"to be a feminist is to be vegan" thoughts?

19 Comments

The feminist-vegetarian connection is usually illustrated using the following arguments:

Feminists should be against all oppression, not just one kind - especially as oppressions are so often interlinked

Women often speak about being treated 'like meat', and are often called names of animals to be degraded (cow, bitch etc.)

Animals, like women, are exploited for their bodies and what they can do

It's usually female animals who are exploited the most (male animals are studs or killed) - shown through the consumption of eggs, milk and so on

Women speak about being 'objectified' - when an animal is killed for food it is literally turned into an object

Original article: http://goo.gl/oxuZ9T

I whole-heartedly agree 3
I whole-heartedly disagree 4
I somewhat agree 2
I somewhat disagree 2
I laughed at this concept 26
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 19 )
  • anti-hero
    9 years ago | pl

    I like to eat both.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    7
    7
  • seekelp
    9 years ago

    This is dumb on several levels.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    4
    4
      -
    • EccentricWeird
      9 years ago

      Its dumbness levels exceed 9000 in some areas!

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • dom180
    9 years ago

    I think everyone should be a feminist, vegan, anti-capitalist freedom fighter etc., but people who only choose to do one (or only take it part of the way) are still doing better people who choose to do nothing. Action, even when it's inconsistent, is a lot better than doing nothing.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • seekelp
      9 years ago

      "Action, even when it's inconsistent, is a lot better than doing nothing."

      Take the Nazis, for example...

      I think it's far more important to be sure that the action you're taking is moral. Being a "feminist, vegan anti-capitalist freedom fighter," is pretty vague as far as moral imperatives go.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • dom180
        9 years ago

        I am as sure as it's possible to be for someone who isn't convinced by moral objectivism. Of course speaking in vague terms about revolution isn't useful, but I think this post is more about identity and balancing ideological commitments than about the bare bones theory of politics and philosophy, and as such doesn't demand a deep discussion of the benefits of anarchism to answer the OP's question. I will have that discussion if you want it, though.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
    • ArmusWasTheFirstTroll
      9 years ago

      Why vegan? If one only eats happy animals--humanely born, raised, and killed--would that be acceptable to you?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • dom180
        9 years ago

        It isn't about acceptable vs. unacceptable. There's no moral critical mass at which a person becomes "good enough". Doing the best that you feel you can at the point you're at is a success, but you should still maintain ambition to do better in the future. Like, I'm not even a vegan; I drink milk and use eggs, but I don't eat meat or use leather. If limiting your meat-eating to meat which is produced in a relatively ethical way is the best you can do right now, then it's wonderful if you decide to take that step.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • iEatZombies_
          9 years ago

          I also am I vegetarian who doesn't use leather. =)

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
        • seekelp
          9 years ago

          I think Armus is asking if veganism is objectively more moral than non-veganism.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • dom180
            9 years ago

            Well, that's easy. It's not. When you get down to it, nothing is objectively more moral than anything. But we're not really talking about objectivity - we're all starting from the basic premise that causing animals harm is not morally ideal (at least, I assume we are), which is consensual rather than objective.

            It's extremely obvious to me that killing an animal for food, no matter how humanely, is more harmful than not. Of course suffering isn't objective, but I can't comprehend an argument that could convincingly conclude that slaughtering animals for food isn't causing them suffering on some level. And the moral argument gets even more complicated than that because of, for example, the effects of different types of farming on the environment. By all means try me if you disagree.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
  • Doktor_Hildred_Von_Steinmann
    9 years ago

    Vegans will be the first to turn to cannibalism when the apocalypse happens.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • iEatZombies_
      9 years ago

      I can say as a vegetarian that I would indeed eat a human being in the right circumstances. Just as I would eat animals in the right circumstances.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • [Old Memory]
    9 years ago

    They're feminists...There's been crazier shit than this they've came up with.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • omgcatz
    9 years ago

    I'm a woman who eats meat and trolls feminists on their own forums. Saying I laughed at this concept is an understatement.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • wistfulmaiden
    9 years ago

    Im neither but Im still a decent person.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Nokiot9
    9 years ago

    My ex was a vegan... maybe this ^^^^^is why she was such a bitch... lol

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • lc1988
    9 years ago

    I do not follow the reasoning in this at all...if there is any.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • OtherSide
    9 years ago

    I a feminist is vegan, is she still allowed to eat out her girlfriend when she's on the rag?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0