poor and highly acidic in large part due to raising livestock, and all the hazardous waste that comes from it. Its an industry with industrial waste. Wow. Of course its not viable to start growing apples and oranges on the soil right away, but it needs time to heal, and it won't heal unless we stop using the land for livestock.

Mrblimp I don't think you've at all understood what Moxiehart has been trying to say. You're first post to her and your last have been incredibly rude and hurtful towards anywone struggling with an eating disorder. You obviously don't understand how eating disorders work and could care less because to you all that matters is that she's eating animals. So even though she's said she's tried to stop it has been hazardous to her health. But I guess that doesn't matter either.

And I think one big thing missing from this whole discussion is the issue of class. In order to live a vegan lifestyle do you know what you need? Money. All these substitutes everyone is talking about are not easily accesible and are not cheap. Maybe if some of the self-righteous posters on here stepped down from their shelf of priviledge they could see that it's not so easy for some people.

Thank you for your kind response, llevinso.
I don't think I have ever read anything as hurtful or nasty directed to me as the posts by mr blimp, except maybe when Elaine Vignault told me that I was secretly happy that my cat died. It is absofuckinglutely true, mrblimp and his ilk really do care more about chickens and cows than human beings. I love animals, give a good percentage of my income and time to animal supporting charities, but I disagree with him and I'm a slaveowner. I'd rather be a slaveowner than like that. What are you going to do now, mr? Douse me in red paint for wearing fur--oh wait, I wear vegan sneakers and don't own any leather, let alone fur. Want to burn the SUV I don't own or bomb the science lab that makes my medicine? This has reached the level of when Elaine said she'd rather spend time with a cow than a retarded person and I can't engage with you anymore. All I can say is that I recomend reading Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters. Of all the books I've read about eating disorders, this captured the issues perfectly. I wish you compassion to your fellow species.

You have no idea what you're talking about! The soil has been the way it is for millions of years -ever since the ocean that used to cover the central part of N. America dried up. There is very little soil in the region and what soil there is has so much alkali in it that the only way to counter it is with massive amounts of peat moss, charcoal and cowshit. The high alkaline content is the result of little rainfall and livestock are not the cause of that, since the arid climate was around for millions of years before any animal was ever domesticated -before there were human beings, in fact.

"I find it insulting to be compared to a slaved-owner for eating meat when I have a legitimate disease. If you scroll up, you'll find mrblimp's post asserting that, among other things. I just wish that radical vegans would acknowledge that there are loads of people with different health issues that, unless you're a doctor too, you may not actually understand."

Okay, I said I wouldn't write about this anymore, but I do want to respond to MoxieHart.

I understood that comment as mrblimp pointing out the fact that many ideas that have been popular in the past, later turn out to be ruled against and very unpopular in the future. I don't think that mrblimp sees you as a racist, also I didn't see him ridiculing you for having a disease. What I see him responding to is how you used the "radical vegan" stereotype - hence I think mrblimp is trying to point out that in the past, people who have had ideas that are perceived as "radical" by the majority of the population, later turn out to be ideas that make the most sense and end up displacing the old ones. Perhaps it could have been said a little more politely, without using the reference to slave-owners, but I don't think he was outright calling you a racist, or akin to someone who would own slaves. Also, I don't want so speak for mrblimp, but this is what I gather from his comment.

Another point: I have never asserted, either, in any of my posts that you are a racist for not being vegetarian. Nor have I ever "ragged" on anyone for having a health problem or using animal based medicine. If you read my last post re insulin, I think that you will see I articulated that point clearly. I believe I have been polite and civil, but again, I am still insulted that you use the phrase "radical vegans" and continue to say things like we don't care about other people's health. All I pointed out was that vegetarians as a group are healthier than meat-eaters as a group, and thus the majority of meat-eaters would benefit from a veggie diet. However, notice I said "the majority of people" and not specifically "you" or "all people", because I understand - as most vegetarians do, that there are a some people who will NOT benefit from a vegetarian diet.

One other thing, There are lots of myths about vegetarians and vegetarianism, which is why I get upset about "radical vegan" and other stereotypes. There is a myth about vegetarians/vegans, that we all have smug, holier than thou, attitudes and that we are "crazy" "radicals". So obviously I'm offended that you are stereotyping by invoking the phrase "vegan radical". I understand what it's like to eat meat, because for most of my life, I was a meat eater. Also, I live with meat eaters, and most of my friends and family are meat eaters. However, now that I choose not to eat meat, I feel that I receive much more judgment and hear many more stereotypes for my diet being "weird", "unhealthy" "unnatural" and "extreme", than I ever heard when I was a meat-eater. Many people in this thread have used these exact types of words. I think one thing you need to keep in mind here is that meat-eating is considered the societal norm. And when anything or anyone is perceived to be outside the societal norm (i.e. different) they are going to get judged and stereotyped for it. So, please keep in mind that meat-eating is considered "normal", while vegetarianism is considered "not normal" or "weird". Thus, as non-meat-eaters we are often forced to defend our choices to others who call them "weird" "extreme" "unnatural" "unhealthy" etc. We usually bring up something like how we feel that we are "doing the right thing" by not supporting polluting factory farms, the torturing of animals, human-rights violations, being healthy etc., however, I find that this is often interpreted as "arrogance" and a "holier-than-thou" attitude. Just like many people who drive hybrid cars are stereotyped as "arrogant" "snobs". I'm sure there are some snobby vegetarians and snobby people who drive hybrids, just as there are snobby meat-eaters and snobby people who drive non-hybrid cars. The point is, that the invoking of stereotypes is unfair and insulting because 99% of vegetarians are not "radicals" "unnatural" "snobby" "uncaring of other people's health" "think meat-eaters are evil" etc.

However, I suggest that since you have invoked stereotypes with reference to vegetarians/vegans perhaps you should do some of your own research to try and better understand where some of these ideas are coming from. Please, understand that when vegetarians explain that they "feel they are doing the right thing" by not supporting factory farming, human rights violations, animal torture, etc...that this is not the same thing as calling you "evil" just because you eat meat. Just as when feminists point out the oppression that is present in the system of patriarchy, feminists are not calling men "evil" just because they represent part of this system of patriarchy. This article sums up in a nutshell why I don't eat meat, just as a starting point, but feel free to do your own google searches/talk to other vegetarians...(note: the article is called the "case against meat"...but by referencing this article I am not trying to "convert" anyone or insult their diet. It just so happens that despite the title, the article gives a lot of data/reasons that I agree with, as to why I personally choose not to eat meat-it...in no way is meant to be a case against anyone's personal choices here on this thread)
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142

Meeneecat, did you even read his last comment? It said:
So yes, I AM asserting to compare you to a slave owner. Even worse. You eat your slaves. You exploit, marginalize, objectify, and commodify. And then, "its ok", because you have a disease. I can feel sorry for you having a disease, but I feel more sorry for the animals you eat.
How can you defend something like that and how can you say that that's not radical? How can you say that every one of his posts haven't been smug and holier than thou? It's like some weird variation of Poe's Law--when you can't tell the parody from the real thing.
I suggest you reread my earlier posts. I *loved* vegetarianism, not so much veganism. If I could go back to that I would. I come from a family that hunts and has farmed and know the difference between a skilled marksperson killing a deer swiftly, using everything, and being grateful for the bounty, versus thousands of cows crowded into pens and being brutally slaughtered. And I'm definitely familiar with the attitudes that meat-eaters have towards vegetarians. When I visited the rural branch of my family at barbecues they'd hand me a bun with relish and snicker since I wouldn't partake in the ribs and chicken.
mrblimp's methods won't win converts. Science, logic, and kindness will. I am already converted mentally, maybe one day I'll be far along enough in my recovery that I can have a sane, veggie diet. But his attitude is shocking and astonishing, I wish he could talk with some of the people I've met in group. Kind young women, overachieving and obsessed with making the world better, with an unfortunate illness. Their lifestyle's different than his, but the comparison between slavery is NOT apt and unacceptable. Aside from that, it kind of makes light in slavery. Tell a slave that being a chicken is worse than their life.

You have no idea what you're talking about! The soil has been the way it is for millions of years -ever since the ocean that used to cover the central part of N. America dried up. There is very little soil in the region and what soil there is has so much alkali in it that the only way to counter it is with massive amounts of peat moss, charcoal and cowshit. The high alkaline content is the result of little rainfall and livestock are not the cause of that, since the arid climate was around for millions of years before any animal was ever domesticated -before there were human beings, in fact.

In response to another post, the only source of vitamin B12 that humans can utilize is animal foods (i.e, meat, milk, eggs) or from supplements. (For those who think otherwise, check the UK Vegan Society's website.)

As with many things in life, veganism can be a healthy lifestyle choice, but it does require a fair amount of research and knowledge.

Oh, no I didn't see that comment. And no I'm not defending that comment. I would never say anything like that.

And as I just read over that comment that I somehow missed, I would like people to know...as I said 99% of vegans/vegetarians are not rude snobby people. Because I would never call someone a racist, or a slave owner just because they eat-meat and until I met mrblimp, I, seriously, don't know of another vegan/vegetarian that would ever do that either. And yes, I would be pretty upset too. So, I made a HUGE mistake in my last post, by somehow managing to skip over this comment that invoked the whole "slave owner" thing. And thus the whole point of the other comments here where people got, rightly upset over this, and I was just scratching my head saying "where is that again" as I scan the comments and somehow miss that critical post. (okay, okay, I am supposed to wear glasses, and I never do, maybe I should start) So obviously, I don't agree with that previous comment of mrblimp. But I swear the majority of us are nice, non-snobby, caring people. *Feels silly*

One more thing I'm still curious about what people think...getting away from the whole vegetarian/meat thing that I think some people, and I agree with, wished Peta posts didn't always devolved into a this diet versus that diet (which I am guilty of)...Anyway...what do people think about the whole "naked protest" thing? The BBC report recent protests in Liberia and Kenya and says that "Stripping naked is a traditional form of protest amongst women in parts of Africa." I looked on the blogged linked from the Salon page and saw images of "naked protesters" practicing this form of protest in various parts of the world. In the U.S., I think the anti-war movement and pride parades, (specifically the dyke march) are examples which are well known. However the blog also shows women in Russia, Mexico, India, Eastern Europe, among other places etc. Reasons given on the site range from anti-bush/anti-war/anti-government, dyke pride, protesting beauty standards, environmentalism (anti-fur, factory farms, etc.), bicycle rallies, and so on.

It's interesting though because there are many pictures from Peta on the blog, and it's quite obvious that they have been utilizing the "naked protest" tactic. In these particular pictures, I saw mostly women in the Peta protests, but I also saw several men too. Another positive, is that not all the women fit the "traditional beauty standard" mold. In fact most all of them were your typical average woman. (however, this is in contrast to their print ads which all feature celebrities). Anyway, any thoughts on this? Are there people who think this demeaning/objectifying? or maybe liberating? I sort of gave my opinion before, that I tend to think political speech as different from commercial speech (i.e. Axe)...and thus I find the Axe ads offensive, while the Peta stuff doesn't bother me as much. This is just my initial reaction, I'm interested in what others think. (I know I keep asking this) Tell me! Tell me! Tell me!

It's cool, meeneecat. I've known loads of lovely vegans/vegetarians. My pediatrician, who strongly defended my right to be a veggie and helped formulate a plan with me and my mum, was vegetarian and she was awesome. It's just this highly vocal minority that see the issue as very black and white that drive me mad.
Frankly, I'd rather spend my activism fighting the environmental degredations of factory farming and the fast food businesses. I see those as the main problems, it takes huge amount of food to sustain these businesses that could be used to feed people. But I also support eating locally raised, hormone free, free range meat.
I could never, ever participate in a naked protest, but since nudity is such a huge taboo in U.S. culture, I think it's a really interesting way to draw attention to an issue. My parents became nudists when I was a teenager, and I think that's given me a really liberal attitude towards human bodies. I don't understand taboos against nudity, except possibly as a hygiene issue.

Agh, this is what I dislike so much about Peta - their vapid approach to animal rights. If you read the Peta2 boards, it's full of teenagers going "I'm a vegetarian cos that guy from Good Charlotte's a vegetarian and Good Charlotte are so cool!", with absolutely no substance behind it and no robust basis for their vegetarianism. Then in 6 months time when they're bored with whatever celebrity it is or it's no longer trendy they give it all up. Likewise with Peta's sexist ads - do they really think the people they're trying to attract with them are the critical thinking type? Anyone who is against fur cos they saw some naked picture of Pamela Anderson saying she's against fur has no real opinion on the subject (and this kind of man doen't take her seriously anyway). So it's a double-bind for Peta - firstly their approach is offensive, secondly it DOESN'T EVEN WORK.

You [particular] vegans who supposedly care about suffering sure don't seem to mind the suffering you are causing MoxieHart and anyone else who has ever had an eating disorder reading your comments. You shame other vegans with your vitriol.

Anorexia has the highest death rate of all of the psychological disorders and you would have the audacity to harass and possibly trigger people who are currently or have ever suffered from it? You aren't vegan because you care about suffering - you're vegan because you need something to lord over other people.

I'm going to throw in my story with Moxie. I was vegan (and not an asshole about it, either) when I was hit with the sudden onset of a brain disorder.

Getting me on medications that actually worked took about a year. I am just now starting to be able to function again. However, those medications had some serious effects on my appetite. I maintained veganism for a few months until I started fainting and was unable to get out of bed. I could barely eat and the few times I could choke down food, I just wasn't getting enough calories so densely packed that I needed. I could have eaten only desserts, but that wasn't an option - it would have made my physical problems much worse.

So I started eating meat and cheese again. Now, a year later, I am transitioning back into veganism, or at least strict vegetarianism, again. Why? Because I now have the LUXURY to do so. Being able to make that choice is a privilege. The thing about privilege is that for one group to have a privilege, others have to not. If everyone had it, it would be a given.

I resisted vegetarianism and veganism for years because of people like you who use your diet like a weapon instead of a tool. It wasn't until I pieced together the information about the environmental impact, health impact, and ethical questions I couldn't resolve that I "came around". The same is true of my boyfriend. There are legitimate reasons to be vegan/vegetarian and not one of them is "because if you aren't, we'll treat you like shit."

When people who have the physical and financial means to reduce their footprint do so it helps us all, but part of doing that is realizing that not everyone has the means to do the same. It certainly doesn't mean you are better than them because you do. Walk in your own damn shoes.

I'm sorry you were the focus of such nasty attacks, MoxieHart. The problem isn't you, it's them. They're the cruel ones - not you. (And thank you for having the courage to stand up and speak for those with ED's who might be afraid to do so themselves.)

Oh, and I don't think I mentioned how I knew I wasn't getting enough calories. I was passing out and eventually so weak that I could barely get out of bed to even go to the bathroom.

Well, apparently I did have that in the post.

Also, I was writing when you must have submitted your most recent post, meeneecat, and am glad to see that you don't support the insults that were directed towards MoxieHart (and just about everyone else reading the comment).

You are right, most vegans/veggies aren't like that. I want to make that clear. My post was directed at those who are.

Ack, I need tea. ;)

Thanks for your support, Hysterical Woman, and all the other people who were kind to me. I hate talking about my ED, it's a very embarassing disease, but it's also an issue that manages to irk me whenever someone says that everyone should be vegan/vegetarian.
I understand how some psychiatric/brain medicines can totally mess with your appetite and metabolism. I was put on zoloft at first and that gave me enough of an apetite to get me to a healthy weight. Then, the zoloft stopped working so I was switched to effexor and that slowed my metabolism down soooo much, I practically gain weight if I eat celery. When I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder I was put on risperdal and that made me pack on 40 or 50 lbs. I'm thankfully off risperdal and refuse to take any mood stabilizers anymore.
Out of curiosity, if it isn't too personal, what brain disorder do you have? Also, thanks for having the courage to tell your story. This is what I meant when I said that diet is very personal. Everyone has some health issue and some are more serious than others and can effect diet, making it a very personal issue.

Hysterical Woman, I loved your post and I totally agree. And thank you for finally acknowledging your luxury in being able to uphold the vegan liftstyle. It's not easy to do so and some have more of a luxury than others and that needs to be acknowledged. I brought that up in my last post but still no one seems to be able to talk about how some of these up-on-their-high-horse vegans (I'm not saying all vegans mind you, most are great people, but the few that seem to hold their veganism over you and call you a bad person for not being vegan) don't recognize their priviledge in being able to keep to this lifestyle. It costs money. Class plays a big part!

Genetically, a dopamine deficiency that was possibly triggered or made worse by late onset C-Ptsd. (Note: Complex PTSD isn't currently an official diagnosis, but a theory about the responses to different kinds of trauma. C-Ptsd is for cases of extreme and, possibly more importantly, frequent trauma.)

I know my use of the term brain disorder may seem confusing, but it is more accurate. Most people don't know that PTSD either is or causes brain damage. You can scan my brain and physically see I have Ptsd. I will probably die sooner because of the physical stress my brain puts the rest of my body through. However, most people (though probably less there) think of Ptsd as a weakness in will/character... kind of how people [wrongly] think of those who have ED's.

You shouldn't be embarassed, but I am a hypocrite because I, too, am embarassed. That's the thing about stigma - it's bullshit. The least I can do is defend someone in a very similar situation because I know that logically neither of us should be ashamed.

Damn, that's tough. I never knew that PTSD could cause that, although I'm fairly familiar with the brain differences between people with mental illness and "normal" people. I've always wanted to get mine scanned to see if there's damage because I know that prolonged depression can cause brain damage.
They always told me in group that I shouldn't be embarassed of the ED or bipolar, that it's like having diabetes or arthritis. But I understand how it's still shameful.

Hysterical Woman, please read my posts. I agree with much of what you say in that we need to NOT be judgmental of each other's personal choices (diets, health choices etc.) However, I have never ridiculed another person here for having an eating disorder or doing what they think is best for their health. (yes, in one of my posts I said that I agreed with mrblimp on many things, but I then go on to list what those things are...such as propaganda from factory farming industry, vegetarians as a group being healthy, the food pyramid, and some other points...but generally they were things that can be easily backed up by reports/research and are not very controversial...However, never did I mean to imply that I agreed with ALL of what blimp said, and I certainly DON'T agree that it's okay to make light of eating disorders or other people's health concerns) Anyway, the fact that one person said some offensive things and that this person also happens to be a non-meat eater...doesn't mean you should tie this person's behavior to the rest of us who don't eat meat. This would be like, for example a woman who identifies as a feminist that says hateful things about (for example) gay people, disabled people, non-christians, or whoever, and then another person taking these comments and linking them and this woman's behavior to feminism and to the rest of us! I don't know about you, but I get pretty upset when certain news media constantly invokes the phrase "radical feminism". Likewise, I get upset when people do the whole "radical vegan/vegetarian" thing. Besides, it's not vegetarians or vegans that are the problem here, It's the particular person's behavior.

Again, I've never, in all my posts insulted eating disorders, other people's health, or diet choices. 99.99% of vegetarians/vegans are not callous uncaring "radical" "rude/arrogant" "I don't care about eating disorders/other people's health" etc. So can we please stop making it sound that this type of attitude is associated with vegetarianism/veganism, when it doesn't even represent 99.99% of us? NONE of the vegetarians/vegans that I have ever met would ever say these types of things. Keep in mind, that linking these stereotypes and hateful comments to the rest of us is very counterproductive...because it only gives further credence to the myth that vegetarians are "like this" (i.e. "rude" "arrogant" "uncaring about others health" etc...)

I'm not saying not to question inappropriate comments when they arise, I'm just saying not to dump it on "other vegetarians"...because in these cases, the one who should be held responsible is the actual person who made the inappropriate comment.

Also @ llevinso, who referred to vegetarianism/veganism a "luxury". Again, can we stop with the stereotypes here? I could just as easily say the same thing about meat-eating based on the fact that for many people a meat-based diet is more expensive than a vegetable-based diet (I know many people with limited income who have stopped eating meat alltogether because they just couldn't afford it anymore). I could also say the same for some people who just can't afford the "luxury" of eating meat due to their high blood pressure/heart disease or other health issue (btw, neither of these situations are uncommon).

Perhaps if I share my particular story for choosing vegetarian, it will help you to understand what I'm saying here. Because actually, both the scenarios I just mentioned did happened to me. 5 years ago, I was diagnosed with Endometriosis. I ended up having to have several abdominal surgeries one after another, and so ended up losing my job. Because there is no cure for Endometriosis, and things like birth control and the (very limited) other conventional medical treatments that were available didn't work for me, I started to look into alternative options. I was told by other patients that they had some success with diet changes. Some told me that eliminating meat from their diet helped to alleviate some pain. Many Endo patients, are very sensitive to hormones and so the hormones in meat and dairy can have negative effects on us and lead to increased pain. For many Endo patients, meat/dairy can also aggravate digestive problems (digestive problems are very common with Endo sufferers) and cause further pain. Anyway, I eliminated meat/dairy from my diet, and even though the pain didn't disappear entirely, I did see a noticeable reduction in the pain.

Unfortunately, I had to have a few more surgeries, and due to a few other health problems besides the Endo, I still haven't been able to go back to work...and this leads to my other reason. Because I was out of work for health reasons, I had no choice but to apply for federal disability benefits. So, currently I'm on disability, and so my income is very limited. I don't shop at extravagant places, as you can imagine. I only have internet access because my aunt, with whom I live with, pays for it herself. I get clothes from thrift stores/hand-me-downs, I never eat out and don't spend my money on anything else but necessities. Being vegetarian saves me money. I'm able to save money every week on groceries by buying bulk food, shopping at farmers markets (i live in NYC), using coupons, and not buying meat.

Anyway...I had always considered becoming vegetarian, however the thing that was the catylist for me, was the fact that eating meat was causing health complications/extra pain due to the Endometriosis, as well as having to go on SSDI and not being able to afford much on a limited income. Of course there's other benefits I get from vegetarianism that are important to me such as environmentalism, animal rights, human rights and I also include them in my reasons. However, when it comes down to it, being a vegetarian is not a "luxury" for me, I do it because I must.

Now, the point is not to argue about which diet is more of a "luxury" or which is more healthy...because everyone has their own preferences and needs. I just shared my own personal experience. And of course we expect people to be polite and not make judgments about one another's diets and personal health choices...I agree with you that it is inappropriate, but isn't is also inappropriate when it refers to vegetarians/vegans as well as meat eaters? I think that the characterizations and stereotypes of vegegarianism/veganism i.e. "rude" "arrogant" "uncaring" etc...both are harmful and unfair, because again, the vast majority of us are not like this, we are good caring people. I hope you understand what I have said here, I understand what you are saying, and so I hope I will not have to hear anymore harmful comments from anyone no matter what diet we each have.

One more thing (sorry for all the long posts):

This sort of relates to the whole "luxury" comment thing. I wrote about in one of my earlier comments, about how in NYC, especially, in poorer neighborhoods people have trouble finding good fresh produce...So, actually I'm surprised that again, there have been some characterizations about vegetarians not caring about whether low-income people have access to good produce or not. It's actually something I've written about, and that I care about, and thankfully, it's something that is currently being recognized and worked on right now in NYC. Recently they opened farmers markets that sell quality produce in low income neighborhoods to try and promote the eating of more veggies as well as access to more veggies in low income area...One of these farmers markets serves the neighborhood where I live, which is Flatbush and I can tell you the produce is good and people do appreciate it (they are generally cheaper than what you would find in the stores).

The idea that vegetarianism is a "rich" person's issue or that it's a "luxury" thing that only those with ample money can afford, well obviously I don't think that's entirely accurate...I don't think vegetarianism, is just a rich-persons or a white persons issue. My neighborhood for example is not wealthy by any means, it's also very diverse, with black, hispanic, indian, jewish, middle eastern, asian, pretty much every type of person I can think of, however, the common thread is that we are all mostly poor and working families. (btw, I think white people make up maybe 13%??) of the population in this neighborhood. My family has been in the neighborhood since 1904- so the older members have seen the changes and how it's become so diverse (it's really friendly here too!). Anway, there's also a good part of the Caribbean population who is vegetarian with many opening their own vegetarian restaurants and food stores...and (here's something interesting) about a decade ago a vegetarian restaurant opened in an old White Castle!!!, it's called "Veggie Castle" and it serves really good vegetarian/Jaimacan food which it has won awards for...I believe it recently closed, but there's a grocery store next to it, called "Health Castle" that sells vegetarian food too...luckily the "Veggie Castle" is not the only vegetarian-Jamaican restaurant in Flatbush. There's also many indian and middle eastern restaurants here that have tons and tons of vegetarian options (my vegan friend used to order from them all the time).

Anyway, certainly in poorer and minority neighborhoods it's more difficult to get good fruits/veggies, but thankfully, at least in NYC people are starting recognize and do something about it by opening more farmers markets, expanding the food stamp program, among other initiatives. Of course not everyone is always going to be able to find what they need and the problem of access to good food is not going to be solved overnight...I also realize that NYC is not the only city with food access problems. So there's always more that can be done.

Regarding the vegetarianism=expensive thing...I think people tend to confound vegetarianism with eating organic and/or fancy specialty store foods. True, organic food tends to be more expensive than non organic food. But excluding an all organic diet, in general a meat-based diet is more expensive than a veggie based one. True certain vegetables are more expensive than others, but in general your averaged priced veggies are going to be cheaper than your averaged priced meats. Yes vegetables can be expensive, recently ALL food has gotten more expensive, but one tip I learned when buying veggies is to try not to buy out of season since the price goes up dramatically if you do. Also buying from farmers markets if you can and/or buying local produce helps. (again, NYC is expanding access to farmers markets by opening them in low income areas as well as by expanding the food stamp program)

About the PTSD, I knew about the brain damage thing...I know that our brains would look different under a scan...Although I didn't really need a doctor to tell me that, I could just tell on my own. The way I explain it to other people is by telling them about how having PTSD is like having your brain smashed to pieces and then put back together except that it is now rearranged all wrong...After the trauma, certain parts don't work the way they used to, certain parts don't work at all, and other parts have been set to "hyper" (i.e. hypervigilance, INTENSE nightmares almost every night, overactive & constant intrusive thoughts, scrambled thoughts, and so on...) IDK, this is just how I would describe it. I'm sure there would be other people who would describe it much differently though.

Meeneecat, you can argue if you want to that being able to stick to a vegan diet has nothing to do with priviledge but I disagree entirely. It takes money and time and knowledge and frankly a lot of low income families don't have the options out there that many others do when it comes to substituting certain foods with certain other things. Most poorer neighborhoods don't have the kinds of vitamin supplement stores or vegan health food stores that are needed. Also, much of the time those healthier alternatives also cost more. So it's great if you can stick to a vegan diet, but you have to recognize your priviledge in being able to do so. My problem is with people like mrblimp who just start yelling basically about how people are bad because they have a different diet without actually ever trying to understand the why and the difficulties involved for people that don't have the same advantages as you.