Have you seen the new PETA ad starring Alicia Silverstone?
I don’t know about you, but I find this video just plain weird (especially the part where her nipples are missing). If the video made a connection between Silverstone’s nudity and what she’s saying, I might not find it as strange.
But many others, including Bitch Magazine, have called out PETA on their gratuitous use of female bodies to push vegetarianism, even when there is a connection between boobies and animal rights, as with the “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” campaign.
What do you think - does this video undermine Silverstone’s message by insinuating that her lithsome body is more important than her politics? Or do you think that, since corporations freely use female bodies to sell everything, groups like PETA should feel free to use T & A - especially when it’s with consent of the women involved?
As I get older, I just get more and more confused about the ethical implications of meat-eating. As if it weren’t confusing enough that PETA’s ad strategy (which, in case you were wondering, I don’t really agree with) is sorta at odds with feminism, PETA is now claiming that being a carnivore is at odds with environmentalism. Grist magazine has a good article here that sums up PETA’s position, and you can read about it from the horse’s mouth (oh ho ho) one one of PETA’s websites.
This may be controversial, but I disagree that meat-eating is bad for the environment. In fact, it may even be good for the environment, depending on how you do it. A meat-eater who eats local and buys from organic farms where the animals frolic merrily in the fields may be better off than a vegetarian subsisting on a strict, all-year-round diet of mangoes, eggplants and coconut milk.
This summer, after seven years, I gave up vegetarianism and went back to meat. One of the hugest reasons why I went veggie was for environmental reasons (wow, I was so ahead of the curve…). But after seven years of eating GMO soy (soy is one of the most highly modified crops in the world, and also is usually farmed on a massive scale, i.e., monoculturally) and avocadoes shipped from Mexico using tonnes of gasoline, I began to wonder if there was a flaw in this plan.
I also made a shocking discovery this summer, while living on a farm. I learned that animals are the cornerstone of any farm, even one that only grows vegetables, because manure is absolutely central to the farming process - unless of course, you want to use pesticides, which we all know are bad for Momma Nature. So if you’re trying to be vegan and cut all animal products out of your diet, the only way to do so is to actually support a type of farming that is more, not less, detrimental for the environment.
I still think that vegetarianism is a fine choice - I’m just not sure anymore whether or not it is the only way to eat ecologically. And just as meat-eating can be bad for the environment, I think veggie-eating can be just as bad.
But here’s another “but”: maybe my reunion with sausages has more to do with the fact that I missed them every single day I was a vegetarian, than it does with me trying to be environmental. Maybe it’s just convenient and noble for me to say that I’m having a ham party to be more eco-friendly, when it’s really just because I love eating piggies.
I dunno, am I huge dirty hypocrite, or can I quite cheerfully be a carnivorous, environmentalist feminist?
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
eight comments
"...it's so amazing..." What does that even mean?
I was a vegetarian for 10 years and a vegan for 2 and the thing that got me back on eating meat was poverty. Given the options of my urban situation, I couldn't afford to eat healthy and meat-free anymore.
I often regret my choice to fall off the wagon, but in many ways, since I've been back on the meat, I feel a lot more "amazing," much like Alicia Silverstone springing naked from a pool than the underweight, iron deficient girl I once was. I'm sure now I can afford the complex diet that comes from being a vegetarian, but I'm finding it hard to ditch bacon.
I also wonder if I'm a hypocrite- how can I be saving all these animals (my house is full of those of the domesticated ilk) and then sit down to eat them?
As for Alicia's (nippless) breasts to sell product: vegetarianism often comes with a hippie, patchouli and birkenstock wearing stigma (as does feminism) and I think that PETA's merely trying to sex it up for the mainstream. See, hot sexy girls are vegetarians (and feminists!) too. Whether I agree with that tactic is a different rant.
Posted by Stacey May
September 19, 2007, 2:26 PM
Setting aside the naked women for a moment -- I find your attitude about vegetarianism disturbingly flippant for one who alleges to have been a vegetarian for seven years. Vegetarians do not subsist on mangoes and eggplants (did you?), and if they did they would be hopelessly undernourished. I'm not an animal rights person, but even I find your suggestion that we need to keep domesticated animals around for their shit to be a little offensive. The same thing can be accomplished with compost. While we're on that thought, what is the connection between manure vs. pesticide? Do you mean manure vs. fertilizer?
Animals consume a lot of vegetable matter, which requires land space to grow. The more animals we consume, the more land space is required for agriculture. And yes there are some better ways of farming meat (and vegetables) than others, and yes some ways of farming vegetables are bad for the environment. Ok, so you prefer to eat meat -- that is your prerogative. But don't make up rationalizations for how eating meat is actually GOOD for the environment or that vegetarians are silly for thinking otherwise unless you have something better to back up your statements.
Posted by Dita
September 19, 2007, 5:36 PM
I’ll bite. But like Dita I find it hard to focus on Alicia’s silky bod when there is so much else going on in this post. Thea you have opened up a can of juicy, free-range, vermi-worms!
To keep it short-ish, I’ll try to answer your question about the co-existence of feminism and meat-eating.
For me, eating vegetarian could be an act of resistance against bad corporate practice, unhealthy agricultural systems, animal abuse, the list goes on. It could also be an act supporting healthy eating, small eco-footprint living etc. For me, that’s feminist.
I don’t think eating meat can be an act of feminism, even if the animal is sustainably raised, fed vegan feed on a silver spoon under rainbows and sunshine with Tegan and Sara playing in the background.
It digs up “what does feminism mean for me.” And in particular, because I’ve spent a lot of time reading about it, I tend to dig the ecofeminist gals who say that the basic social and political ideas that oppress women, Aboriginals, people of colour etc. are the same ideas that have led us to justify our domination of the environment.
Also, there is theory and practice. Even if idyllic meat from Old McDonald’s Farm did fit into my good conscience, there wouldn’t be enough of it for me, or most people to obtain on a regular basis anyway.
PS: Ecofeminists are a diverse group, with as much contention and controversy within the group as without. But when I started getting into the “logic of domination,” the gap between feminism and environmentalism melted away for me. Check out Karen Warren, Ecofeminist Philosophy or Val Plumwood Feminism and the Mastery of Nature.
PPS: For full disclosure: I do eat meat.
Posted by erin
September 19, 2007, 8:37 PM
Thanks Erin for getting into what I didn't - that feminism and vegetarianism are compatible, even in more direct ways than you mention, as the enormous corporate meat industry treats its workers quite terribly, many of whom are women.
Dita - what I was talking about was eating bioregionally as opposed to not eating animals. It's virtually impossible in southern Ontario, where I live, to eat a healthy bioregional diet that is also animal-free. The question is which do you think better impacts the planet - eating animal-free, or eating locally?
I also wasn't suggesting that it is better for the environment to eat meat, or that a meat diet is somehow more righteous than a vegetarian one. I was more pointing out that both have their advantages, in terms of trying to eat environmentally. Just because you're eating meat doesn't mean you're destroying the planet, and just because you're a vegetarian doesn't mean your diet is eco-friendly.
The biggest reason why I stopped being a vegetarian is that I got sick a few years ago and simply couldn't get healthy again without changing my diet. I felt better after I began eating meat again, like Stacey May. Everyone's body is different, which is probably why Alicia Silverstone has had the opposite experience from me.
Learning more about how food actually grows helped me to make the choice that was best for my health, and helped me to figure out how to do it in a way that was just as ecological (ie by trying to eat bioregionally and eating meat from "ethical" farms) as being a vegetarian - in some ways more ecological, because I was able to cut out lots of far-flung fruits and veg, and eat a diet that is far more suitable to my region.
Me saying that manure is the cornerstone of (organic) farming wasn't a suggestion - it's actually a fact. There's no way to create nutrient-rich soil, (as in soil that provides plentiful yields and isn't overrun with symphalens) without manure. Compost is manure.
Posted by Thea
September 19, 2007, 11:16 PM
This is probably a good time to mention Peter Singer and Jim Mason's The Way We Eat, which I read earlier this year. The authors thoroughly investigate the eating habits of three normal American families—one "traditional," with the occasional fast-food meals and everything; one "casual organic," which probably best approximates the average green consumer today; and one "self-organic," a family that grows much of its own food and deals almost entirely with local producers.
It's really interesting and presents ethical eating on a sort of spectrum—instead of offering just a best option and telling everyone they should eat that way or else they're being unethical, Singer and Mason instead talk about ways you can make your diet more ethically sound. One of the big questions, of course, is whether it's possible to eat meat and still be ethical, and the conclusion Singer and Mason draw is: yes, but it's a hell of a lot harder.
Whether or not you agree with the authors, it's still worth reading the book because of the carefully researched descriptions of factory farming, slaughterhouses large and small, and the various types of organic farms.
Posted by Wesley
September 20, 2007, 12:17 AM
Thanks Wesley, I'll definitely have to look that one up!
Erin, here's another question I thought of last night while thinking about you saying that eating veggie is a feminist act(which will probably be opening up another can of those vermi-worms...): do you think that personal consumption choices can actually be a political act?
What I mean here is that because oppression is a systemic thing, one person choosing to avoid as many products of suffering as possible doesn't actually affect the system.
I think it's hugely hugely important to make as many socially conscious consumption choices as possible, because harm reduction is important and something is better than nothing - but I don't think that any of my choices are political acts, because in the end Monsanto and Maxwell House have no idea that I don't buy their products because I disagree with the way they produce them.
What do you think?
Posted by Thea
September 20, 2007, 8:24 AM
Thea: Your choices are "economic" acts, as in your dollar was never spent on Monsanto. It never went to Monsanto. The idea being that enough people kept their dollar from Monsanto, they would suffer economically. Drop in the bucket, yes, but enough drops fill a pail.
So yes, I think personal consumption acts can be political- if a company's profits suffer, they ultimately get the message that they're doing something wrong... or they hire a better advertising firm...
Posted by Stacey May
September 20, 2007, 9:47 AM
What do I think? Well, most of all I think this discussion is delicious.
I’m with Stacey May on the power of your purchases. Of course, if you only ever use consumer power to be political, you’re missing the big picture. Broad change comes through policy reforms. But that all starts somewhere, and all of our choices have consequences.
What’s your monthly grocery bill? You could give that hard earned cash to Monsanto, who might not notice it, or you could give it to a farmer or other progressive small business who will notice it big time.
I also agree about the frustrating system. You might boycott GMO food, but it will still be in the stores until the government puts in a policy to stop it, or until support for the good, healthy stuff overwhelms demand for the sci-fi kind. So why does the government finally pass the ban? Because somewhere, enough people demanded non-GMO food. Or someone did enough research, or enough voices were heard over the lobby groups.
Not to mention the warm squishy feeling you get when you do something good, the people you can meet when you do it, and whatever leads from there…
It does all add up.
Sway with me now, Thea. *cyber sway*
Posted by erin
September 20, 2007, 7:44 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.