Veggie Rant, part 2
May. 18th, 2004 11:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
legalmooseOkay, I'm going to try and clear up some things on that last post, rather than respond to the comments individually. Not perhaps the most seamless argument I've ever put together, but it'll do.
First, the article refers to "flexitarians," people who consider themselves to be vegetarian, but who occasionally eat meat.
Next, when I refer to "meat" I mean any animal flesh. Not just red meat (i.e., beef, bison, &c.), but chicken, pork, fish, and any other animal flesh. I'm not including eggs, milk, honey or other animal by-products (and I misspoke when I listed eggs in the earlier post along with other flesh products).
There are generally two types of "true" vegetarians, vegetarians who may eat eggs, honey, milk, or other byproducts, but not flesh (often called "lacto-ovo-apian-insert-hypen-here vegetarians, depending on which they do/do not eat), and vegans, who eschew all animal products (i.e., no meat, no milk, no eggs, no honey, etc.).
As a vegan, I know and accept that we live in a meat eating culture here in the United States. It generally does not bother me on a personal level that other people eat meat (so long as the eater in question is not so lacking in manners to do something truly stupid like wave said meat in my face, quite literally, at meal time). That's their choice, it's what they've chosen for themselves, and they can live with it. I've made my choice and I live with it.
The objection that I have to persons who refer to themselves as "vegetarian" and who then go on to eat chicken or fish (or other meat) in restaurants, or on airplanes, or in other public venues is that they give the false impression that all vegetarians are simply lapsed meat eaters who will jump back on the meat bandwagon as soon as someone waves a pork chop under their nose. It leads to situations where well-meaning people attempt to offer a vegetarian a meat dish (typically chicken or fish as those are seen as "lesser" meats compared to beef and pork), or something that has been made with meat (i.e., a beef-broth based soup), thinking the person will have no objection because "it's just a little meat." For most of those who eschew meat, even that "little bit" is too much. This is especially true of those who have chosen not to eat meat for ethical reasons.
And I'm not going to even get started on one of my personal favorites, the person who attempts to "sneak" some meat into something "for [the vegetarian's] own good." Because heaven knows someone can't be healthy eating no meat. Ugh.
Vegetarians challenge the status quo, simply by announcing their status as vegetarians. We challenge the notion that everything is just fine as it is. We make meat eaters uncomfortable because we bring to the fore the fact that meat is not usually produced in a very humane way. You are taking the life of a sentient creature for sustenance. Most meat eaters would rather not think about such things, and we force them to do so, even if only subconsciously, and that makes them uncomfortable. Additionally, we are saying, "Your traditions [about food] aren't needed or necessary," and no one likes their traditions, especially ones as bound up in emotional baggage as food can be, to be challenged.
I have no problem with people who say they are "mostly vegetarian" who then occasionally eat meat. They've not misled anyone about their eating habits, though arguably it could still confuse people about vegetarian eating habits. At least they're not claiming a complete status which they don't live up to.
First, the article refers to "flexitarians," people who consider themselves to be vegetarian, but who occasionally eat meat.
Next, when I refer to "meat" I mean any animal flesh. Not just red meat (i.e., beef, bison, &c.), but chicken, pork, fish, and any other animal flesh. I'm not including eggs, milk, honey or other animal by-products (and I misspoke when I listed eggs in the earlier post along with other flesh products).
There are generally two types of "true" vegetarians, vegetarians who may eat eggs, honey, milk, or other byproducts, but not flesh (often called "lacto-ovo-apian-insert-hypen-here vegetarians, depending on which they do/do not eat), and vegans, who eschew all animal products (i.e., no meat, no milk, no eggs, no honey, etc.).
As a vegan, I know and accept that we live in a meat eating culture here in the United States. It generally does not bother me on a personal level that other people eat meat (so long as the eater in question is not so lacking in manners to do something truly stupid like wave said meat in my face, quite literally, at meal time). That's their choice, it's what they've chosen for themselves, and they can live with it. I've made my choice and I live with it.
The objection that I have to persons who refer to themselves as "vegetarian" and who then go on to eat chicken or fish (or other meat) in restaurants, or on airplanes, or in other public venues is that they give the false impression that all vegetarians are simply lapsed meat eaters who will jump back on the meat bandwagon as soon as someone waves a pork chop under their nose. It leads to situations where well-meaning people attempt to offer a vegetarian a meat dish (typically chicken or fish as those are seen as "lesser" meats compared to beef and pork), or something that has been made with meat (i.e., a beef-broth based soup), thinking the person will have no objection because "it's just a little meat." For most of those who eschew meat, even that "little bit" is too much. This is especially true of those who have chosen not to eat meat for ethical reasons.
And I'm not going to even get started on one of my personal favorites, the person who attempts to "sneak" some meat into something "for [the vegetarian's] own good." Because heaven knows someone can't be healthy eating no meat. Ugh.
Vegetarians challenge the status quo, simply by announcing their status as vegetarians. We challenge the notion that everything is just fine as it is. We make meat eaters uncomfortable because we bring to the fore the fact that meat is not usually produced in a very humane way. You are taking the life of a sentient creature for sustenance. Most meat eaters would rather not think about such things, and we force them to do so, even if only subconsciously, and that makes them uncomfortable. Additionally, we are saying, "Your traditions [about food] aren't needed or necessary," and no one likes their traditions, especially ones as bound up in emotional baggage as food can be, to be challenged.
I have no problem with people who say they are "mostly vegetarian" who then occasionally eat meat. They've not misled anyone about their eating habits, though arguably it could still confuse people about vegetarian eating habits. At least they're not claiming a complete status which they don't live up to.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 08:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 08:43 am (UTC)There was a cover story on Time a few years back about the vegetarian "Craze" and when polled something silly like 50+% of people said they were vegetarian... except that they ate meat a couple of times a week. Whaaaaaa?
Vegetarians challenge the status quo, simply by announcing their status as vegetarians. We challenge the notion that everything is just fine as it is. We make meat eaters uncomfortable because we bring to the fore the fact that meat is not usually produced in a very humane way.
I'm not sure that vegetarians make *all* meat eaters uncomfortable but I understand the point you are trying to make - anything different or not the norm does ruffle the feathers a bit. WEIRDO! doh! But there are a handful (at least) of meat eaters who can "tolerate" the veggie folks just fine and are happy to accommodate that particular lifestyle choice. I'm thinking that places like DC and NYC and California where other lifestyles in general are more openly tolerated that being a vegetarian doesn't even register on the radar.
16 pieces of metal throughout your body and tattos up and down your arms you just married your same sex partner and , what? oh? you don't eat meat? pshaw! ;)
And I don't think the uncomfortable part has anything to do with how the meat is harvested. I'm pretty sure that the majority of the american meat eaters could care less as long as they can have their Big Macs. And when I was a vegetarian for a few years I was doing it more for health reasons (not just cutting out meat from my diet but all processed foods) with the cruelty issue being secondary. If anything for me personally the drain on natural resources that the beef industry is responsible for is a bigger argument for cutting back meat consumption than the method of slaughter.
But - anyway - I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and find your comments to be well thought out and eloquent ;) No Vegan Nazi here ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 08:45 am (UTC)Why can't we get along?
Date: 2004-05-18 10:18 am (UTC)I've tried being vegan, and also vegetarian, and the greatest difficulties for me arose when my hosts did not know about my self-imposed dietary limitations. For example, when a coworker baked a surprise cake for me for my birthday. I decided the most polite thing to do in those cases was to eat what the host offered, thanking them for whatever they offered, rather than saying, "I'm sorry, I can't eat that." Once I made that decision, I was no longer a vegan or a vegetarian according to the standard criteria.
I think some of the friction, and resulting ill will, between some vegans and some omnivores is caused by the strict nature of the vegan identity. Non-vegans can try to be polite by offering vegan alternatives, and vegans can also try to be polite by occasionally eating animal-based dishes that were prepared in good faith by their hosts. When the entire group's eating decisions are subject to the strict objections of a minority, that's going to cause friction.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 10:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 12:05 pm (UTC)To the extent that a vegan identity is chosen for ethical purposes, those ethical decisions are (or, ideally, ought to be) subject to all of the facts and circumstances. One of these circumstances is that people who are not well educated in vegan philosophy will occasionally make mistakes when they are preparing food intended for a vegan guest. As educated as I am, I can't always be certain a food ingredient is 100% vegan even if I read all the ingredients. Another of these circumstances is that people who don't know you are vegan will purchase gifts for you or bake goodies for you. If the eating restriction is purely ethical, then surely a deviation can be made for ethical reasons. Medical reasons are different.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 10:56 am (UTC)[*] And don't even get me started on the "So why don't you have a driver's license/have a television set/use air-conditioning" stuff I go through. This country is not about the eschewing of things. My point is, I sympathize. It sucks.