Have Gone Vegan

whose lives matter continued: part B

Hello! If you haven't read part A yet, feel free to do so now. More importantly, if you haven't read the original whose lives matter? then you'd better do so tout suite!

In that post I was trying to convey why saying All Lives Matter (abbr. to ALM from now on) in response to Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a problem. And while I believe ALM may be said in different ways by vegans (as in, all animal lives matter too) and non-vegans (as in, non-black lives, but mainly white lives), it's still problematic regardless of who says it.

To restate, BLM doesn't mean that only black lives matter, but that their lives matter too, and that all lives CAN'T matter until black ones actually do. And while some may suggest that black lives already matter, systemic racism says otherwise. People denying that systemic racism exists clearly say otherwise too. 

BLM is a movement that has gained traction for a reason. While the need for it has existed for what probably seems forever, enough people are standing up now and saying enough is enough, and their voices can no longer be ignored.

I cited a couple of examples of other campaigns where the message is not given the same type of pushback, and the fact that they don't indicates the stronghold that white supremacy and racism has. I also talked about the existence of systemic racism here in Canada as well, and provided links to books and actions for allies.

A few more examples of why saying ALM is not appropriate include a house, a pool, and a birthday. From my reply to a comment: The analogy that I've often seen used to explain why saying ALM isn't appropriate is the 'house on fire' one. Basically, if one house in a neighbourhood is on fire, it is appropriate to focus all attention on trying to put out that particular fire, and not worry about the other houses. One could argue that All Houses Matter, but in this instance the house on fire gets priority. Another analogy I've seen is the lifeguard one. If a person is drowning, then that person gets helped, not everyone else in the pool.

The birthday one I just mentioned goes something like this: if you're at a party wishing someone Happy Birthday, it doesn't mean that no one else has birthdays or that those birthdays aren't equally important, it's just that they're not being celebrated or focused upon that particular day.

I provided a few links to other articles that explain this better than I could, and am quoting from the first link here:

When someone counters “Black Lives Matter” with “All Lives Matter,” it’s appropriate to use the metaphor of a neighborhood: if someone’s house is on fire, while others are not, whose house is the priority? Similarly, choosing to insist that “All Lives Matter,” including those of non-human animals, is not technically wrong, but still distracts from and diffuses the potential impacts of an important and necessary racial justice movement.

The author of Stop Comparing Black Lives Matter to Animal Rights makes the powerful argument that non-black vegans should NEVER make that comparison:

Why? The reasons why are multiple, but let me start with the most basic: You already enjoy the opportunities and privileges that Black people are fighting for.

They end with saying:

Please, vegans with privilege, I’m asking you to join me: Show up and fight racism without equivocation, suppress that impulse to compare the plight of non-human animals to the plight of your fellow humans, see that society’s compassion will never extend to animals before it extends to all humans, and recognize your privilege as a non-Black vegan to fight for animal rights without having to also fight for your own rights.

One more link includes 9 different explanations as to why we should stop saying ALM, which means that something should resonate with everyone, hopefully.

As I mentioned in part A:

Right now the world is also more fully waking up to the reality that racism plays a role in every institution and layer of society (systemic racism), and while some vegans may continue to not want to deal with that, may continue to insist that our movement should only focus on nonhumans, a veganism without intersectionality at its core is like a feminism that doesn't want to include all women in its fight for equality.

...Which is why as vegans, we have to fight for the most marginalized of ALL groups, including both animals and humans. Fighting against speciesism is important, but without paying attention to other interlinked forms of oppression, veganism misses the mark.

One last thing. I would suggest that vegans saying ALM is even more tone deaf than when non-vegans do, in part because of the importance of intersectionality, but also because of the very history of black people being compared to animals themselves.

As a white person who doesn't suffer from systemic racism but likely benefits from and upholds it, I'm clearly not the one with any authority on the subject matter. But if I'm going to try and be an ally, and put forth the notion that vegans have to be allies if veganism is important to them, then all I can do is learn as much as possible and do the best that I can.

And if I can offer up one piece of one-word advice (before I shut up) that everyone (myself included) really could do much more of, it's this:

LISTEN

whose lives matter continued: part A

This is a follow-up to whose lives matter? as I thought a few links that I included in reply to a comment would be helpful in a post as well. (Note: I rambled on too long, so those links will be included in part B.)

But first I want to say a few things. I've been vegan for a long time now (twelve years), and I'm sure I'm not the vegan I was when I first started this journey, just as I'm no longer exactly the same person in general. And while I believe my core values haven't changed, I wouldn't be surprised that if I looked at my posts beginning from 2008, I could find a few things that would make me cringe today. And that's because nothing is static. You change as you grow, and your viewpoints and philosophies refine themselves as you incorporate new information. That's a good thing, both personally and for whatever cause grabs your heartstrings the most.

So I would say the biggest change is likely the realization that the problem which requires veganism as a fix isn't simple, therefore the solutions won't be either. Platitudes, easy sound bites, and single-pronged solutions aren't the answer; otherwise the world would have become vegan a long time ago already. I'm more comfortable now with realizing that the solutions by necessity will be multi-pronged, have a variety of elements that some would describe as welfarist/new welfarist, abolitionist, intersectional, etc.

It could also be that change will come about quicker because of market forces, consumer innovations, environmental or economic necessity, and I'm okay with that. If more animals end up staying alive because of something like cultured lab-meat, for example, than a massive change in people's moral perspective, well, I'm okay with that too. 

Another thing I've come to realize more fully is that vegans, because they're human, are complicated. Being vegan doesn't automatically make you a better or nicer or more compassionate person. There are likely as many assholes among vegans as there are in the general population, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. Infighting shouldn't come as a huge shock either. No matter how noble a social justice movement may be, it's still comprised of imperfect humans with internalized prejudices.

Most vegans are driven by a sense of compassion, sure (well, one would hope), but that doesn't mean that racism, sexism, ableism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, and on and on and on, hasn't affected the movement. Just as the world grappled at large with the notion that rampant abuse of power leading to sexual harassment and assault is more of a norm than an exception, stories of sexism within the animal rights movement were front and centre at the same time.

Right now the world is also more fully waking up to the reality that racism plays a role in every institution and layer of society (systemic racism), and while some vegans may continue to not want to deal with that, may continue to insist that our movement should only focus on nonhumans, a veganism without intersectionality at its core is like a feminism that doesn't want to include all women in its fight for equality.

And that realization (the importance of intersectionality) has probably been the biggest shift in my own approach to veganism over the years. Because at heart, the ending of oppression is what veganism is all about. Which is why as vegans, we have to fight for the most marginalized of ALL groups, including both animals and humans. Fighting against speciesism is important, but without paying attention to other interlinked forms of oppression, veganism misses the mark.

As I said, I've said too much, snort, so will continue this discussion and links in part B.

Stay tuned.

all I really need to know about veganism I learned from uphill walking

Um, no, but it's a catchier title than the one I had before. ;)

In my previous post on vegan burnout, I included a few links on self-care: assessment, top 12 tips, and 100 places to start. A hundred (or even twelve for that matter) is actually an awful lot to start, so I thought I'd share my latest way of self-care. (Some of my other self-care techniques include biking, scheduling reading as a daily task, and most recently, writing first instead of leaving it for last.) Vegan self-care is something that activists need to take more seriously, but if you find it difficult think of it as helping yourself in order to most effectively help others. Because a burnt-out vegan isn't of help to anyone, or to any movement.

So, what is my latest fave way of taking care of myself? Well, the title gave it away, but in two words: uphill walking. 

Yep, I've been doing this for about four months now, three times per week, and I love it. And while I thought I was in decent-enough shape with all the walking, biking and even running around I do at work, uphill walking has had more benefits than I'd even imagined. Luckily, I live five minutes away from one of many roads going right up the Niagara Escarpment, so don't have to travel far to get a workout. 

One of the things I enjoy most about uphill walking is its non-multitasking nature. All I have to focus on is putting one foot in front of the other until I get to the top. Sure, sometimes I try to walk off whatever anger or frustration I'm feeling, think through a blog post I'm writing, or when feeling mellow simply enjoy the peaceful quiet and trees surrounding me, but basically, my goal is to get to where the incline stops (about 20 minutes) and then return home. Step by step is all I have to do.

Besides increasing my heart rate to a level where it counts (bike riding doesn't do that for me anymore), and moving my legs so I can really feel them (walking on a level surface -- for however long or fast -- doesn't feel like exercise anymore either), uphill walking gives me more energy for the rest of the day, and helps me sleep better at night. And while I'm not vegan for health reasons, it's a nice bonus nonetheless. 

But what I also appreciate about my newfound self-care component (and by now you've seen this coming I'm sure), is the metaphor it represents. Not so much the familiar a-journey-of-a-thousand-miles-begins-with-a-single-step metaphor (although that's a nice one too), but the actual journey of not only becoming, but also staying, vegan. 

Making the decision to head out the door is a bit like making that initial decision to stop your usual routine of consuming other animals, and doing something different. Something healthier, something life affirming, and something that will be of benefit not only to yourself, but to others as well. And no matter how often I've climbed that hill by now, I know that the first steep incline is the hardest and requires a bit of an extra push. Becoming vegan can be like that too. You're out of your usual comfort zone, and it may take some extra focus to get started.

At some point, it gets easier though. Once past that first hill, or that first while of being vegan, it's not as hard anymore and you take some deep breaths (or a few gulps from the water bottle) and relax. You keep going though, knowing that the next incline is coming up. But this time it's easier because you've had a little practice, and you know you've succeeded before. You know you've got what it takes.

You also know better though than to underestimate that hill in front of you, that hill that someone just the day before told you they weren't able to climb and will no longer even try. But also that hill that undoubtedly someone else will climb (or run or bike) faster or with better technique. That won't let it deter you though, right?

The vegan path can be strewn with obstacles too. No one said it would always be easy (the most satisfying and worthwhile things seldom are), but it's definitely doable. Like uphill walking, you don't need any special equipment, and you can do it on your own or with like-minded others. After time it really does require less effort, but sometimes if you're not careful or paying enough attention, you stop putting that one foot in front of the other and no longer even get out the door. (I first started uphill walking about five years ago, but then after a few months got bored and for some bizarre reason decided that I wasn't getting much out of it in terms of exercise benefit. If it could speak, my now five-years-older body would say, Seriously? What were you thinking, you not-yet-bothered-with-any-kind-of-joint-pain upstart?)

Now I'm not sure if this metaphor is getting too muddled here, snort, but to stretch it a bit further, you may occasionally make a misstep. You trip or stumble, and oops, not looking closely enough, you managed to eat something without seeing the whey powder hiding in a long list of ingredients, or honey that you somehow managed to overlook. Does this mean you declare yourself unfit for the vegan label and give up the journey entirely? Of course not. This is not the equivalent, by the way, of deciding to order that hamburger or steak because your body has spoken and you've decided to listen to its supposedly wise counsel.

Then again, even if this were to happen, it doesn't mean you can't get up the next day and like the mature adult that you are, start again. One lapse doesn't disqualify you for life. Just as one missed day or week of uphill walking doesn't mean you should never exercise again.

But like exercise, veganism becomes more effortless when it's a habit. Not an unthinking done-by-rote habit, but a well-thought-out conscious decision to flex those physical AND compassion muscles. When you've decided in advance that you want to take care of your body and take care of other beings, it's no longer a choice you have to remake every day. You know what's at stake, you know what you want to do, and so you just do it. And if you fall, you don't make excuses, but you get up and start again. You keep calm, you keep vegan, and you KEEP GOING. :)

quick vegan pop quiz

Look at the image below, and then answer the question that follows.

Is this meme:

a) racist
b) sexist
c) not appropriate for the vegan movement
d) all of the above
e) none of the above

Think carefully now.

You answered correctly (as I knew you would!), if you said: e) none of the above.

The scary part though is that this meme received a lot of negative feedback with different vegans chiming in that it was, in fact, sexist, or racist (because there's no such thing as white privilege), or not appropriate (why can't we just focus on the animals?) for the vegan movement. Wow, is all I can say. Okay, I CAN say more, snort.

Patriarchy is very much alive, despite the claim by some that equality between the sexes has already been achieved (right, what planet are they living on?), and despite the insistence by the men's rights movement that men are the real victims now, and even a minority, thanks to uppity man-hating feminists. (Did you see the eye roll?)

Others took great offence to the second line, because white privilege, apparently, is complete bullshit. And a figment of the imagination. Astonishingly, even some people of colour deny the existence of white privilege, adding that they enjoy more privilege than that of some of their white friends. But I think what can contribute to this confusion is a) not being clear enough on what white privilege actually means, and b) getting it mixed up with class privilege. For example, you can be white but not feel privileged because you grew up poor. An article that explains this really well is one titled Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person. A link in that article doesn't work (at least, it didn't for me), so here's a look back at a previous post of mine that does link to Peggy McIntosh's piece, as well as a few others. Oh, and at a follow-up post as well. 

The not-appropriate-for-the-vegan-movement line ties in to the All Lives Matter debacle. Now, to give vegans proponents of this slogan the benefit of the doubt, of course all lives matter in a general sense, and the whole thrust of veganism is respecting all sentient beings. But the problem with countering the Black Lives Matter slogan with the All Lives one is that, among other things, you're negating the real issue of racism. It is, if you're aware of the importance of intersectionality, offensive. And here it can get a bit dicey. Because while all types of oppression are similar (the root being power imbalance), you can't casually compare sexism, racism, speciesism and/or other isms as if they're all the same. There ARE nuances, different experiences, and one of the easiest ways to conceptualize this is with the following image that I first saw on veganelder's blog, who by the way, is doing a lot of thinking and writing about these not-always-easy-to-fully-comprehend issues.

No, we're at a point where vegans need to better understand how these different but similar oppressions interact and reflect a fundamental power imbalance, and listen more closely to those with direct experience of those oppressions. Otherwise, tackling single isms isn't going to get any being very far.

postscript to my last post (from long long long ago it seems...)

As often happens, what I read and write tends to overlap. That is, while drafting or right after publishing, I'll read something that pertains directly to what I just wrote. It can be a magical synergy-like thing, or sometimes, a needed kick in the pants. 

The day after I lamented the state of our planet and pinned my hopes on its survival on youngsters like Henry Marr (how fair was that, actually?) I read what I thought was the best chapter in Circles of Compassion. To be honest I'm not fully convinced that the book succeeded in accomplishing the aim of its subtitle: essays connecting issues of justice, but the last chapter before Will Tuttle's conclusion was, I thought, the most action-oriented and the most inspiring to me personally.

In it, author Zoe Weil outlines her MOGO principle for a more peaceful, sustainable and humane world. MOGO is short for "most good" and seeks to answer the question, "what does the most good and the least harm?" as a way of helping us make better choices. She begins her chapter by asking readers to imagine how they would answer this question from a hypothetical child from a future better world, "What role did you play in creating the good world we have today?" As she rightly points out, if we don't envision the world we want and identify our own part in its unfolding, it is harder to both imagine and bring about. It also places responsibility on each of us, instead of dumping that burden on future Henry Marrs. 

The MOGO principle works best when recognizing the intersections between human rights, animal protection and environmental preservation. Ms. Weil also stresses that while the principle is simple in theory, it can be challenging in practice, and as an example outlines both the destructive and helpful aspects of a common technological item such as a laptop.

Without going into further detail from her section in the book (she has written, by the way, her own book Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principle for a Better World and Meaningful Life), here are the seven keys that she's identified which can help people put the MOGO principle into practice:

1. live your epitaph
2. pursue joy through service
3. make connections and self reflect
4. model your message and work for change
5. find and create community
6. take responsibility, and
7. strive for balance

These keys make a lot of sense, and I look forward to reading more of her work.

**************************

p.s. After encouragement from some of my readers to go read We Animals already, I have finally started and concur with their assessment -- it's an excellent book. Jo-Anne McArthur has done a superb job indeed, and both her photographs and text are haunting, beautiful, evocative, skillful, and highly intelligent. But having said that, a part of me still wishes I had never opened it. I'm on the second chapter, Food, now, and can only read a few pages at a time* before my levels of anger and disgust threaten to get dangerously high. I am misanthropic enough as it is, so am planning to read the chapter called Mercy last, and thus hope to end on a more hopeful note.

* nope, stuck on page 98 now, and can't seem to go any further...

while I'm still on the subject...

I ran across a lovely poem about death last week. I know, 'lovely' and 'death' in the same sentence seems a bit strange, but this piece by my favourite poet Mary Oliver is actually more about life:

When Death Comes

When death comes
like the hungry bear in autumn;
when death comes and takes all the bright coins from his purse

to buy me, and snaps the purse shut;
when death comes
like the measle-pox;

when death comes
like an iceberg between the shoulder blades,

I want to step through the door full of curiosity; wondering:
what is it going to be like, that cottage of darkness?

And therefore I look upon everything
as a brotherhood and a sisterhood,
and I look upon time as no more than an idea,
and I consider eternity as another possibility,

and I think of each life as a flower, as common
as a field daisy, and as singular,

and each name a comfortable music in the mouth,
tending, as all music does, toward silence,

and each body a lion of courage, and something
precious to the earth.

When it's over, I want to say: all my life
I was a bride married to amazement.
I was the bridegroom, taking the world into my arms.

When it's over, I don't want to wonder
if I have made of my life something particular, and real.
I don't want to find myself sighing and frightened,
or full of argument.

I don't want to end up simply having visited this world.

   Oliver, Mary.  New and Selected Poems. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992.

************************************************************************************************

It's been seven weeks and a bit since my cat died, and I've reached the stage where I'm more or less used to no longer having her around, and have dealt with my guilt for not ending (and not fully recognizing) her suffering sooner. But life, as they say, marches on (I actually had to go to work almost right after leaving the vet's office), and remaining stuck in grief or guilt serves no one I suppose. It's been interesting though to think about grief and the process of grieving once the surreal fog of losing someone lifted.

Because when you lose someone (veganism in one way can be described as the battle of having other animals recognized as 'someones' rather than 'somethings'), you lose more than that being; you lose a part of your identity as well. Lose a spouse, and all of a sudden, you're no longer someone's wife or husband. Once my mom dies (my dad's already passed away), I will no longer be someone's daughter. I will instead be, in a sense, an orphaned adult. Without a kitty running around at my house (for the first time in nearly thirty years with the exception of a brief span of two months), I am no longer owned by a cat, or any other animal companion.

But what I find most interesting is that even grief is claimed as an exclusively human domain by most. Take the old saw of the one thing that separates humans from animals and you'll find included in the ever-shortening list (the use of tools is one example of something that's been scratched off already) the idea that only humans think about death. Poppycock I say. 

Other animals may not ruminate on the meaning of death the way human animals do (at least, that we know of), but that death does mean something is evident I would think in their desire (in most circumstances) to avoid it. And in their willingness to embrace it when ready. 

As for grief, even without having read any of the books on animals and grieving, I would venture to say that we've all heard anecdotes about the loss and bewilderment shown by companion animals searching for their sibling or buddy who one day is no longer around. The companion animals who very quickly pass on after their human guardian has died. Geese, sea lions and dolphins, to name a few, have all been observed to mourn the loss of their mate, child or friend. Not to mention the bellowing that occurs when calves are taken away from their mothers. If that isn't grieving, what is? 

And what about the rituals that elephants engage in when coming upon a deceased member of their own kind? That would certainly indicate awareness of death, an awareness thought by some to be reserved for humans only. We may never know in full what grieving is like for other animals, but to dismiss it as a human experience only is folly. And it brings to mind a quote that haunts me to this day, and hopefully puts to rest this notion that death has symbolic meaning for humans only:

I had bought two male chimps from a primate colony in Holland. They lived next to each other in separate cages for several months before I used one as a [heart] donor. When we put him to sleep in his cage in preparation for the operation, he chattered and cried incessantly. We attached no significance to this, but it must have made a great impression on his companion, for when we removed the body to the operating room, the other chimp wept bitterly and was inconsolable for days. The incident made a deep impression on me. I vowed never again to experiment with such sensitive creatures. --CHRISTIAN BARNARD, surgeon

As for an afterlife, as an agnostic/atheist I am most comfortable in thinking that when this life ends everything stops, although I would hope to be open enough to whatever the 'cottage of darkness' may hold if it indeed holds anything. The idea though that even an afterlife is exclusively reserved for humans (some argue that by definition animals can't have souls), is nothing short of insulting. Because a part of me believes that if an afterlife DOES exist, only other species are deserving of it. 

At any rate, let's at least stop this insistence that humans are special, that humans are separate from other animals by one arbitrary trait or another. And let's maybe delve a bit more deeply into this seemingly human psychological need (or pathology if you will) that seeks to differentiate itself at any cost. Because what exactly does it say about the fragile human psyche? That maybe what really differentiates humans from other animals is the irrational need to falsely elevate ourselves?

"it's the humane thing to do"

A familiar phrase contested by few, and even heard uttered by fictional serial killer Dexter Morgan.

As you may know, I myself took my cat to the vet to be euthanized back in December because it was the humane thing to do. What I find fascinating though about the almost unanimous agreement with those six words is that it's widely considered okay to end an animal's life and suffering precisely because they're not human. Killing an animal is sometimes even performed when it's a matter of convenience for a guardian and when it has very little to do with suffering. In this instance the property status of an animal is most clear, but even when the deed is done for the right reasons, permission seems to be based on the fact that a companion animal isn't considered a person. 

Which is odd when you look at the word "humane" itself. Broadly speaking, humane means showing compassion, mercy and kindness, so you would think that when a human being is suffering and wishes for their life to end, then humaneness would automatically include the human contained in the word itself. But no, that particular granting of ending a being's suffering and life is restricted to those whom society generally deems to be without personhood. It's okay to end the lives of companion animals because they're not people, and as many would argue, have no souls. It's not okay though to extend that same dignity to a being not considered as property. How is that not backward somehow?

Now the point of this post wasn't to get into a euthanasia debate as such, but its genesis was sparked by news that doctor-assisted suicide will be allowed in Canada as of February 6. Welcome news to me in part because of the suffering, decay and death that I saw my own father and stepfather go through, and still witness on an almost daily basis at work. And having come from the Netherlands where euthanasia (including physician-assisted suicide) has been legal for decades, I personally regard it as a dignified option for those who want it. Because if suicide itself is not illegal, why should assisted suicide be against the law?

But getting back to the concept of dignity, it still strikes me as peculiar that that is something we're willing to grant to beings whom we otherwise sometimes treat in the exact opposite way for most of their lives. They're given the legal status of objects and property, but if they're designated as "pets", then we can end their lives humanely without impunity. So why not give persons whom we supposedly value more the same consideration?

I don't get it. But maybe I'm not seeing things clearly.

so I'm thinking of calling myself a 'New Abolitionist', snort

Cuz you know, it's classy, clever and cool to attach the word "new" to a term to make it a pejorative. Um, no, it's actually old and tired, but hey, small things amuse me. All kidding aside though, I DO struggle with what to call myself. I'm abolitionist, but have no problem supporting reform measures that reduce suffering. And for that I may have earned the openly mocked "new welfarist" label by some, but tough. 

So why am I bringing this up now? The beginnings of this post has been sitting untouched in my drafts folder since February of 2012, and I suppose I just wanted to finally get it off my chest. And because this time of year tends to make me a little Grinchy before the spirit of the season eventually manages to infiltrate my system, I thought I'd deal with it so I can hopefully move on to a more positive state of mind. And clean up the coal before the new year begins. ;)  

I've been vegan for a fairly long time now (8 years next summer is pretty long, no?), but did you know that I almost gave up on being vegan practically right after adopting the label? As soon as I decided to go vegan I looked up the concept online so I could join the group of loving, joyous, peaceful and supportive folk that vegans obviously were. [Okay, I'll give you a minute here to guffaw at my naïveté.] You can imagine my shock then when I discovered that the animal rights movement was more divisive than any other movement I'd thus far encountered, and in comparison made being a feminist look like a walk in the park.

One of my first online searches landed me in a forum (it may have been Examiner) where I soon noticed this one person being even more obnoxious than the rest. What also annoyed me was that unlike everyone else who just went by their first name, this individual kept including their educational and work credentials every time they said something. Who is this jerk, I thought, and why are they so damn status-conscious? Sorry, but that kind of crap doesn't impress me, and I hoped they would just go away already. Oops, as I learned soon enough, this was the leader (leader!) of an influential branch of the movement, and I was almost ready to throw in the towel. Because if this jackass (or, to be more fair, person with jackassy ways) was supposed to be someone to admire and learn from, well, the movement could count me out. 

I was genuinely bummed for a while, but then figured that there had to be other vegans whose philosophy and approach more closely resembled my own, and of course, there were. Veganism is about compassion and other animals more than the petty (and sometimes not-so-petty) differences between vegans, and it wasn't long before I found my own kind of people so to speak.

That first person who rudely awakened me to the reality of the vegan movement never did go away, and I encountered them again years later in a completely fruitless one-on-one online discussion that cemented my dislike of this person even more. It also made me question their professional skills because surely a lawyer would know that parroting the same stock phrases over and over does not an argument make? Zero listening skills, debatable debating skills, complete arrogance, and the most linear black-and-white thinking I've ever seen. Not exactly a recipe for inspiring change methinks.

That opinion hasn't changed. And while I'm sure that this individual started out with the best of intentions and still truly believes that their approach and strategy is the best one where other animals are concerned, we have to call a spade a spade. Or in this case, a bully. Not a label I use too often, but from my own personal and work experience, I tend to recognize bullying behaviours almost instantly.

Okay, at this point you're probably thinking that I'm not being nice right now either, and you're likely right, but I also believe that vegans have a responsibility not only for our message, but for our messengers as well. And allowing even one of those messengers to be controlling, to delete comments that even slightly deviate from their own opinion, to ban group or forum members outright for not strictly toeing their philosophical line, and to deny any legitimacy to other approaches is well, unacceptable. What's worse is that this kind of behaviour would be rightly recognized as abusive were it to happen in a personal relationship, so why do we condone it when it happens in a political movement?

It's not right, and we shouldn't.

These days I tend to describe myself as abolitionist in theory and ideals, and pragmatic in approach. In short, a pragmatic abolitionist. Call me new welfarist if you will, but I define myself as an abolitionist because I want to see the abolition of animal use. I just don't see it happening as quickly as certain absolutist abolitionists do, and definitely not by just chanting the world is vegan if you want it over and over. It will, in my opinion (and those of others), require many strategies (both abolitionist AND reform), many approaches, and the inclusion of people who aren't even vegan.

Until that time, we need to be nicer to each other, and to those we are trying to reach. We need to lead by example (myself included), both online and out in the real world that we're trying to change. Because if compassion for others isn't shown, why the hell should non-vegans think compassionately about other species?

In sum, I can't really call myself a new or old anything if I don't at least try to live up to the ideals of what veganism really means. So I pledge, right now, to become a better person in the new year, and to try and become the kind of vegan I admire. Anyone with me? :)

some food for thought for Thanksgiving

Canadians have already celebrated this happy/horrible occasion back in October, and I've blogged about it over the years in more traditional ways (type Thanksgiving in the search bar if interested), so this time I thought I'd approach it a bit differently:

And while the line above may have come from a schmaltzy movie (which may be an unfair representation as I only vaguely recall seeing bits of it), I think it has a lot to say to both vegans and non-vegans alike.

The first sentence struck me as summarizing a typical view that many non-vegans hold of us: having a holier-than-thou attitude, defining our goodness by what (we would argue who) we won't eat, unnecessarily restricting ourselves from what others view as both tasty and healthy, and excluding folk who don't measure up to our definitions and expectations. And to a degree, they're right. That is, we place undue emphasis on things like meat, eggs and dairy, when as Norm Phelps says, 

As vegans, we are not "giving up" meat, eggs, and dairy. We are giving up cruelty and killing.  p193 Changing The Game

He's right. It's not about the animal products per se; it's about avoiding the suffering and death that go into the making of those products. But that's not quite right either. Or at least, not right enough. What vegans really try to do is not view animals as products or objects at all, but as beings with the right to live their own lives in their own ways. In other words, we try to respect all sentient beings and remember that our cause is about them, not us.

And in that sense veganism is about inclusion. Including all animals into our circle of compassion, consideration, and showing awareness of their needs and wants, which often mirror many of our own. Family, companionship, safety, security, joy, play, food, shelter, and above all, life. But in many ways, vegans are quite good at excluding others. Other vegans who don't share our philosophies and strategies (I'm guilty of this, for sure), vegans who we feel aren't vegan for quite the right reasons, and non-vegans who are willing to step part of the way onto the vegan path, but not the whole way.

We sniff with disdain at vegetarians, flexitarians, reducetarians, and those who are only veganish, even though the demand for analogs of all kinds is often driven by those who aren't ready to give up animal products altogether. In other words, we bite the hands of those who are helping to feed the demand for less animal suffering. This doesn't mean I wouldn't encourage those individuals to go vegan, but I wouldn't denigrate them either for what they're willing to do right now.

So maybe what vegans need to become better known for is what we say yes to. Instead of being equated with deprivation and restriction, veganism might expand more if it was associated with something that's joyful and celebratory. Not that a misanthropically inclined individual such as myself would be a good role model, snort. No, I'm thinking more of folk like Colleen Patrick-Goudreau, and Esther's amazingly upbeat dads.

Perhaps if we aspire to be more like them, and to pass on the message in a more positive way, we wouldn't have such a hard time persuading people to go vegan. Maybe we need to become less No people and more Yes people. Maybe being vegan, and even veganism itself, needs to be more fun. And maybe we need to embrace and recreate a truly inclusive veganism that better reflects that. 

Then again, we can't lose sight of why most of us became vegan in the first place: to stop the torture and killing of other animals. So if it's not about us, what should our pleasure and fun have to do with it?

As usual, I'm thinking out loud. What are your thoughts on this?

we must strive and persevere and never give up

While it's doubtful the Dalai Lama was speaking about veganism when he said this, it applies just as well. :)

the power of one, vegan style

While the thought of trying to make the world go vegan can be as daunting as trying to imagine world peace (although as veganelder pointed out in my last post, the term "human society" is usually more accurate than world), it can be more manageable when broken down into bits. And while there's no magic formula or easy 7-step process (this world would have become vegan already if there were), we too quickly forget about the power of one. Because the power of one multiplied exponentially can bring about change in ways we can't even possibly foresee. Who would have thought, for example, that a lone image of a deceased boy on a beach could be such a rallying point in the current refugee crisis?

What does the power of one look like? It can be:

• one pamphlet or book that finally opens someone's eyes
• one video or documentary that really hits home
• one blog post that inspires
• one image that galvanizes collective outrage
• one muffin or meal that makes someone realize animal parts aren't needed
• one day powerful enough to scare the ag industry silly e.g. Meatless Monday 
• one consumer product popular enough to cause lawsuits e.g. Just Mayo
• one mentor or role model
• one animal's world that has completely changed by being rescued
• one animal celebrity -- need I mention Esther? ;)
• one sanctuary
• one step in the right direction
• One Step for Animals
• one reason to either go or stay vegan
• one task
• one role
• one idea
• one thing
• one change
• one person

What can YOU do? That's up to you. There's lots of choice and enough to do, so pick what suits you. Pick what you love or what you're good at (often the same thing), because sticking to something and being able to do it over the long haul helps everyone. Keep in mind also that one thing isn't the same as a scattered or frantic do something, do anything approach, but a strategic focus that when multiplied can have real results. Reread pattrice jones' inspiring blog post Effective Activism, peruse 100 Ways to Change the World for Animals Part 1 and Part 2 from OHH, and:

Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive. And go do that. Because the world needs people who've come alive. -- Howard Thurman, American theologian and civil rights leader

Finally, remember that if nothing else, act as if what you do can make a difference, because it CAN and it DOES.

privilege continued AND what privilege really means

Because if you don't see how seemingly different types of oppression are similar and interconnected (that is, the roots are the same but the affected party may be different), then you won't be as effective in whatever advocacy work you're doing.

The above is part of a comment I left on a previous privilege post back in January, and is something that has fascinated me for a long time. That is, how folk can recognize their own particular form of oppression well enough, yet be seemingly privilege-blind when it comes to other forms. Before I continue though, I found an excellent article recently on what privilege really means, which I would encourage you to read because privilege by its very essence can be so damn hard to see, especially when we're the ones reaping its benefits.

(pausing while you finish reading)

While it may be tempting to think that once we recognize one form of oppression all the other ones are instantly easier to see, unfortunately, that's not the case. While some well-meaning vegans, for example, have been quick to point out that "all lives matter" when they see #BlackLivesMatter, do we really have the right to do this if we don't understand white privilege better, and recognize how we're complicit in a racist system? And how do you deal with or prioritize multiple oppressions when all of them have an impact? 

Privilege and oppression can seem almost limitless, and perhaps they are. Are we all endowed with privilege blinders? I'm beginning to think so. Let me illustrate with a few more examples. One of the first labels I adopted and still wear is that of feminist. Considered a dirty and threatening word by far too many, feminism as its basic goal seeks gender equality. That's it in a nutshell. So why every single person isn't in favour of this concept baffles me. Wouldn't allowing everyone to be their true selves instead of conforming to rigid and outdated gender stereotypes be a win-win for all? (I'm not being naive here, as I realize that many individuals and institutions benefit greatly from inequality despite its high price.)

And while you would think that those who identify as feminist would seek equality for all women, this isn't always the case. Women of colour have often argued that feminism doesn't include them. Same for those who aren't middle or upper class. Some women who are sex workers say that feminists too often portray all of them as victimized prostitutes, rather than women who are choosing how they earn their income. There are also those who dispute that all pornography is automatically bad or demeaning. They would argue that it is sexism, not sex that should be demonized, and some feminists are making their own pornography. Then there are feminists who are accused of being transphobic, a claim that's difficult to refute when some of them insist that only women-born-women qualify as real women, and that only they should be granted access to women's and feminist spaces. 

Another group that vegans often lament for not seeing the oppression of other animals are members of the LGBT community. And it IS frustrating when folk who legitimately fight for the ending of oppression based on sexual orientation don't feel there's anything wrong with oppressing beings who happen not to be born human, even though they have desires and relationships just like we do. But is it that surprising? Because you would think that those who are discriminated against because of orientation are more likely to support all other orientations. Not always.

While it may be better now, there was a time when identifying as bisexual would get you a lot more flak from those who didn't identify as straight, as from those who did. And while neither group particularly liked "fence sitters", it wasn't heterosexuals who were more committed to kicking you off. But even today biphobia is alive and well. How many bisexual characters are there on TV? How many have there ever been? And how many of those characters are misidentified, like Piper (on Orange Is The New Black) who's called ex-lesbian instead of bi? Notice also how most people think almost exclusively in terms of gay or straight, male or female, black or white. We're addicted to binary thinking, and don't seem to like anything in between. Gosh, how many times haven't you heard the phrase, you're either vegan, or you're not? ;)

As you can see, privilege and oppression are not simple at all. Certainly not as simple to understand and combat as just using words like sexism, racism and speciesism. And while everyone is likely marginalized in some way, please do realize your privilege if you can put check marks in front of white, straight, middle-class, cis (those who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth) or male. Just sayin'.

some thoughts on fathering

Can't believe it's been nearly a year already since my dad passed away, and that he won't be around this Father's Day. Although, to be honest, he wasn't around much period while his five kids were growing up, and made no secret of the fact that he had zero interest in parenting. (In case you think I'm exaggerating, each one of my siblings grew up being told that he would leave as soon as they turned 16, and he finally made good on his promise when my turn as the youngest came around.) In spite of this, three of my siblings and I had made some sort of peace with him before he died, and accepted his lack of involvement in our lives as something that wasn't to be taken too personally. A good role model for being a father he wasn't, but it could have been worse.

So with Father's Day around the corner (tomorrow!), and my post on mothering just behind me, I thought I'd take some time and continue talking about parenting. If, as I argued in my previous post, mothering is a role we don't really value, then fathering is a role valued even less. Sure, we pay lip service to the idea of celebrating the role of fatherhood, but even the holiday itself isn't emphasized as much as its counterpart.

Understandable, as regrettably, raising the next generation is still often thought of as women's work. Consider again that most men won't have to figure out how they'll combine work with child rearing, won't get asked how they'll accomplish that feat, and won't have to deal with the consequences of taking time out of the labour force to raise their kids if that's their choice. But that career comes first for men is still a given for most.  

As I also stated in the mothering post, the qualities of being a good parent -- nurturing, protecting, guiding, etc., are not, in my opinion, gender specific, and I think it's a shame that we've allowed outdated stereotypes to determine parenting roles. I've long felt that a mature and healthy adult is, for example, strong and sensitive, caring and assertive, rational and warm, empathetic and independent, and to label any of those traits as either masculine or feminine is both silly and limiting.

In that sense, I don't think a child needs both a mother and a father as claimed by those who champion traditional family values, as much as they need an adult in their lives who has the full range of qualities that every grown-up should have. Where it's helpful to have two adults involved in child-rearing is that it lessens the load, and hopefully provides a role model of what a positive relationship can look like. But whether those two adults are of the same gender or not is irrelevant, and I can tell you from personal experience that my own particular family would have been much better off if it had been "broken" far sooner.

And if mothering and fathering doesn't get the status it deserves among humans, then the industrial agricultural complex pretty much strips any status for other species. No respect is given to the natural bonds of motherhood and fatherhood, and parenthood is only valued if it benefits humans. Think puppy mills, zoos, aquariums, and of course all the victims considered food animals. A depressing thought indeed.

So once again I want to end with a reference to two of my favourite human dads, who daily give me hope, and who beautifully illustrate what fatherhood could and should be all about. :)

some thoughts on mothering

By age twelve I had already decided that motherhood wasn't for me, in part because I didn't want to risk subjecting a child to the same kind of screwed-up childhood I was experiencing myself. Imagine my surprise then when decades later I've ended up doing a form of mothering anyway, in a classic case of role reversal with my aging mom. And while there are challenges to taking care of a parent who didn't particularly take good care of you, there are rewards as well. These include closure, working through unresolved issues, grieving a relationship that never was, and providing the kind of nurturing and caring that my younger self craved but didn't receive enough of. And as odd as it may sound, providing this kind of care for someone else is self-nurturing too. I can even see how having had my own kids may have speeded up this healing process, although biologically it's too late for that now. Which isn't to glamorize or minimize any of the hard work involved in taking care of a living being, whether they're eight months old, or eighty-eight years. 

But while today celebrates the role of mothering, I would argue that it's a role we don't really value. We don't define it particularly well, or even give much thought as to whether we should take it on. Folk who opt out of parenthood are often characterized as being selfish and shallow, whereas those who don't give it a second thought, who automatically assume that that's what people do, are lauded as being unselfish and giving. Never mind overpopulation and the various environmental implications. This isn't to say that no one should have kids, but that anyone contemplating having them ought to give serious thought as to the consequences, because not doing so is the actual selfish and shallow act. Parenting, in my view, should be thought of as a privilege rather than a right, and with rights come responsibilities.

Because what other enterprise in our society is as unregulated, unlicensed and unreviewed? Do anything else -- drive a car, buy a gun (in itself an insane act, in my opinion), or enter any number of professions -- and you'll likely need a licence or at least some form of training. But become a parent, and hey, no demonstration of skills or aptitude required. Parenting has to be one of the least paperless activities around, even though it's purported to be the most difficult task there is. Hmmm. 

And as for value, what do we pay people to be parents? To prepare the next generation to become responsible and model citizens? What is this most important work worth? Then compare that to what we pay hockey players, basketball stars, actors, CEO's, and whatever redeeming title you can manage to come up with for anyone whose last name is Kardashian, and it boggles the mind. 

What about all the shelters, programs and services set up for domestic abuse victims? Women and children mainly, although men fall prey as well at times. Take Back The Night has been around forever it seems, and the stats on sexual assault don't appear to be dropping either. So if we value the labour of women when it comes to raising kids so much, why don't we take the man out of the home and off of the street when violence occurs rather than forcing the woman to flee?

And what of this role called mothering? What does it mean to be a mother? We don't spell it out clearly enough methinks, but to my mind mothering involves nurturing, raising, protecting, teaching, guiding, caring, playing, helping, mentoring, setting a good example and being an effective role model. 

What about fathering? Not a term we hear as often as mothering, but surely it also means protecting, raising, caring, guiding, nurturing, helping, setting a good example, teaching, playing and being an effective mentor and role model. Notice that all of these attributes are shared by both male and female parents, although unfortunately the onus is still on mothers to do the lion's share of raising kids. Because when are men ever asked, for example, how they'll combine childcare and work?

Notice too that all the qualities of being a good (or good enough) parent are not species-specific. If we really value mothering, shouldn't we recognize and respect the mother-child bond wherever it occurs? Take a look at any undercover footage of factory farming, and you'll see just how much we actually value mothering.  Sadly, as with human mothering, not that much.

But veganism can change that. Does change that. And to end this post on a positive note, here's a video of a fabulous new mother, and a nod to two human dads who prove that nurturing, protecting and providing is everyone's job, although these two do it particularly well. 

"love means never having to say you're sorry"

Is probably one of the most asinine set of words ever stringed together. If you're of a certain age you'll likely remember where this line came from, but if not, well, never mind. Suffice it to say that I tend to consider Valentine's Day just as senseless (as I do any holiday that celebrates something that ought to be recognized and validated more than once a year -- think Mother's Day, for example), but what the heck, let's take the kernel of this schmaltzy, sentimental, overly hyped, marketed, and commercialized day and do something useful with it. Let's look at love from a vegan perspective. 

So what is love? I'm no expert, but thought I'd start a list. Feel free to add.

True vegan love means:

• saying sorry whenever you've goofed up, which means you'll be saying sorry many more times than never (and if you're the exceptional human who rarely slips up, you could always say a general sorry on behalf of the rest of us)
• respecting your animal companions (this means not declawing your cat, docking your dog's tail or ears, or any other number of practices that don't benefit other animal household members in the least)
• extending your respect and compassion to sentient beings not viewed as companion animals (just because they don't happen to live in someone's home doesn't mean they shouldn't be present in your area of concern)
• getting out of your comfort zone to assist other sentient beings in concrete and off-line ways 
• remembering that "other sentient beings" includes the human kind
• not holding yourself or other vegans to impossibly perfect standards
• not getting too hung up on what label (or non-label) other vegans use to describe their identity or advocacy if they're actually doing something helpful
• being patient and kind with non-vegans even (or especially) in the moments when a part of your brain feels that violence could be a valid and useful tool
• recognizing that love, respect and compassion towards all are supposed to be the cornerstones of being vegan
• remembering those cornerstones when you're having difficulty feeling love, respect and compassion because someone or some group is pissing you off
• seeing that "love" works better as a verb than a noun
• preparing food that sustains rather than hurts (whether in sourcing or consuming)
• accepting that you can only change yourself, provide information without demanding results, and lead by example
• realizing that veganism is a means to an end, not an end in itself (the real end is for the need for veganism to become obsolete*), and ultimately about other animals and not ourselves
• disagreeing without hurting and agreeing without competing (this, if I remember correctly, was a line -- I've roughly paraphrased it -- by Lee Hall that I saw referenced in one of veganelder's posts or comments a couple of years ago, and it stayed with me because it struck me as possibly one of the most difficult things for members and factions of the vegan movement to do)
• remembering to take the time to take care of yourself
• being willing to have an open mind when new information presents itself
• being willing to have an open heart when new feelings present themselves
• forgiving others
• forgiving yourself
• learning from other species who in some ways are much smarter than we are 
• showing gratitude for what you have and anything that IS going right
• knowing that real change will likely take far more time than you'd like
• pacing yourself for the long haul, and

• did I mention being humble enough to say you're sorry? ;)

* obsolete in the sense that we longer need to convince folk to go vegan as animal use and consumption will be a thing of the past, hurrah!

privilege

Take a minute, and without thinking about it too much, quickly list all the different ways in which you're privileged. Better yet, do it out loud. 

Now, did you find this relatively easy, or were you a bit stumped after the first couple of more obvious privileges? If you're like most of us, you were a bit slower in rattling off the last items you came up with, and that's not surprising given the nature of privilege. Privilege tends to be relatively invisible to the privilege-holder, that is, we often don't even see the advantages that come with the particular type of privilege we enjoy. And we all enjoy numerous privileges we take for granted.

If you are currently reading this post, then you enjoy heaps of privilege right off the bat. You have time, and are likely not working in multiple part-time jobs (or sweatshops) in trying to make ends meet. You have some kind of device on which you're reading these very words, and are probably living somewhere without Internet censorship. Almost certainly, you have some level of post-secondary education, or are self-taught. Already, as you can see, you are hugely privileged.

Statistically, many of you are enjoying gender privilege (it's easier, by the way, for vegans to pay lip service to the idea of being nonsexist than it is to recognize how certain approaches that value linear or black and white thinking, or reason over emotion, may actually be rooted in sexism), racial privilege, and heterosexual privilege. What may not be as easy to see is that you likely also enjoy gender identity privilege, Judeo-Christian privilege, and able-bodied privilege. If you fit the norms of whatever is considered attractive and desirable in your culture or society, than that's privilege too.

So right away, we have all sorts of privilege that we may not even be that aware of: gender, gender identity, class, racial, economic, technological, religious, education, orientation, and so forth -- it's a bit staggering, isn't it? Which isn't to say that anyone is completely privileged, as we're all probably marginalized in one area or another, and as with anything, it's a matter of degree.

But the one enormous privilege that the vast majority of us (even those of us who can easily recognize all sorts of other privileges) don't see, is the privilege conferred on human animals. In fact, this privilege is rendered so invisible that those of us who do see the anthropocentrism for what it is are usually accused of anthropomorphism. In other words, our world is so human-centric that many cannot recognize other sentient beings as beings in their own right, and dismiss veganism as an attempt to attribute human emotions and characteristics as if those emotions and traits can only be human. It's as if most humans cannot view members of other species but through a human-specific and human-oriented lens. Quite the disability, if you ask me. ;)

My friend veganelder has also been pondering this most peculiar inability, so I would invite you to read here, here, and here.

Please do think a bit more about the notion of privilege, the extent of your own particular set of privileges, how you can help those with fewer privileges, and how you can help other humans actually see the privilege-tinted lenses they wear. Thanks.

Oh, because privilege can be hard to think about objectively when you're the one enjoying its benefits, here are a few nifty lists of examples to make it a bit clearer:

• daily effects of white privilege (an excellent link first contributed by veganelder in one of my post comments)
• 30+ examples of Christian privilege
• 30+ examples of male privilege
• 30+ examples of class privilege
• 30+ examples of heterosexual privilege
• 30+ examples of cisgender privilege

So all we need now is for someone to write a 30+ examples of human privilege list. Sadly, it shouldn't be too difficult. 

a few double standards I don't understand

Actually, there are a number of them, but here are four examples.

Why is it assumed that when vegans get sick it's because of what they don't eat, yet when non-vegans get sick it's not assumed to be because of what they DO eat?

Why are vegans often asked if they support abortion, yet pro-life folk are rarely asked if they support ALL life? A surprising number of anti-choice proponents favour capital punishment, for example, yet this isn't often thought to be hypocritical even though the hypocrisy charge is lobbed against pro-choice vegans all the time.

Why are humans murdered while other animals are killed -- it's the same action with the same consequence is it not?

And lastly, why are vegans routinely accused of being judgmental, but non-vegans who judge the lives of other animals as less important every time they stuff them in their mouths are not? Eh, tell me that! 

I stole the awesome cartoon above (don't remember from where now), but it's from the talented Vegan Sidekick who also has his own website where you can find images in categories (how cool is that?), and books (which I may just have to buy), so go give him some love! Seriously, right now. No point in waiting. ;)

# throwback thursday with a twist begins! :)

Because I don't have as much time as I'd like these days but still want to keep posting on a somewhat regular basis, I thought I'd jump on the popular #ThrowbackThursday bandwagon and hitch a ride myself, snort. After all, why not recycle and reuse some of the material I've written over the past five years while I work on new stuff? Besides, it might be fun to look back and see what still resonates.

The twist? Well, not really a twist, but instead of republishing the entire post, I'll likely just link back to it and perhaps provide some additional commentary. This post, for example, will deal with the advantages of being an older vegan. Okay, maybe some of the disadvantages as well. Like this:

But before you read the holy-crap-that-was-written-back-in-2011? post (and yes, it IS true that when you get older time flies by even faster), I want to add a couple of things. First, while I still agree that reaching out to younger people makes sense and is a good idea, I believe even more strongly that discounting the power and influence of the boomer generation is a bad mistake. For better AND worse, this population demographic still has a big say in how our society operates (for example, they're not willing to think of themselves as old the way previous generations may have, and quite a few of them don't even want to retire), so if we can get this group to say no to animal use and abuse while they still have the political and economic power to make a difference, then we should encourage that as much as possible.

Second, when you get to a certain age, obituaries start to become more interesting and you finally begin to understand why older folk find them so fascinating. You also start to think more in terms of what you've done with your life so far, and what is important for you to accomplish still before kicking that proverbial bucket. And if you're lucky, and finances permit, you may even start planning what vegan and animal rights organizations will inherit whatever you have left. Another reason, I would think, for agencies not to discount the older vegan.

Thirdly, whatever happened with CarpeVegan? They're linked in the original post, but it felt to me that while they started out with a bang, they more or less sputtered out. They still publish occasionally, but the site really didn't take off as I thought it would. Pity.

Finally, I want to take the opportunity here to introduce you to another delightful older vegan (yep, we're everywhere) who is proof that blinders can be removed at any age, and that much good can come of older-generation-vegans spreading the word. So, please say hello to my friend Vegan Grammie Annie!

And, finally finally, it occurred to me during the prepping of this throwback post that revamping old posts can be just as much work and just as time-consuming as composing new material, but hey, anything to get me writing, right? ;)

p.s. in all the excitement don't forget to (re)read all the marvelous and wonderful advantages of being an older vegan

some more thoughts on speciesism

Two weeks ago, I wrote about being speciesist as I found myself feeling both relieved and guilty when I discovered that the dead animal I removed off the road was not a dog or a cat but a raccoon. Upon reflection though, I think one of the factors that made me less upset involved human responsibility. Or irresponsibility, I should say. While it's always sad when a sentient being meets its end, living near humans (especially when we've encroached on their habitat)  is risky for wildlife. And even though humans shouldn't strike an animal on purpose and should do their best not to run over them again in passing, squirrels, raccoons and rabbits who scamper across the road risk being hit.

Cats and dogs, however, have no business being on the road and unless they happen to be feral, it's up to humans to make sure that they're not. In other words, when I see a dead cat or dog on the road, I blame their guardian. All dogs should be leashed when walked (I always cringe when I see dogs off leash on the sidewalk because you never know what will cause them to suddenly dart onto the road), and cats supervised if let outdoors. No, when dogs and cats end up dead on the road, it's not so much an accident I feel, but a dumb decision leading to needless death. And that, I think, is partly why I get more upset with certain species getting hit by cars.

A reader mentioned being more moved to tears about stories involving animal than human suffering, and I wonder if the same element is at play here. Most animal suffering is intentional in some way or for the benefit of human desire (e.g. factory farming), so when we see, for example, stories about chicken or pig barns going up in flames, it's even more heart-wrenching because we know that raising animals for food isn't even necessary. It's based upon human greed and appetite, and a complete denial about a sentient being's emotional life and a right to live their lives as free from human harm as possible.

Stories of human suffering though, are often self-inflicted, and involve humans doing stupid things to each other when they should know better. Unlike natural disasters, man-made disasters usually reflect greed at some level, meaning that humans are at least partly to blame. Actually, one could argue that certain natural disasters are the indirect result of climate change and global warming, which are the more direct result of humans not being as bright as they claim to be. While any kind of suffering is to be lamented, there's a greater innocence where animal beings are concerned, especially when it's through direct human action.

Familiarity, though, is also a key factor. We respond differently to beings that we identify as being more similar, or that we have more knowledge of. It is thought, for example, that folk tend to think of cats as being so cute because their round faces and pleading meows remind us of human babies. (For an illuminating discussion of how we, women especially -- myself included! -- infantilize other animals, please read the comment section of veganelder's post.) People have begun to respond to Esther the Wonder Pig on a large scale because they can perceive her personality (through the photos and words her dads share) and realize that when they eat pork, they're eating someone who could be Esther, someone who shares traits with humans that they can recognize. They're experiencing what Krissa means when she wrote, "...the more interactions and experiences that one has with different species, the more it's revealed that we are all the same."

So am I speciesist? Likely (probably, given that I wouldn't max out all of my credit cards if my cat got sick, but maybe would for a relative), but it's a matter of degree. And just as it's foolish to claim that because no one can be 100% vegan one shouldn't even try, recognizing speciesism when it rears its ugly human head (are all species speciesist though?) is better than not recognizing or acting upon it at all.

I'm a traffic stopper AND a speciesist?

The incident in question took place last summer, but honestly, I'm still not quite sure what to make of it. Looking out the kitchen window one morning while getting my lunch ready for work, I noticed an injured animal in the middle of one of the traffic lanes in front of my house. It was hard to see, but it looked big enough to be a puppy, so I quickly grabbed a plastic bag with the intention of at least removing the poor thing off the road so that they wouldn't be run over again.

Cars dutifully stopped (at 7:45am they may not have been too happy about it, but the alternative was to run me over as well) while I gently scooped the now-clearly-dead creature with the plastic bag and placed them underneath a tree across the road. I was late for work, so said a few words of "I'm so sorry this happened to you, rest in peace." and went on to do my shift.

The kicker of the story though is that while I felt badly for the being and was glad I had at least prevented more cars from carelessly driving across them, I also felt more than a tinge of relief (and subsequent pangs of guilt) when I saw that it [clearly it wasn't an it, but the rules of the English language are complicit in reducing animals to objects] wasn't a puppy, or even a large cat, but a raccoon. So what does that say about me? Because the truth is that I would have been more upset had the dead animal been a dog or a cat. Does that make me speciesist?

I believe the general definition of speciesism is being prejudiced when it comes to species and favouring your own above all others (please correct me if I'm wrong), but what about favouring some species over other species? Omnivores do it all the time when they happily munch on a pig while petting their pup, and while vegans make an effort to be less speciesist, is it possible to eradicate this tendency entirely? (Please note that I'm not trying to justify speciesism, but to understand it a bit better.) Especially when studies have shown that human infants as young as three months already exhibit signs of favouring those they perceive to be in their own group, and "othering" others, I can certainly see that discrimination based on species is the most difficult ism to recognize, let alone tackle. 

And it reminds me of when as a brand new vegan six years ago, I ran across a group on Flickr called Speciesism and thought that that was going a bit far. Or when my sister-in-law (the most supportive of veganism in my family and the one who actually purchases some vegan products for herself) saw my Alice Walker "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans anymore than black people were made for white, or women created for men." button and let out an abrupt whoa as if to say, now that's definitely going too far. Ms. Walker, by the way, is no longer vegan and has decided that chickens are, for example, made for humans, otherwise I can't imagine why she's eating them again. Tsk, tsk, Alice.

My point is that speciesism is probably not the best place to start with pre-vegans or perhaps even vegan newbies, as the indoctrination of Animals Are Ours To Do With As We Will is just too strong and deep. Better to begin with animal cruelty and suffering methinks. But even to a more-seasoned-by-now vegan such as yours truly, speciesism remains a challenge. Because let's take those silly and worn-out hypothetical scenarios involving burning buildings or leaky lifeboats where you're asked if you'd save the puppy or the baby. First, why is it always a dog and a baby? Have we no imagination? What if you had to choose between, let's say, a piglet and an opossum? Or a rabbit and a baby rhinoceros? Then what? If the deciding factor is no longer our species versus any other species, what factor determines who gets saved? Familiarity? Cuteness? Fairness? And how the hell would you decide what's fair? And to whom? As for the hypothetical burning building, if I was babysitting my niece in my apartment and a fire broke out, speciest or not, I'm fairly certain I'd instinctively grab the baby before the kitty no matter which one I loved most.

So there you have it. Speciesism is a toughie, even if you're a vegan who believes that beings of all species have a right to their own lives, and that human animals don't have the right to discriminate based on species, especially when said discrimination is manifested in cruelty or exploitation.

I have, sadly, in the past year, removed several kinds of animals off the same road. :(

p.s. I was serious before -- feel free to explain or elaborate on the notion of speciesism if I haven't gotten it quite right.