Of course they are. Seems like a silly question doesn't it, especially given the number of female vegans and the fact that many of us are involved in more than one social justice movement. So what I don't get is the almost obsessive paranoia some abolitionists seem to feel about vegans and non-vegans engaging in any activity that they would label welfarist. Excuse me? I for one welcome any effort that reduces animal cruelty in whatever arena because there's more than enough cruelty going around for all of us to tackle. Sure, one of the most effective tools is to be vegan, and it's important to encourage others to go vegan as well, but to suggest that we refrain from anything that smacks of welfarism is shortsighted in my opinion. To me that's like arguing that compassion is a finite resource that we have to be super careful in doling out. Hogwash (am I allowed to use that expression?) I say. We can be both vegan AND try to help the nonhuman animals that are alive right now. Why does it have to be either/or? Why act as if the two are mutually exclusive? That's like the tired human rights vs. animal rights argument folk throw at us. In fact, the stance taken by some abolitionists that we shouldn't be putting any energy into initiatives that will help reduce current suffering reminds me a bit of the pro-life movement's complete focus on the unborn instead of individuals already walking the earth. And while we're at it, is it really helpful to mock those who are actually doing something concrete instead of just trying to keep an ideology pure? Is it really an effective strategy to ridicule and berate the very people who we are hoping will one day join us and become vegan as well? Or am I the only one who feels this way?