On People Who “Can’t Go There”
First, two discussions you may want to visit.
1. A couple of weeks ago I wrote about a Grist article about vegan who became a butcher and said Roz Cummins would be posting an in-depth interview with him soon. She has, and here it is: "From Vegan to Hog Butcher," the story of chef Jamie Bissonnette, who was straight-edge as a youth (so was I!), but his passion for learning to be a chef led to him going back to eating animals.
The article wasn’t that interesting to me, as it didn’t appear that Bissonnette was committed to veganism, so the transition out of it made sense: he had a reason to go back to eating animals, and he took it. Pretty uneventful (not for the animals involved, of course), standard stuff. If someone wants to eat animals, they’re going to. This type of article makes me yawn these days as I see it so frequently.
The subsequent discussion, however, has some entertaining moments. For instance, "John former Marine" deconstructs the article the way I used to, with full-on sarcasm (believe it or not, I’ve mellowed in my old age). He says (among other things):
Jamie’s story is so inspiring…he gave up being a vegan to make money. That’s why I gave up riding my bike to become a Hummer salesman.
Waste – Jamie says he was spurred to action by seeing all of the waste. Um…am I missing something here? The American meat industry doesn’t really waste much. Bone meal, glue, dog food…
The "big devil’s advocate" – Jamie says that if we all gave up eating meat (or ate a lot less of it), it would be a "devastating blow" to the economy. He must have the same economic advisor as Prezudent Bush. This is the same reason that we should keep flying on airplanes, keep taking vacations, keep buying big american cars, keep building big houses….all of these things are crucial to the economy. And being that….1% of our population derives their income from agriculture, we’d be hurting a lot of CAFO operators if we cut back on the steak. Shoot, and here I was riding my bike to work thinking I was helping the environment when all the time I was just hurting the economy. I really wish I had come by Jamie’s wisdom earlier. Of course…I suppose that if people ate healthy vegan or low-meat diets that we’d see average medical expenditures go downward drastically…would that be good for the economy or bad? He should clarify with Karl Rove and get back to us.
Come on, tell me none of that made you chortle!
2. Bea directed me to a Megan McArdle post from yesterday afternoon called "Morality and animal welfare" which includes:
I
wish more people would stop eating meat, but I also think it is
possible to be a perfectly good, moral human being and still eat meat,
in a way that I don’t think it is possible to be a good moral human
being and still rape twelve-year olds. I have judged the behavior and
found it wanting, but I do not judge, in any way, the people who
indulge in it. I think there’s something wrong with eating meat, but I
don’t think there’s anything wrong with meat-eaters.
This
is probably the issue that causes the most actual difficulty in my life
as a vegan, as though I don’t abuse or ridicule my animal-eating
friends and relatives (okay, maybe some of the relatives), I think what
they’re doing is wrong. I do. How could I not when I think what I’m doing is right and what I’m doing is avoiding what they’re doing? Do I think there’s something wrong with them as people? I’m more of a hate-the-sin-not-the-sinner person (despite being an atheist and not really believing in sin, per se), so I’d rather stick to examining the behavior and language of someone and whether or not it’s aligned with what they say they believe (and also examine beliefs, of course). That does sometimes lead to conclusions that sound like judgments but are mere statements of fact, such as: You say you believe X, but you do not-X, therefore your behavior is hypocritical. Is it not? (Now, I care about the people of Darfur, but I haven’t done much to help them, therefore my behavior tells you that I don’t really care much about the people of Darfur. We’ve all got issues that are more important to us than others. I should just say that I care about the people of Darfur, but not as much as I care about the plight of sentient nonhumans. I’m going to write more about this tomorrow as I am constantly judged for my priorities.)
This leads me to people who "can’t go there."
There are probably a dozen people in my life who I’d bet don’t have
any meat in their refrigerators but do have lots of dairy products, and will
order fish or chicken or steak when they’re at a restaurant. They think
veganism is the right way to go, but intentionally avoid learning the
details about eggs and dairy–or any other animal product such as
leather or wool, because they say they "can’t go there."
So what exactly does that mean? It’s an extension of "I don’t wanna
know." But in this case they don’t want to know because they’re afraid of the kind of
person they’ll become once they’ve seen what I’ve seen. They’re afraid
that they’ll feel compelled to change careers and spend all of their
time rescuing animals or campaigning for animal rights (not that they
know what that means, but the sentiment is there). They’re afraid that
their entire lives will be consumed by trying to tell the world that we
have got to stop the slaughter and the injustice.
They’re afraid their comfortable lives will be upended because they
will have no choice but to work for the liberation of sentient
nonhumans (and though I’ve yet to hear it worded that way, that’s what
they mean).
They don’t see me as a superhero making enormous sacrifices, but
what they do see is that I would have a very different life if I
weren’t a vegan. My time would be allocated differently. My money would
be allocated differently. In essence, my life would look a lot more
like theirs.
These people are kind, loving and compassionate and they suffer with this decision not to move forward. Their cognitive dissonance gives me
a headache, but all I can do is offer them love, information and websites and
books (and yummy food, of course), and they have to do the rest.
Having recently survived a 2 week visit from "compassionate omnivore" family – I too concluded that "they don't want to know" because the obvious and reasonable step after one knows is to do something. Even if doing something entails as little as "not eating animals". I'm told it is "too extreme", or "un-affordable", or "impossible with kids", etc….
No, I haven't laid down my life for the vegan cause (although I'm certain I will go to my grave an animal advocate) – Meanwhile, others simply play the lip service "I feel terrible"…. "BUT". That seems to satisfy their need to represent themselves in a "compassionate" manner – while simultaneously continuing the horrific act….. So everybody's "happy". And who are we vegans to judge? After all – they feel just "awful" about it!
Today…it's Jamie Bissonnette.
I'm learning nothing from this.
If this blog is written just to vent, okay, I understand.
But if you want to educate…well…
Bea,
I know vegans who say they cannot have close relationships with nonvegans. And that my tolerance for the animal-eating habits of others is wrong or not-abolitionist (and I don't think I qualify as a abolitionist anyway), but I don't know any other way to convert people than to love and support them and help them if they ask. And frankly, some simply don't care enough to ask and like the taste of animals too much. It's sad, but fortunately there are plenty of other people who are receptive and do indeed alter the way they do things. Sometimes in tiny baby steps and sometimes in leaps and bounds. Every life saved counts. I try to tune out the people who taunt me with how much they enjoy their "juicy bacon," tell them their actions make me sad, and be on my way.
bunny,
I think you should stop reading Animal Person.
My mission is to deconstruct language, economics, of our relationship with nonhuman animals. It's my version of literary criticism, and yes, it often includes criticism. Far too many journalists, authors, and even leaders in animal "rights" (?) are saying one thing and doing the opposite, and far too many people aren't examining that. As a former HSUS and PeTA member who believed my money was being spent in the service of my beliefs (and it wasn't), if I can help anyone (and I already have, as they write me all the time) think more critically about an issue that is very important to them, I have succeeded. As for individuals who were vegan then not, all I'm doing is pointing out the obvious or quoting them and exploring what they say.
This is commentary, and whether or not it is ever educational is subjective. For you it isn't, and you can prevent some of your obvious annoyance by not putting yourself in a situation where you are constantly annoyed.
As you and most of your regular readers are well aware, Mary, I greatly appreciate your time and effort at deconstructing and criticizing some of the vast quantities (there's too much to reply to it all) of utter nonsense, misinformation, and moral and intellectual stupidity that is printed daily in newspapers, magazines, and websites, including and even most often in papers like the NYT. It is wonderful and highly educational to visit your blog and read sanity in an insane world. Thank you and keep up the terrific writing.
This is a conversation and thought process I've engaged in often. My parents, grandparents, and other people whom I love tremendously eat meat and dairy. And they will not ever stop, no matter what I say, no matter what I show them. And yet they are not bad people. They are, in many cases, loving, compassionate, and giving individuals who passionately work to make the world a better place in ways other than their dietary choices. And this is difficult for me. It is difficult to know what giant hearts they have and to know that they have the capacity to see what I see but that they will never get there.
On the other hand, one of my sisters is a vegetarian who I hope will someday go vegan, and the other sister is still an omnivore, despite having a vegan sister, a vegetarian sister, and a perhaps-transitioning-to-vegan vegetarian best friend. She certainly does know some things and makes it clear she does not want to know any more–she wants not only to remain as ignorant as she is but even to go back to being more ignorant than she currently is. And this, I struggle not to judge. I do not judge my 81-year-old grandfather, but I do judge my 20-something-year-old sister; I don't want to, but I do, and she knows it. I look at her and see a greater capacity for change; she is more capable of changing but is simply unwilling. She has, on a couple occasions, looked at something I'm eating–or rather looked at what I am *not* eating and what she *is* eating–and remarked that what I eat makes her sad. "No, what *you* eat makes *me* sad," I tell her. Sigh.
Fortunately there are others who have made "baby step" changes -I feel they've done so because of the information I've lovingly passed on. I praise every effort they're so pleased to tell me about – every "nugget" "less" is a win, I know this. You are right. Every life saved counts!
To bunny….. I "chortled" plenty with the hog chef story, (or at least the Marine's comments) as Mary pointed out were the high points. In my mind I am a guest on this blog and am grateful for the many enlightened conversations she has invited us to enter into….. I don't understand what your criticism is all about or why you think you can tell the host what to say in her own space?
Animal Person is one of my favorite blogs for information regarding the philosophical, political, and social realms of veganism. Mary, if this was a "vent"…. have at it! Goodness knows you've listened many who did indeed rant to you.
Mary, I am discouraged from reading and criticizing your blog, while the blog itself is ultimately based on criticism (often of vegans). I love it. Every time I disagree with you on an issue, this is your final response.
The following are some of the comments *YOU* wrote and posted the other day about Kristof's article in Kristof's own comments section.
Here, you call the journalist a hypocrite:
"Yes, in my mind there is hypocrisy in eating the flesh, milk and menstrual excretions of other animals if you are repulsed by cruelty to them."
Here, you make recommendations of what he *should do*:
"However, I recommend a visit to http://www.humanemyth.org before you purchase a product stamped with the claim “humane,” or you believe someone, such as Wolfgang Puck, who says his veal is “humane” (and the NYT reported earlier this year that this product is one of his best sellers)."
Here you tell journalist that he is flat out wrong about animal rights being the subject of his article:
"Your article isn’t about animal rights; it’s about animal welfare, and there’s a significant difference."
You criticize his article in his own comments section. Hmmmm…
…and how is this different than me expressing civil criticisms in the comments section of your blog?
I wonder if you would feel the same if Kristof responded to you by saying that his articles are simply "not for you" and you should "stop reading them." (Problem solved!)
Bea's quote: "I don't understand what your criticism is all about or why you think you can tell the host what to say in her own space?" Seems, according to your sentiments, that Mary can tell Kristof in HIS comments section that his article is not about animal rights and that he is all wrong (insulting much?), but I do not have the right to say in Mary's blog comments that it is unproductive to criticize or disparage folks who have not made the animal rights connection quite yet.
The definition of deconstruction:
a philosophical theory of criticism (usually of literature or film) that seeks to expose deep-seated contradictions in a work by delving below its surface meaning.
So now I know. The point of this blog is to criticize and expose deep-seated contradictions. Well, there you have it. A wonderfully erudite excuse to single out and verbally beat the piss out of other individuals not quite as enlightened as us "vegans." Very educational. Vegan education is the key to abolition, did you know?
Seems that I just deconstructed some contradictions happening right here in this blog. All in the tradition of deconstruction.
Final analysis: What's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander.
Bea, you stated: "Mary, if this was a "vent"…. have at it! Goodness knows you've listened many who did indeed rant to you."
Of course venting is allowed… yet if one wants to have a comment section they should accept ANY and ALL comments. Not only the ones they themselves agree with. That's always been a big problem of mine with many of the abolitionists. All they want to do is agree with one another on the private forums and blogs….. Play follow the leader, high five, slap on the back…have butt sex with one another(unless they're "straight edge" of course)…whatever floats their boat. Yet if anyone does not agree, they are turned upon. The comments should always be allowed so that one can express how they feel or think about the issue at hand. I could see getting upset if there is a personal attack or sincere threat. Yet I saw none of that from Bunny. Mary should feel honored that there are those that read her words and that they still come to read them nearly every single day…that take the TIME to comment…even if they DO NOT AGREE with everything and all she writes/posts. Again..see what I said above about many of the abolitionists. I saw many go to ARCO and get verbally assaulted for not just yanking Dr. Frankentofu's chain or blowing his horn. Nobody has verbally taken any other to hand here. Like Mary, others too have a right to vent on the issues that come up. If not, do away with the comments or onlyand blogs out there….
"Me" and bunny,
What you might not be aware of is that comments are moderated, and I can choose to not publish whatever comments I deem inappropriate, such as insulting rants, cursing, and those from people who abuse animals and are trolling to annoy me. I publish comments from those who disagree with me all the time, and sometimes we proceed to have intelligent, reasonable discussions and part ways, agreeing to disagree (and sometimes one of us moves closer to the other). Moments ago, it was suggested that I also not publish comments clearly not designed to add value to the discussion. I like that, and I think it might solve some problems.
It is incorrect to say that I should publish all comments. I have no obligation to do that whatsoever and I have written about that many times.
And bunny, you quote my comment to Kristof, which is a series of answers to questions HE asked. He thinks he's a hypocrite, and he asks if we think so too, etc… You completely misrepresent my comment, which was also quite tame, by the way. I gave him answers to questions he asked, and also pointed out that he wasn't talking about animal rights. Nothing disparaging there, in my mind.
I experience your comments (both bunny and me) as quite rude. It's like you're coming into my house, making demands of me and insulting me. This isn't a public forum. If you don't like my style, which is certainly not for everyone, you should find a blogger whose style you do like.
I thank everyone for coming to my blog and reading and writing.
Mary…you said: ""Me" and bunny,"
What you might not be aware of is that comments are moderated, and I can choose to not publish whatever comments I deem inappropriate, such as insulting rants, cursing, and those from people who abuse animals and are trolling to annoy me. I publish comments from those who disagree with me all the time, and sometimes we proceed to have intelligent, reasonable discussions and part ways, agreeing to disagree (and sometimes one of us moves closer to the other). Moments ago, it was suggested that I also not publish comments clearly not designed to add value to the discussion. I like that, and I think it might solve some problems."
Yes…I know (as does Bunny I'm sure) that you have to "post" each and every comment sent to you. I appreciate that you do. I admire the fact that you do that. Yet again I'll state, that while I do in fact appreciate that you do post what we write with regards to your comments and others that follow by other posters… do you not think that it is always better to hear what all have to say? Nobody here is flaming anyone. Nobody calls names or casts insults. We may not agree with what you or others have to say sometimes… but nobody "learns" anything when "ALL" agree… You have to admit that even though we may not agree, we have never insulted you as a person. I can only speak for myself. Yet you should both "welcome and embrace" those that come here. The vegan world we all share…well it's a very small one. Please never turn your "comment" section on your blog into one that only has those that agree with what you post. You'll remain a better person for being "BIGGER" than those that will not do so…
-dave (-me)
"It is incorrect to say that I should publish all comments. I have no obligation to do that whatsoever….."
Right makes right.
Chef "hog killing" – there seems to be a rash of it going around:
http://www.kansascity.com/living/food/story/733287-p2.html
Bea,
A young friend who was raised as a vegan by a vegan chef, just married an omnivore and they're throwing a huge party and they're having a pig on a spit.
She didn't eat animals for 20 years and now eats everything . . . everyBODY. It's shocking.
And if that's not bad enough, she has converted her mother, whose favorite food is now bacon.
And they don't believe that there's such a thing as compassionate killing, so they don't bother with happy meat, which I find refreshingly honest (amid the queasiness the story triggers in me).
Oh my…. sounds like a bad re-make of a "Body-Snatchers" movie…. I mean "mind"-snatchers of course….