The Vegan Ideal Copyright © 2007 - 2011 Ida Elisabeth Hammer. The Vegan Ideal by Ida Elisabeth Hammer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
The Vegan Ideal Copyright © 2007 - 2011 Ida Elisabeth Hammer. The Vegan Ideal by Ida Elisabeth Hammer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
I think the most bizarre thing about Keith's (and many rad fem arguments) against trans people is that gender doesn't exist, but people are oppressed using it. Trans peoples' genders do not exist and are made up, by Keith's gender as a woman is very real. The oppression trans people face is justified as their genders are made up, but the oppression cis women suffer is real because their genders are real. So, what is it, Lierre? Is gender real or not?
And isn't it funny how she used things that are real (native genocide, etc) as comparisons for something she believes is only real for cis people in patriarchy. What a ridiculous argument.
I think most people who believe gender is a social construct still acknowledge that it plays a real role in our lives and that people can be whatever gender they are and deal with that shit.
The more I read about her, the more I believe she deserved a pie in her face. No one would argue against a pie in some trans phobic anti-animal politician. Keith is kinda worse bc she hides behind the guise of radicalism...
Marti Kheel has passed away. As Thomas Kuhn quoted Max Planck in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Um. I think this article is attacking Lierre Keith's blatant transphobia, not her biocentrism. If you'll notice, the article only talks about her transphobia. If you'll notice, it doesn't talk about her biocentrism at all. I happen to appreciate Lierre Keith's biocentric politics quite a bit -- from what I know of them -- but I think her transphobic politics are a fucking load of shit. What makes you think this article is defending speciesism in any imaginable way??? This article is a defense of trans-positivity and transgender liberation, not human supremacy. (For next time, see if you can understand that critiquing fucked up politics a person has in one area doesn't mean the critiquer is trying to discredit decent politics that person has in other areas. The ability to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and to not be cultishly loyal to a movement figurehead to the degree that any critique is seen as a personal attack, is kind of the basis for discussion, growth, and constructive conversation.)
Anarchism and veganism actually have a lot in common, check out Animal Liberation and Social Revolution. Gelderloos' criticisms of veganism are actually totally valid when addressing liberal vegetarians (even those who exclude all animal products from their diet), it's only when considering veganism as a liberation movement that his criticisms become nonsensical. When applied to PETA vegans, Gelderloos' criticisms are pretty legitimate. Not that that excuses his complete lack of comprehension on what real veganism is, this made me lose a lot of respect for him.
Right on!
I just found this page linked from the Queer Vegans group on Facebook. Interesting collection of article titles--I look forward to reading more here when time permits.
PETA is a black hole taking resources from what should go towards promoting AR, but instead are invested in counterproductive campaigns which alienate, offend, give negative messages, etc. The need to expose this as in the excellent analysis of the above article is a further drain on limited resources.
I have the suspicion that she's trying to discredit Lierre Keith via all the things Lierre Keith has done to discredit herself, and Lierre Keith's attack on veganism (One I might well share, I dunno, haven't read it; HAVE read her transmisogynistic screeds) simply brought the author's attention.
Pointing out that some people who believe in human supremacy do not believe in the supremacy of all humans equally is a legitimate critique. It doesn't mean that most humanists are bigots within the species they venerate, but it does mean that a subset are. (much like criticizing Lierre isn't an indictment of all feminists)
Victoria, even if what you are suggesting is true, Carol Adams' comment would still be cissexist and even genocidal.
This comment wrongly assumes, as Adams had in her public statements at Liberation Now!, that trans people, particularly transsexual people, transition because of gender stereotypes. This ignores the fact that transsexual people come in every gender imaginable. There are trans women who identify as butch dykes and there trans men who identify as femme fags — these people are hardly slaves to stereotypes. So you and Adams are using your own stereotypes, which are also sexist and heterosexist, to defend your own cissexist assumptions about who trans people are and why we seek access to medically necessary health care.
Transsexual people are not changing their sex to meet some assumed gendered stereotype. There is a dangerous biological essentialism behind your claim that transsexual people "belonged in their own skin no matter what type of sex they were born with."
This statement is not only anti-transsexual, it is also anti-intersex. We are not born as a sex. We are assigned a sex by a medical professional. This assignment is made on one basis only: genitals. Sex chromosomes, reproductive systems, sex hormones, secondary sex characteristics, and sex differentiations in brain structures can't be determined by one's external genitalia. Genitals are given dominance because they enforce heterosexual relations and reproduction as the only appropriate form of sexual interaction. What you claim is the "type of sex they were born with" is itself a social construct, only this is one you and Adams would have us believe is natural and unalterable — normal.
Instead of centering yourselves as the norm and thinking you have the authority to force everyone else to conform to belonging within your socially constructed system of cis supremacy, please stop and listen to the real, lived experiences of trans people. We know more about our bodies and needs than you do. Rather than telling us what to do with our bodies, ask yourself why it bothers you — why is the existence of transsexual people who change their bodies a threat to you?
I think she means that if gender stereotypes didn't exist then everyone would feel like they belonged in their own skin no matter what type of sex they were born with.
However, that might work in her defense if she didn't say men can't be feminist. That sounds pretty gender stereotypical to me.
just wondering what happened to his project? It was fundraised back in 2009 and were to proceed on the following 3 months. But the site is still its old same? the page itself says:Look for the updated site to launch in early 2010.
first off i'm not an academic so I'm not going to sound as intellectual as you... that said, i think most social justice movements be they lgbt, latino/immigrant rights, african dyspora movement... often fail to see the connection between their own movement and all others. I think there's this idea that "my people" or "my movement" is somehow unique and deserves more attention than all the rest. Of course the most intelligent people will always see the connection. i wish it was popular at this time in history to see the connection, but it's not.
I think one reason the vegan/animal rights movement has not connected itself to other social justice movements is that alot of "progressives" do not understand or subscribe to the tenants of veganism, much less so the abolition of animal slavery. It's our responsibility as activists to connect the dots for them. Not all of us understand the need for this connection. We risk being labeled as upper middle class white people who have nothing better to worry about than kitties and doggies. uggh i hate that stereotype so much, but there it is. yes we need to focus on how our movement is exactly like all other liberation movements at it's core.
I am producing an animal rights show on a community radio station that represents many peoples & liberation movements. i take it upon myself and it is my stated purpose to make the connections between animal slavery and all other types of slavery past and present. If you don't make the connection between animal abolition and the abolition and oppression of other people then you are really missing out on alot of lessons, strategy and wisdom! Furthermore we need the entire progressive community on our side - we need to make them all see how exploiting animals is contrary to everything else they believe.
I'm not convinced that it matters whether character traits come from a biological root more than it matters that those traits are straight-jacketed by the normative categories of Male/Female-Masculine/Feminine-Man/Woman. I think that regardless of how biologically rooted gender dysphoria is, the conflict is when one's character traits clash with gender norms. That it may even be dangerous to emphasize the biological roots, since that can be a basis for a eugenics whereas an emphasis on the inadequacy of our sex/sexuality/gender concepts opens up to a possibility for a social change based on an acceptance of difference. The utility or instrumentality of these categories is useful to the extent that they generalize and summarize a certain range of traits and preferences for the convenience of various relationships. But, beyond that I am not so sure that they serve me and others who are 'queer'. Then again, without demonstrating a strong biological component... prejudice creeps will make an attempt to "cure" deviance from whatever norms. That's the difficult thing about prejudice - if the goal is to abolish an Other, anything can be ignored or twisted to fit that agenda.
Thanks for this post. I've been wanting to read her work for some time and wasn't aware of her transphobia. Now I will know to keep it in mind when I do read her books (from the library, since I'm not sure I want to give her any money!)
I know this is old but I saw it and had to say something.
VO is not a vegan group, they don't advocate for veganism and seemingly never have. They purely focus on diet and diet alone. That is not veganism and non of their leaflets to my knowledge have anything about veganism.
Veganism is defined in the following quote from the Memorandum of Association, the British Vegan Society (2004):
"The word 'veganism' denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, including humans and the environment.
In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
As far as Prop 2 it is/was a step off in some tangent direction. It is not really going to help anybody because while they may get treated just a pinch better they are still slaves and still used and abused and that will never stop until we stop it. It also is a very teeny tiny scope of animals I believe only three animals and only in certain situations. You can abuse animals all you want if you are using them for something other than food or for certain foods. It really is not helpful at all. Free range/cage free/organic facilities are not a whole lot different then their caged counterparts so I am not really sure what can happen from prop 2. We wasted millions of dollars and lots of time supporting something that basically says "be a little nicer to 3 different animals in certain situations but continue exploiting them and if you do something bad we will wag our finger in disappointment at you". I don't see the point in it all.
The bill basically makes animal cruelty not a whole lot different than graffiti or jaywalking. The most time you get is 180 days and that probably is for the most extreme of extreme cases, you probably have to be making cuts in a veal calve and pouring salt and lemon juice on them while kicking them repeatedly in a crate that is 10 times to small for them. People are in jail for many years who have committed extremely lesser crimes most of which don't hurt anyone. You can also get a fine of $1,000 which is basically like a judge saying to the average persyn on the street I am taking a dollar from you, you are free to go. It isn't much money and they can make it back quicker than it takes to brush your teeth.
Basically in an extremely crude conclusion fuck prop 2 and VO stop acting like you are top shit, you are nothing. Handing out a bunch of leaflets is fine and dandy but when they promote a false message they don't help anyone but yourselves.
Hi Ida,
I disagree with you. As French Veggie Pride committee, we have been working in the last 10 years to show the existence of vegephobia, to explain what it is and how it works. Of course the animals are the intended victims of the discriminations against vegans; indeed, our demonstration is a protest, by people who are vegetarians and vegans for the animals, against the slaughter of the animals, and not a celebration of the "veggie lifestyle" whatever the reasons (for this reasons, we never recognized the demonstrations which took place in North America as real Veggie Pride demonstrations).
My thesis is that when a vegan is discriminated, it is because of his/her opposition to the slaughter of the animals. Since the exploitation of the animals is one of the (ideological and material) pillars of the human society, the vegan person is seen as someone who is not entirely a member of the society. And the higher the symbolic value of meat, the higher the discrimination against those who refuse to participate in that veneration. Historians and anthropologists Detienne and Vernant, and sociologist Fischler say that in Ancient Greece the consumption of meat was highly ritual: at its core was the sacrifice of an animal, whose body was divided in parts which reproduced the social order. Each citizen received the part that corresponded to his social status. Therefore, according to Detienne, those who did not eat meat, such as Pythagora's followers, were seen as opponents to the political institutions of the Greek city-state. I am convinced that there still is an implicit meaning of this kind underlying all the discriminations against vegetarians and vegans.
Here in France, there are systematic differences of treatment of vegetarian and vegan persons: we can not have correct meals in hospitals, we have problems to find doctors just accepting our choice without judging us, and a doctor who is really informed about veganism is nowhere to be found. Consider that vegetarian and vegan diets have been classed as practices potentially sectarian (cults) by the government's "mission of vigilance against the sectarian tendencies" (MIVILUDES). And that the nutritional information spread by the French Ministry of Health declares that vegetarian and, even more, all vegan diets are dangerous, especially for pregnant women and children.
We people engaged in the French Veggie Pride are fighting for our right to be vegan without being treated as half-citizens, and we are perfectly aware that concretely, this struggle is in favour of the animals: first, because if there are no more discriminations against vegans it will be easier for other people to become vegan; second, because if we people who respect the animals and refuse to exploit them are fully recognized as citizens and members of society, this will challenge the idea that society must be based on the sacrifice of an animal. If the right not to eat meat is recognized as a civil right, this will lead to the recognition that veganism, and the animal issue in general, is a political matter.
What do you think about it? If there is anything unclear please tell me: it is not simple for me to explain my thoughts in English. I developped these ideas in some texts that I wrote in French and in Italian: if you read any of these languages, I can give you the links.
Agnese
I just came across this article and wanted to thank you for writing it. Also thank you for saying people with schizophrenia and not schizophrenics, it is only a part of who they are and saying schizophrenics robs them of their individuality. I have been diagnosed with bi-polar and hear people say bi-polars and manic depressives and it drives me crazy (full pun intended). I say I have been diagnosed with bi-polar instead of saying I have bi-polar because I don't see merit in a lot of psych diagnosis. You can't know that some one has a chemical imbalance based on thoughts and behaviour (especially when you ignore life experinces, world veiws, and past trauma and abuse).
The only critique I have is the use of the word disability, I know may people who do not see their mental health issues (schizophrenia included) as a (completely) negative thing and they prefer differently abled mentally or just different mentally. Just something you might like to keep in mind when addressing similar issues.
Thanks again
Mike
Thank you for your replies. I oppose exploitation in all forms so I definitely do seek an end to pet ownership. I just wasn't clear on your position on "rescuing" the nonhuman animals already in existence because of human domestication, Ida. I appreciate the clarification.
"There are currently few vegans who will defend the need to end pet ownership"
Really? This is sad. It shows a real disconnect with the historical goal of veganism.
There are currently few vegans who will defend the need to end pet ownership. Indeed, most own pets. I cannot think of any organized campaign designed to make pet ownership obsolete whereas "rescue" programs are commonplace. Rescuing animals while simultaneously owning pets and supporting the billion dollar pet industry does nothing to end the industry.
Focusing on the inevitable carnage that results from pet keeping cannot get rid of the engine behind the carnage. We could rescue pets 24/7 and never make a dent since that ignores the source of the problem--pet ownership itself. Vegans understand that "rescuing" a handful of animals whom humans raise and kill for food will never bring about an end to that industry, so how can "rescue" end the pet industry and why is it the focus of all of our efforts?
I do not think private ownership of pets under any circumstances will bring about an end to pet ownership. Some of the most fanatical "rescuers" are those who "rescue" inbred dogs and cats. Merely placing the label "rescuer" on a pet owner does not change the nature of the relationship.
Ending pet ownership starts with each of us. As long as we keep pets, there will be ever more pets that need to be "rescued." As oppressors, I don't know that our biggest responsibility is to "care" for the victims. The minute we start thinking of ourselves as "caring rescuers," we seem to forget that we're the oppressor, and that maybe our "care" is equally oppressive.
If we're not willing to give up our privilege to keep other animals as slaves of our affection, then of course we feel a strong need to care for the animals who are exploited by the system that we are participating in. We also need to clean up the system and make it look good so that we can continue to own our animals.
We need to tell ourselves that we're "different" from other pet owners, sort of like how white people need to think of themselves as "good" white people because they're not out there at Klan rallies, never mind all of the other ways that we participate in and benefit from racism.
In any conversation I've ever had about pet ownership, the "rescue" issue is brought up for one purpose and one purpose only: to preserve the ability of a certain class of people to maintain pet ownership. Let's not be distracted by this backlash. The real question is: are you prepared to renounce pet ownership and never acquire another pet again? Until the answer is yes, there is no point in having a conversation about how to approach pets currently in existence since a "no" ensures that the problem will exist in perpetuity.
I agree that pets exist "because of a system of human domination and exploitation," and it is exactly this system of human domination and exploitation that I am arguing against. That is, I'm arguing against the very system that creates the need for rescuing, not the rescuing itself. As long as nonhuman animals are in a position to be rescued they will necessarily be in a position to be exploited.
"While keeping pets and eating meat is often described as hypocritical, I think they are actually two-sides of the same coin. Both involve exploitation, but in the case of pets the exploitation is marked by affection."
I'm sorry if I'm completely misunderstanding you, but are you arguing against rescuing (I can see related problems with that term) domesticated nonhumans, that were bred into existence by humans, and providing a home for them? Sure, pets are targets of exploitation, but they are here because of a system of human domination and exploitation. As challengers of speciesism, should we not feel an obligation to care for the victims of this system since it is possible to do so?
I'm also curious as to what Keith thinks about cultures that believe there are more than two genders. I have not read this book but heard of it: Will Roscoe's "Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders In Native America." New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998.
I'm just really confused about Keith's comments.
This reminds me of how deep transphobia is and that people who claim to not be individually transphobic still benefit from institutional and structural transphobia. Just thinking out loud here.
I cannot even respond to Keith's comments. I can't believe someone who has never had the embodied experiences of being trans could just say what she has said in that quote with such confidence and believing that she is right. I am simply speechless.
David, thank you for your comment. I think "vegan for health reasons" needs to be addressed critically if we are to avoid confusing the term. In my post "Veganism is the Reason" I briefly show that the idea that veganism is as a individualistic approach to health is a new and mistaken concept that is not actually veganism in the original sense or as that term is used on this site. I recommend resisting the co-option of veganism into something other than what it actually is.
Thanks for this excellent post. My only critique is that some people become vegan for health or other reasons and they aren't making a conscious commitment to ending oppression. So statements like "Vegans, as the agents, work to create equity and liberation by eliminating their privilege from the exploitation..." should probably be qualified.
Breeze, I considered that Sarah could be a woman of color, but I read and re-read her comment, and it was like reading the back of my hand. I understand that some people of color don't have a problem with comparisons like these, but I felt confident that Sarah was coming exactly from the position of "we're all animals, so get over it."
Normally I would go for a more thoughtful reply, but Sarah had the benefit of Ida's thoughtful post and thoughtful reply, so I felt that someone needed to just call bullshit and point out that despite all of the name-dropping and fancy lingo, she was just speaking from a position of privilege and wasn't grappling with the racism inherent in appropriating images of other people's oppression.
In my own experience, I've appreciated (maybe not in the moment) when other white people have been very direct and uncompromising about letting me know when I'm saying something racist.
(Of course I'm taking the risk that Sarah can come back and call bullshit on me, so I'm prepared for that as well.)
I am not sure if Sarah is white or not. What if she is a person of color?
I am turned off by the black person in the cage; I am a black woman vegan engaged in critical race feminist vegan PhD work and don't interpret Hill Collins the way Sarah has, but that is just me. I immediately saw the history of sexual-racial exploitation of black people when I saw that image.
I actually use Hill Collins and hooks work to analyze how post-racial and normative whiteness/white privilege shape the consciousness of Ingrid Newkirk's response to black folk's problem with her Animal Liberation 2005 campaign and images of black lynched men for my dissertation (. My Dissertation also looks at other post-racial white privileged Animal rights and vegan activists). I particularly interrogate Newkirk's "We're all animals, get over it response" using Hill Collins and bell hooks (and other critical race theory.)
This is my take on PETA and how they use racial politics in the campaigning. It's a copy and pasted excerpt from my chapter that is coming out next year in a new book about New Directions in Food Studies. I'm not even sure if this is helpful to the conversation:
The racialized trauma around "living while Black" (or "living while any non-white racialized minority" in the USA) never enters the conversation [in "post-racial" animal rights books like Skinny Bitch]. Such dynamics are rarely accounted for in race-neutral popular vegan books, and also within the most popular and powerful vegan oriented organization, PETA, a staunch supporter of Skinny Bitch. This is not surprising, as PETA continues to rely heavily on promoting people to go vegan for animals rights by employing a plethora of popular famous white women entertainers as the poster children of "going vegan" (Deckha 2008). Similarly to Skinny Bitch, PETA constantly produces ads and literature with images of skinny and conventionally beautiful white creamy skinned women to lure omnivores into veganism and vegetarianism. The universal assumption is that: 1) all straight men (regardless of race) would want to have sex with these "perfect 10s", but the caveat is that these types of women would only have sex with them if they were to go vegan and; 2) women should become vegan because it means they too can save animals and obtain the white racialized aesthetic of beauty which is becoming skinny and 'modelesque,' while simultaneously appealing to the hetero-normative white male gaze (Deckha 2008). I argue that Skinny Bitch and PETA compliment each other quite well because they make visible the trauma of non-human animal suffering while making invisible the suffering and pain that privileging of whiteness causes to people like [black American vegan] Queen Afua's audience [African American women]. The trauma of racialized suffering and pain can manifest a plethora of different ways. Queen Afua's book Sacred Woman is a multifaceted version of veganism that employs plant-based dietary philosophy as a tool to fight the ravages of racialized colonialism on Black women's womb health.