With the recent news, got to wondering ....

[defendandprotect]

Why isn't Vegetarianism/Veganism a feminist issue with feminists --- ?

[noamnety]

1. for some feminists, it is an issue.

Changing habits is hard, and compromising with others in the family can be a challenge as well, so not all of us are pure vegetarians/vegans. But I bet most people who are active in this forum could explain the connections.

I posted this before when we made it, but I'll post it again given half an excuse. :D
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LVBdXCKRvJI

It kind of pushes toward an understanding of masculinity that encompasses warfare, patriarchy, and conquest of nature.

[Chovexani]

2. Here's my problem.

I'm an ecofeminist, so I agree with that to some extent. However, I don't think eating meat is inherently an act symbolizing warfare and patriarchy, any more so than a lioness hunting a gazelle to feed her cubs. Circle of life, and all that. I'm not one of those white light fluffbunnies who thinks Terra Mater is all rainbows and warm fuzzy hugs.

Factory farming and the meat industry are the issues, not the meat eating itself, IMO. Which is why I buy as much of my meat free range as I can afford it, and abstain when I can't.

YMMV, of course.

[defendandprotect]

4. Happy to know that you agree re the impact on the earth . . . .

which is a good place I think to begin these discussions with EVERYONE at DU who we hope are
already informed of the seriousness of GW.

Whether eating "meat" is an unnecessary act of violence or not, I think is open for discussion.

We are, of course, not lionesses -- who do not have the free will that we have.
I'd also disagree that we are part of that particular "Circle of life" which includes some animals
as nature's clean up crews.
Obviously, there can only be so many ducks on a pond, so many birds in the sky ---

Humans also had the options to contain their populations --
Nature provided plants that were used as birth control and even to end fertility whenever the
female desired. Plants could be used to interrupt conception, as well. Almost all of this
knowledge and material was destroyed by pariarchy.

I'm not one of those white light fluffbunnies who thinks Terra Mater is all rainbows and warm fuzzy hugs.

I was disappointed to read that statement which seems to suggest that the urge to end violence against animals may be a weakness in some females?

Meanwhile, the slaughtering of 12 million plus animals every day --- the forced domestication of
these animals --- is, in itself, a problem.

Hope we can continue this conversation . . . ?

And, what's "YMMV" . . . ???

Thanks for the reply ---

[noamnety]

7. I think this is half of the equation.

I am not a vegetarian. I view that as a flaw in myself, in the same way that some of my other consumption habits are a sign of weakness. I did make a point of pushing some vegetarian options on my daughter though as she was growing up. I remember her telling me once in disgust that I'd "ruined" her because she had real sausage at a friend's house, and realized it suddenly tasted greasy and disgusting after a few years of the veggie sausages, which she had originally snubbed. She's a vegan now. And when I cook for kids at school, I usually, but not always, stick to vegan options, and make a point of catering to the vegans in the class - in a vocal way.

There is some of what you wrote that I can relate to. I used to live on a boat, and I caught fish off the side of the boat and ate that, and I am for sure not going to point fingers at someone, particularly from a different culture who is struggling just to survive, for raising their own chickens.

There are several aspects related to feminism here. One is the nature of food production in general and its impact on the environment, and growing/consuming local food is the best practice, hands down. That has to do with environmental damage (massive redistribution of nitrogens, water, resources to transport food, biodiversity, on and on) - as well as food security, which we only have when we aren't dependent on big business to provide food to us.

The other issue is that "conquest" factor, and we (myself included at times) tend to romanticize conquest in a survivalist way, forgetting that eating plants can also be part of the circle of life. None of our consumption is part of the circle of life if our waste products are sent to treatment plants and treated with chemicals, our bodies are embalmed and encased in metal or fiberglass before being buried, we're (as a general rule) not part of the circle of life in this culture. It's more like a circle of life exists, we're separate from it, and our role is to interject a wave of consumption and waste and destruction into that circle.

That's part of the difference between us and the lioness hunting her prey - when she dies, others feed on her. When we die, gosh we don't even want the worms having access to us.

Like I said, I'm stuck in the compromises between my life and my partner's here, and in the remains of how I was raised and my own inaction. But I can certainly see strong parallels between how women are viewed as consumer objects, considered not as fully human but as body parts that can be used ... and how animals are viewed not as creatures that coexist with us, but as a resource to be chopped into body parts for our gratification. The mindset of the consumer drooling over a piece of ass or a piece of steak is maybe not all that different.

[defendandprotect]

9. I'm separating out "meat" eating . . .

Hi --

Thanks for coming back to the discussion . . .

Well, I'm separating out this particular behavior as something which is violent and something which is harming the planet and nature, of which we are a part. I don't imagine that your other consumption habits would hit all of those bases . . . ???

And I think we would all agree on this . . .
I am for sure not going to point fingers at someone, particularly from a different culture who is struggling just to survive, for raising their own chickens.
And, obviously, many of the international programs put in place to help women around the world are
based on that kind of survival help.

Further, I think we can both accept that when animal-exploitation is understood as doing harm to the environment that it can automatically be seen as a "feminist" issue...?
Therefore, why aren't we seeing a reaction from feminists based simply on that position?

On the other hand, "the nature of food production" concerned with producing "meat/dairy" is usually based on especial exploitation of the female animal. The extremes are keeping cows pregnant constantly in order to force them to produce milk -- which is way beyond anything they would naturally produce for their calves. And, the collection of female horse urine for cosmetic and medical purposes. On the other hand, male chicks are simply pretty much tossed in the garbage.
As anyone quickly notes in the domestication of animals, the female is more highly valued, while
males are valued as sperm donors.

I've never romanticized "conquest" because I certainly wouldn't want to be conquered --
and having that kind of respect for myself, I therefore would not want to inflict a conquered status upon anyone else.

In fact, I think the best interpretation of feminism is Marilyn French's . . .
"Feminism is anti-domination of anyone by anyone else."
*********************************************************

I think things are changing re death scenes --- many want to "go green" and I certainly don't want to be encased in a box!

And, this . . .
But I can certainly see strong parallels between how women are viewed as consumer objects, considered not as fully human but as body parts that can be used ... and how animals are viewed not as creatures that coexist with us, but as a resource to be chopped into body parts for our gratification. The mindset of the consumer drooling over a piece of ass or a piece of steak is maybe not all that different.

well said --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

3. True . . . I wanted to be a veggie since I was 6 years old and family went nuts . . .

and I'm so sorry that I listened to them --- and you end up blocking out the aspects of it they
don't want you to see.
Thus, I began another generation in my family of two children as "animal-eaters" . . .


Thank you for the video --- wonderfully done!

Yes, the male need to dominate is suicidal which makes clear, IMO, that it is something
learned and not part of nature.

Of course, organized patriarchal religions are the underpinning -- the authority as "god" deigned ---for patriarchy. They say the Bible was written to cement patriarchy.

"Manifest Destiny and Man's Dominion Over Nature" are but licenses for the few to exploit nature,
natural resources, animal life --- and even other human beings according to various myths of inferiority.

But what fears or self-hatred within some males create this burning desire to dominate?

How does corporate-media so long avoid the subject of male violence?

And, how does violent animal-exploitation impact all of our lives --- especially female?

[ThomCat]

5. Hmmm... Interesting.

I missed the news, so I don't know what triggered this conversation.

I've been a Vegan for 19 years. (20 this summer!) But I haven't really thought about Veganism as a Feminist issue. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

10. Oh, this is about the RECALL of the hamburger produced two years ago ---

MOST of it already eaten --- perhaps even by school children!!!

[bliss_eternal]

35. Somehow this two year old issue was appropriate here...?

...in feminism? Why aren't you posting this in GD? Or GD-P? Or other areas that could certainly stand for some level of awareness of animal rights?

Oh wait, I get it.

You saved up all of your alarmist energy for the women folk. :eyes:
You in your superior knowlege, have decided to dictate to us exactly what we, as feminists should think, feel, and believe. Because you know best.

Bless you, oh benevolent one.

[ismnotwasm]

6. I'm not a vegetarian

Despite reading Factory Farm, Earth Ethics, and others like it, although things like that changed where and how I bought meat, and I'm not a big meat fan. Probably too lazy to go vegan.

But I do have a question and I'm not trying to be snarky, or insulting in anyway. How would our domesticated food animals be handled if more and more of the populations of developed nations became vegetarian? Say, a number significant enough to impact the industry. I'm talking about appropriate range for the animals, how they breed, and the like. I don't know enough about the topic to answer my own question. (Another sign of laziness)

I've always thought in a vegan world, we would be forced to kill or sterilize many of our meat animals, because of how the factory farm developed. The industry is so huge and apparently and doesn't give a shit what people want in how animals are treated, how they are slaughtered, what is wasted, what it used for what, or "additives" (Lots of correlation between hormones in milk and meat connected with earlier menses in young girls for instance)People still tend to look at a steak or bacon in a grocery store and not make any connection between health, (red meat is not so hot for you, neither are cancer causing nitrates of course) one issue, or the fact that this was a slaughtered animal, not a sterile, prepackaged product out of a machine. The disconnect between life and meat is an odd one I think.


I agree with that somewhat old saying "If you knew what was actually in a hot dog, you probably wouldn't eat one"

Any thoughts?

[defendandprotect]

11. Is anyone still eating hot dogs???

Well, if you're not a "big meat fan," then I presume you eat a lot of salads/vegetables?
Maybe you even do so out of a concern for your health?

I, too, thought that the step from Vegetarian to Vegan would be very difficult ---
but it was very easy and twice as gratifying!

I don't quite understand why you think that Veganism would require the "killing" of domestic animals? Vegans and vegetarians are against animal-exploiation and violence against
animals. Sterilization, of course, is used now as a way to prevent dogs/cats from overbreeding --
and in my opinion, would be a humane way to limit populations of animals which have been enlarged only for the profits of humans.

Re your specific question . . .
We are now slaughtering more than 12 MILLION animals every day . . .
Needless to say, I don't think that everyone would become vegetarian/vegan overnight, so naturally
the number of animals for "food" would begin to be decreased.
There is, in what I understand about it, a very rapid turn over in fowl --- in fact the males are thrown on the junk heaps.
With larger animals --- cows, evidently live the longest and many haven't been permitted to live as the herbivores they truly are --- rather they've been given parts of other animals to eat and even fecal matter!
Provisions, I would hope, would be made to save the lives of animals, whether already set up for slaughter or still growing up to be someone's "food."

And -- true -- the impact of hormones/drugs used in animal exploitation do make their way into the human body with some weird results.

The disconnect between life and meat is an odd one I think.

:)

[ismnotwasm]

12. Yup

That's why I used that particular example. What I see is apathy (and yes, I'm guilty of it myself)People don't want to think about where meat comes from, what is involved in slaughter, or even give a shit about the horrid life say, of a chicken.

From a feminist perspective, I think part of the disconnect goes back at least to the philosophy of Descartes and the like, you know, "Man rules! Animals are put on earth to serve Man! (Ok, there was more to it than that, but back then they were dissecting dogs alive because the firm belief that animals have no "souls", and therefore are incapable of suffering. Women at the time weren't thought of as much either)

I like your answer, if, gradually, our meat consumption decreased, we would be able to handle excess population in a humane way. I'm not a big meat fan because I'm not. That's why I fully admit to my laziness. I'm one for who it would be rather easy to drop meat from my diet, but I'm never clear in my own mind how committed I am to the idea I suppose.

I'm agnostic, and not very sentimental, but I tend to think in concepts. The concept of respect for the food we eat whether plant or animal makes sense to me. At this point people in developed nations tend to treat food not just as unacknowledged absolute necessity, but almost as a plaything, or even an annoyance. We have actual diseases (from anorexia to heart disease) directly related to food and food consumption. Does that disconnect between life and meat contribute? A bit out in left field here, but how do we respect our bodies if we don't respect what goes in them? (We can include air, water, food--all that)

Maybe it is time for me to revisit my own food values.

Thanks for your reply

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

14. Thanks . . . interesting reply ---

I'm agnostic, and not very sentimental, but I tend to think in concepts. The concept of respect for the food we eat whether plant or animal makes sense to me. At this point people in developed nations tend to treat food not just as unacknowledged absolute necessity, but almost as a plaything, or even an annoyance. We have actual diseases (from anorexia to heart disease) directly related to food and food consumption. Does that disconnect between life and meat contribute? A bit out in left field here, but how do we respect our bodies if we don't respect what goes in them? (We can include air, water, food--all that)

Maybe it is time for me to revisit my own food values.

Thanks for your reply



I'm a recovering Catholic --- probably more likely an atheist now ...
but feel very spiritual --- not in any sense of being attached to any organized religion,
but a universal spirituality with the planet and with other people --- and animal life.

[bliss_eternal]

8. self delete.

.

[bliss_eternal]

13. Maybe it is a feminist issue...

...with some feminists. But no one here can speak for every feminist's personal value system, as women interested in equality are still individuals.

I would be open to following such a discussion, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on here.

Reading the thread in it's entirety, the original post now seems more than a little disingenuous, in my opinion. Perhaps it would have been more convincing, had the op not chose to confront people that aren't vegan about their personal eating choices.

Some of what is being said here seems divisive. It also seems to be less a discussion of animal rights within feminism and and more about shaming people for their choices, wrapped in a "feminist discussion package." :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

15. Glad you contributed your comments . . .

Re your first paragraph . . .

No one can speak for all feminists --- neither you nor I.

But we can observe, we can be aware and we can ask questions.

I observe that Oprah took up the issue --- I don't know that she ever said that it was because she is a feminist --- maybe she doesn't even consider herself one. But, she had a natural inclination
as far as I can see to freely and openly express her opinion about eating animals --- and ended up being severely attacked by the "cattle" industry. Oprah fought long and hard against them, however, and won!

The response by the industry was to try to set up some new laws which would keep any negative comments at bay --- or suffer damage costs!

I have never been a big reader of women's magazines --- but sometimes have looked at some to see what was going on. I don't recall in my childhood ever seeing the women's magazines addressing vegetarianism --- it was a taboo subject. Did Gloria Steinem in MS ever do so?
I wasn't that steady a reader of the magazine because it was so non-political in the specific sense.
She was educating all the time --- however.

Have we ever had a female TV commentator point out the particular aspects of animal farming which
concentrates on the female for active exploitation --- while generally tossing the male aside?
I would say that generally some documentary narrative has occasionally pointed that out.



Re the balance of your comments . . .

This is the opening thread ---

With the recent news, got to wondering ....
Why isn't Vegetarianism/Veganism a feminist issue with feminists --- ?

to which you have replied . . .

Reading the thread in it's entirety, the original post now seems more than a little disingenuous, in my opinion. Perhaps it would have been more convincing, had the op not chose to confront people that aren't vegan about their personal eating choices.

Some of what is being said here seems divisive. It also seems to be less a discussion of animal rights within feminism and and more about shaming people for their choices, wrapped in a "feminist discussion package."

And I seriously wonder how you could have reached those conclusions from so little ---
however, thanks for the contribution and I hope you'll continue to comment.

[bliss_eternal]

16. So little...?

You've provided more than enough to make your ulterior motives quite clear, to anyone that's paying attention.

[defendandprotect]

17. And, from your enlightened position, what do you think my "ulterior motives" are . .. ???

If you'd like to share that with us . . . me?

[bliss_eternal]

18. Try reading my post.

My original response to your op. I shared it there.

[defendandprotect]

19. I responded to your post which makes no sense ---

and continues to make no sense as you still do not divulge the "ulterior motives" which
you have read into my post ---

except as you are obviously trying to be argumentive and divisive on this issue ---

What is it about this issue that rankles you --- ?

[bliss_eternal]

20. Not the issue...

...your original post and your responses to others within this thread. I believe I was quite clear about that. I find it hard to believe that you lack the ability to derive meaning from my words.

[defendandprotect]

21. For the really stupid here --- which obviously you think I am . . .

could you be more specific about what it is that you are objecting to in the posts ---
can you reference something . . .?

Perhaps you want to contribute some of your intelligence to this thread and give a fuller
meaning to your evasive comments --- especially about my "ulterior motives" . . . ?

I'm waiting to be enlightened . . .

[bliss_eternal]

22. Kindly...

...don't project or insinuate what I think or believe. If you choose to believe such things of yourself, that choice is yours.

My words are still there. If you don't understand them, oh well.:shrug: I'm not interested in playing games with you, or going back and forth ad nauseum. You know what your intent was when you posted. Your actions show your intent, and they speak louder than any of the words you've shared here.

[defendandprotect]

23. My intent . ..

is purely and simply to rouse interest in animal-exploitation, in particularly among those
who I think should be the most interested --- females, especially feminists.

I am pointing to "meat" eating as violence ---
I am pointing to "meat" eating as harming the planet ---
I am pointng to "meat" eating as harmful to human health ---
I am pointing to "meat" eating as part of patriarchal myth ---

Yes -- your words are still there --- in every still meaningless sense.

Neither am I interested in "playing games with you" ---
which is why I have directly challenged you to spill some of your beans ---

What I can only determine from your continued attitude is that you have nothing to add to this
discussion except to try to toss a poisoned apple into it ---

Thanks, anyway ---

[bliss_eternal]

24. You contradict yourself.

If your intent was purely and simply to rouse interest in animal exploitation, then why bother criticizing people here for their eating choices? Why are you asking people what they are eating at all? Why is that any of your business, if you are sincerely here to "rouse interest" in animal exploitation. That's really not what you stated in your original post or here:

Quote:

My intent . .. is purely and simply to rouse interest in animal-exploitation, in particularly among those
who I think should be the most interested --- females, especially feminists


Why should females, especially feminists be taken to task by you about whether or not they choose to be vegan?

[Branjor]

28. Huh...

I must be thick too, as I'm also having a problem seeing what defendandprotect's "ulterior motive" is here.

I read and occasionally post on both this forum and the Vegetarianism/Veganism and Animal Rights forum.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bliss_eternal]

34. Little reminder for you---feminism forum

From our mission statement-

The purpose of the DU Feminists Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

We believe that women do not start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success; that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist in America circa 2005; and that the progress made for women's rights is being seriously and immediately threatened by this administration.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they affect women), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision and opportunity) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community).

Pay attention now, this is important:
Attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues being discussed are not welcome.
- Like-minded DUers of all genders are encouraged to participate.

You of your own free will, come to this forum to tell women what they should or should not believe in...as feminists.
You also come here, telling people how they should eat, and what they should feel about what they eat....as feminists.

At the same time, you seem to believe that if you spout a bit of feminist jargon, no one here will call you on your overwhelmingly sexist assertions.

But you're calling ME a troll?
:rofl:

How very interesting, and transparent.

[LostinVA]

48. Watch out for this one, Bliss

You're too good to bother with her.

[bliss_eternal]

50. LOL--

...thank you. I agree about this one.

Always good to see you, here! :loveya::hug::hi:

[noamnety]

36. oops, let's back up a bit.

Bliss has consistently been one of our strongest voices in this forum, and I'm not too keen on seeing the troll label thrown around at someone who often functions as one of my mentors here.

With that in mind, if she's telling me she has problems with a post - even if I didn't have problems with the OP - I tend to trust her instincts. I'd suggest instead of reacting in defense here, step back and ask with an open mind what the complaints are. Obviously the subthread has sort of degenerated here, but if you can reign in your comments a bit, I think it will be a better discussion for everyone - even if you think that's a very unfair thing for me to ask of you.

[Tumbulu]

25. I think that the issue is huge and I am glad that you brought it up

I am an organic farmer. In 2000 I took in a flock of merino sheep ( a small wool sheep, not a meat breed) that were all going to be sent to slaughter but since I had land and everyone assured me that they were so easy and fun I got talked into taking them.

I had had horses and dogs and cats, but never sheep. What a shock and a never ending learning experience.

I now am the lady with the 63 merino sheep on the farm instead of cats in the house. I am attached to them, they are not attached to me except the very old ones who have weak teeth that I feed special food to twice a day and the bottle fed lambs.

These animals have been my window into the industrial and the organic way of raining livestock as I have had to ask lots of questions about how to care for them.

I have read that sheep and humans connected about 10,000 years ago. This makes sense to me. The moms actually depend on a shepherd to help them have their lambs and if you are not around, maybe half the lambs die. Most of my sheep will leave the second twin to die, so you bottle feed these extras and they become pets.

But how do you spend all this time caring for them and then turn around and kill and eat them? Chickens are much easier to disconnect with and view as other, but mammals are really close to us. And the intimacy of helping a mammal mother give birth is a very big deal.

The rams grow up and as they age they start killing each other, not all of them do this, but a many do. So, one can see how people could begin to kill just the ones who killed other sheep, I suppose. But how did it really happen that people who cared for animals so intimately came to be able to kill and eat them? Maybe I am different from people who grew up raising and killing animals because all my animals were pets growing up.

I do think that it is mostly women who tend the farm animals in rural areas worldwide and it tends to be men who kill the farm animals. In regular agricultural situations the females are prized when born, the males are viewed as meat at best.

I am sorry that I am not writing very clearly, but I wanted to comment because I think that once you are in farming and you deal with the animals daily, then you do think about all these things a lot.

I see tremendous similarities between the way women are objectified and considered property and the attitude towards livestock all over the world.

[bliss_eternal]

26. I'd welcome you to DU,

but can't see when you joined, and perhaps you're a long term poster--just new to this area.
Is this your first visit to Feminism? :hi:

[Tumbulu]

27. Thanks bliss_eternal!

I have been reading DU for about 6 months and posting a little here and there. I have only posted a few times in the Feminists Group and they have been little tiny posts.

[defendandprotect]

30. Thank you -- !!

Glad you joined in the discussion . . . !!

[Ellen Forradalom]

31. It may be with some, and not with others.

The charter of any feminist group is to advance women's rights. The charter of any animal rights and welfare group is to advance animal rights. A person is free to join either, both or none. I would not dream of denigrating a fellow feminist for having a different view on the subject, nor would I badger her to attain greater heights of radicalism. There is a competitive element in activist circles which I do not care to encourage.

I prioritize women's rights in my attention over animal rights because my resources are finite. But I am supportive of those who make animals their cause and am sensitive to those issues. I have been transitioning towards vegetarianism and veganism as my personal situation allows, and keep up with animal rights news.

[Cerridwen]

32. Why aren't feminisms a Vegetarian/Vegan issue with Vegatarians/Vegans?

1) Vegetarianism/Veganism *is* a feminist issue; as are animal rights issues.

2) As you may have noted in my subject line; there is more than one "feminism". FeminismS is not a monolithic set of dogma codified into some lock-step organization or mindset.

3) Just as feminism would be more appropriately called feminismS due to the (sometimes overwhelming) myriad of feminisms and feminist theories and ideals, feminists themselves are not a monolithic movement controlled by a hive mind conveying the daily secret handshake, talking point, or grooming tips.

4) I noticed that upthread, you pointed to a lack of feminist voices regarding animal rights in, what I call, pop culture and "mainstream" media. If you'll look beyond commercially controlled media and "pop stars" you'll notice many feminist views that are absent from "mainstream" media; not solely animal rights and/or Vegetarianism/Veganism. If you'll look even closer, you'll notice that those feminist views that *do* make into the "mainstream" are usually used only as ideas to be distorted and ridiculed. Here is just one example, of the thousands available, of how feminismS is portrayed through "mainstream" media:

"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." – Pat Robertson

Yeah, *that* has a lot of "truth" in it about what feminismS is. (the whole is/are thing is causing my inner grammarian fits. please read it as an attempt to re-frame an idea presented as singular when it should be myriad)

5) It appears from your OP that you, yourself are not aware of the myriad feminismS. If, in fact, you have been using "mainstream" media as your source for information about feminismS (as would appear based on your post upthread), then your own question is a perfect example of how distorted the view of feminismS has become through the modern, miracle of corporate ownership of the media and cannot be relied upon for a comprehensive education about feminismS (or most anything else, but this thread is about feminismS). If you do have knowledge of different feminismS (as further evidenced by your citation of feminist scholars) then ignoring the feminismS that address animal rights is a bit dishonest of you.

6) As a feminist activist and scholar, I cannot list the times those with their own agenda (usually, but not always men) have come into feminist discussions, actions, and organizations to use feminists to promote their (the agenda-holder's) agenda - at the expense of - the feminist group's resources and feminist issues (whichever one or fifty it may have been). I have witnessed it in conservation groups, LGBT rights groups, Hispanic rights groups, African-American rights groups, you know the whole list, I'm sure. Animal rights organizations are not immune to that same subversion of feminist issues. I'll direct you to PETA's current (and historic) use of the female body in their ads; exploiting women's bodies to promote animal rights. See my question in the subject line.

7) The justification I've heard used for what I described in #6, has usually been that the feminists' issues were not as of such paramount importance as whatever issue the agenda-holder had. Any attempts to draw parallels between feminist issues and the agenda-holders' issues was/is usually met with some form of righteous indignation that feminists are only concerned with "women's issues" and usually spit out as though "women's issues" are a limited, petty, waste of time and energy that could be used for more important issues. Then of course, the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of feminists while completely denying the agenda-holders' role in creating a divide and a hierarchy of rights, values, and issues. Yeah, it's all the feminists fault because they can't be bothered to address the more important issues as they're too busy advocating for those piddly women's rights issues, such as:

eliminating violence against women, eliminating war and violence as a form of conflict resolution, ageism, rights to education, rights to own property (feminists have this strange habit of looking outside the US for what constitutes women's issues), women's and girls' rights to be safe and secure in their bodies without the interference of husbands, fathers, brothers, other women, or the government, health care, child care (women are still in the overwhelming majority of child care providers), sexism, sex workers' rights, poverty issues, safe and available housing issues, homelessness, the environment, corporate and systemic use of sexism, ageism, racism (and other isms) to deny workers' rights, issues of classism, racism, and homophobia, self-esteem issues regarding our children, female-specific needs in health care and medicines, economic inequalities, clean and safe water, clean and safe food, and so much more...AND, yep, you guessed it, animal rights and Vegetarian/Vegan issues.



Your OP has a whiff of a hint, of what I described in #7; which is why you were "called on it" by at least one poster. You made an assumption (false, as it happens; and intentionally, it appears) that feminist issues don't include Vegetarian/Vegan and/or animal rights issues, then proceeded from an intentionally false assumption to ask why feminists don't include these issues. If you've read many feminist scholars' and activists words', you would be cognizant of the fact that the issues you present, are and have been feminist issues for some time. That you "asked" your question and proceeded in such a fashion as to put some on the defensive, causes me to wonder at your use of the, sometimes foul smelling and ubiquitous question mark.

Here is a small sampling of some links for you; they are not from "mainstream" sources but they (and many more) are available via google:

http://www.allanimals.org/steinem_release.html

http://www.triroc.com/caroladams/femanimalrights.html

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-9740%28199024%2915%3A2%3C350%3AARAFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G&size=SMALL&origin=JSTOR-reducePage

http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14038-6/the-feminist-care-tradition-in-animal-ethics

http://www.questia.com/library/book/animals-and-women-feminist-theoretical-explorations-by-carol-j-adams-josephine-donovan.jsp

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22animal+rights%22+feminism&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS246&start=10&sa=N

http://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+%22animal+rights%22&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS246&start=20&sa=N

Your local library may have even more resources not available to you via the "mainstream" media.

A women's studies class (or two) will provide you with even more resources and information.


So, let me reiterate my answers to your question

"Why isn't Vegetarianism/Veganism a feminist issue with feminists --- ?"

1 - Why do you presume it's not? (see, I can use that smelling question mark, too)

2 - It is.

3 - Had you truly wanted to know the answer to your question, 10 minutes with google would have provided you a wealth of information.

and, finally...

4 - Why aren't feminisms a Vegetarian/Vegan issue with Vegetarians/Vegans?

[bliss_eternal]

33. Excellent post...!

:applause:

[Cerridwen]

37. Thank you, ma'am.

It seems you and I have a similar sensitivity to language and its use.

I question the questions some people ask *snort* and I'm damned tired of anyone getting on their high horse about what feminists do/think/feel/believe/know and/or "should" do. There's just not enough room on this high horse for anyone except me, dammit!

:rofl:

[bliss_eternal]

38. LMAO!

Quote:
There's just not enough room on this high horse for anyone except me, dammit!

OMG--I should put that in my signature line, as a tribute to you. That is so awesome! We should give out a feminism version of the DUZY, because some of you have some one-liners that have sent me rolling off my chair. :spray::rofl: Seriously.

Back to the topic at hand, I don't get where this person gets off telling us what we should think. They bring this sexist crap here, in the guise of "animal rights"? Uh-huh. Sell me something else. :eyes:

[Cerridwen]

39. DUzys?! For "no sense of humor" feminists?! *gasp*

What? and ruin our grim, hateful reputation as humorless, scary, hairy, ugly women?! I think not!

Think of the confusion. Think of the outrage. Good heavens, woman; think of the children! Think of the anti-feminist heads exploding. Oh wait, ignore that last one. :evilgrin:

Whatever you do, do *not* pay tribute to my ramblings. My horse would get on her high horse and *then* where would I be? I'll tell ya where I'd be, I'd be "up a high horse without a stirrup", that's where I'd be. :rofl:

Okay, seriously, this is the Feminists Group, no jocularity allowed. Ahem, so, what were we saying?

Oh yeah, back to this thread you and I just hi-jilled (hee hee); ahem, seriously...aw, hell, never mind.

:rofl:

[Branjor]

40. Yea Cerridwen.....

Excellent post.

#4 is an especially good question.

[Cerridwen]

41. Thank you. I always appreciate positive feedback.

:D

I appreciate negative feedback, too; though in a totally different sort of way. :evilgrin:

Your answer has, however, made me curious. Why is "#4 an especially good question"? I'm not trying to use the "smelly question mark" here; I'm just curious. And...you are not "required" to answer and a simple, "none of your business, Cerridwen" is a perfectly acceptable answer for me and I'll not push. If you'd care to share, I'd love to read about it.

:hi:

[Branjor]

42. Nothing complicated....

I lurk a lot on the Vegetarianism, Vegan and Animal Rights forum as I am a big animal lover and believe in animal rights, as well as being a feminist. I notice a lot of them like PETA, which I dislike because of its use of women's bodies in pornographically exploitative ways and so I assume that the feminist consciousness there leaves something to be desired. So if veggie/veganism/animal rights is properly a feminist concern (as I think it is), is not feminism properly a concern of veg/animal rights people?

Hi back atcha :hi:

[bliss_eternal]

43. Interesting...

...criticism of PETA. I've noticed they do that, but I rarely see anyone hold them accountable for it. I appreciate their commitment, but sometimes feel they can be as "extreme" as some of the right wing groups. :scared:

Though I have contacted them personally regarding information on how to handle some local animal rights issues. They were helpful.

[Cerridwen]

45. I like PETA's mission.

Their tactics are too extreme for me, meaning simply, they aren't tactics I would use. But they serve a great purpose. They do and have gotten the message out. There are very few people who, regardless of their political awareness, who haven't heard of PETA. They also provide a place for those activists who do have that type of "activist personality" and give them a place to use their energy. They have not just "pushed the envelope," they've also expanded "the envelope" which gives more "measured" animal rights organizations, much more room to maneuver and advocate.

[Cerridwen]

44. Thank you for replying, Branjor.

"Feminist consciousness" - thank you, that is precisely the phrase to describe what is missing in those groups I referred to in my previous post.

Even here at DU the lack is sometimes breath-taking; and I don't mean that in a good way. *sigh*

The sad and frustrating part is that each of the groups I mentioned (and all the other left leaning/leftist/progressive/Democratic/Liberal/etc. groups and organizations) could have so much more influence if we could come together under one "umbrella" and advocate together.

Aw, well, I feel a rant coming on and I'd just as soon not subject you to being my sounding board. :D

It's nice to see a "new" name in this group. I hope you enjoy this group as much as I do. There are some truly wonderful minds who post here. :)

[Tumbulu]

46. There are indeed

Thanks for all the welcomes. You are a very interesting group full of some excellent writers and I am challenged to think a lot when I come here.

Thanks

[femrap]

47. I have never been oppressed by a

rooster, hog or bull....or chicken, sow, or cow for that matter. But the males sure are mean. The bulls are castrated so their meat is more tender....they used to stampede me when I was walking thru the field to the pond and woods. So maybe I am getting even with them by eating a burger or steak. And at some of the county fairs, only sows are allowed to be shown because the males want to fight and cause real problems. They will eat their own!

Only one bull was kept on my grandparent's farm and he was in a double stall....mean!

I wish I didn't like steak...I don't eat it very often. But I have to admit that filet mignon with bernaise sauce is my favorite entree. I prepare that maybe once a year...as a treat for my birthday or Xmas. I only eat free range chicken, pork, and beef.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. its not at all a feminist issue to me. cows have been free in india for generations

women have been burned after the death of their husband. most of the worst atrocities against women have been perpretated by the vegetarian parts of india.

to me these issues are highly unrelated.

[Tumbulu]

51. Good point; it may be something unique to certain cultures the connection

The latest thing that came to my mind I will try to share with you and the others.

I have lots of neighbors who are small farmers who sell at farmer's markets. Some of them produce meat now as well as veggies. I have my own flock of sheep for wool (not meat). All of us have chickens. Roosters are notorious for getting into fights and killing each other. Some attack the hens as well. It is easy to see how roosters came to be eaten regularly once you are around them a lot.

The same with males of mammals who fight and kill (rams, bucks, bulls). What do you do with them once they start killing each other and the females and then come at you?

But, what tends to happen, and I have seen it now on numerous occasions is that the females who do have enough lambs or enough piglets get made into meat as well. Not being productive enough is a criminal offense if one is a female farm animal. One wants a sow who has eight or more piglets not three. One wants ewes who have twins and triplets, not singles. And so these "under-producing" mothers get put on the kill list as well.

I see it happen all the time and the nicest farmers around me think absolutely nothing of it because the entire ag world thinks that this is normal. And their animals have good lives compared to the big ag worlds' animals who are tortured from day one and most all of them are killed.

The "lamb" component in the dog foods are ewes that are older than seven years old. They are considered ripe for problems after that age, so they are sent away. A good ram is usually made into dog food at around four years of age if not sooner.

It seems to me a view into the paternalistic mindset. And it may have been the birth of it. This is what I keep wondering about, how did the dominator culture take root in human civilization?

Now in India, where animals are not kept for meat, how did this violence against women develop? I don't know and perhaps it means that there is no connection at all to the way farm animals are treated. I just keep thinking that in my culture here in the western US, there is a link.

[bliss_eternal]

52. Because women are seen as second class citizens....

...all over the globe. In many cultures, the boy children women birth have greater status in society than their mothers.

In many societies, women are viewed as walking, talking birth canals, with little to no rights of their own. They are nothing more than the means by which more men are created, nurtured and birthed.

In some parts of the world, women (or more specificaly young women and girls) are seen as collateral. They are routinely traded into marriage so men can secure land, money, dissolve debt, etc. It wasn't that long ago, that women had the very same fate here in the states.

But of course, you are entitled to your opinion and belief that the treatment of animals is linked to the treatment of women-- regardless of how many share the opinion that they are seperate issues. :)

(The above is in response to this):
Quote:
Now in India, where animals are not kept for meat, how did this violence against women develop? I don't know and perhaps it means that there is no connection at all to the way farm animals are treated. I just keep thinking that in my culture here in the western US, there is a link.

[Tumbulu]

53. You are correct.

I have seen it myself in West Africa where I was a Peace Corps Volunteer. I remain haunted by it 30 years later. I have seen it and read about it and know that you are sadly horribly correct. And we only have a very sheer veneer of semi equality here in the US. Europe seems far ahead of us to me in terms of true fairness of opportunity.

But how did this happen all over the world? How did women become equivalent to breeding livestock? This is what I wonder about. I just wonder if it happened when we became settled agriculturists vs hunters and gatherers.

Much of my readings on the matter suggest that this dominator cultural pattern (patriarchy) of society developed between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago. Roughly when most livestock was domesticated.

Thus I think about this a great deal and wonder about the parallels.

I enjoy reading the interesting posts in this group; sorry to be rambling on about this.

[bliss_eternal]

54. Um...ok.

Good luck with that.

Quote:
But how did this happen all over the world? How did women become equivalent to breeding livestock? This is what I wonder about. I just wonder if it happened when we became settled agriculturists vs hunters and gatherers.

Much of my readings on the matter suggest that this dominator cultural pattern (patriarchy) of society developed between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago. Roughly when most livestock was domesticated.

[Tumbulu]

55. Do you wonder how and when it happened

this enslavement of the females? Or do you think it was always this way.

I guess it helps me to believe that it is only in recent history (the last 10,000 years) that it has been this way. It supports my mental health to hope that we are in a transition state now and that soon (maybe within 100 years or less) all over the world women will be treated as humans and not as owned beings (like livestock).