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)