Tricia Woolfendon from The Grand Rapids Press' MLive.com wrote a short opinion piece about vegetarianism in response to Taylor Clark's recent piece for Slate called ''Meatless Like Me''. (Actually, if you do a line count, around a third of her piece is actually just a quote from Clark's.)
Woolfendon agrees with Clark's point that vegetarians don't really judge meat-eaters for eating meat. I agree with this to a limited extent. I mean, I don't see how most vegetarians or vegans could walk around in the world, otherwise. All of us are parts of social networks -- friends, family, coworkers, et al. -- that consist mostly of people who consume an omnivorous diet, and regardless of this, we love and like them for the sum of the individuals they are. We deal with it every single day and it's the status quo; that being said, it doesn't mean that we have to like that it's the status quo, or that we should even resign ourselves to it. And it shouldn't have to mean that not liking it or not resigning ourselves to it makes us ''bad'' vegetarians and vegans. It's especially disheartening to me to see vegetarians judging and shaming other vegetarians for having ethical convictions and for not pretending that they don't process and filter life around them (to a certain extent) according to what they value.
Woolfendon agrees with Clark's point that vegetarians don't really judge meat-eaters for eating meat. I agree with this to a limited extent. I mean, I don't see how most vegetarians or vegans could walk around in the world, otherwise. All of us are parts of social networks -- friends, family, coworkers, et al. -- that consist mostly of people who consume an omnivorous diet, and regardless of this, we love and like them for the sum of the individuals they are. We deal with it every single day and it's the status quo; that being said, it doesn't mean that we have to like that it's the status quo, or that we should even resign ourselves to it. And it shouldn't have to mean that not liking it or not resigning ourselves to it makes us ''bad'' vegetarians and vegans. It's especially disheartening to me to see vegetarians judging and shaming other vegetarians for having ethical convictions and for not pretending that they don't process and filter life around them (to a certain extent) according to what they value.
Woolfendon also takes it further by saying that she doesn't really care what meat-eaters consume. I think that anyone with real ethical concerns about animal consumption, whether willing to admit it or not, does indeed care about the big picture. We do wish that people would minimize their meat consumption. Less meat consumed means less animals spending lives of suffering until they're slaughtered; less meat consumed means less water and cropland wasted, and less havoc wreaked on our environment. And when it comes to family members, whose health and longevity we cherish, less meat consumed means lower cholesterol, lower rates of obesity and less cancer. You don't have to be preachy to care, and not being preachy doesn't mean that you don't care; not judging does not equate not caring. And although Woolfendon may think that bringing this out in the open (see her link to PETA's factsheets) means you're wagging a finger at others, it doesn't; it just means that you're stating facts. When PCRM publishes an article about the negative health effects of eating meat, they're not judging; they're reporting findings from scientific studies.
Woolfendon does take issue with Clark's assertion that vegetarians '''know' that meat tastes good''. I second Woolfendon's exception to that. I get this from one of my well-meaning omni friends all the time -- her voice takes on a complicit purr and she tries to elicit a confession out of me that surely I must have overpowering memories of the mesmerizing deliciousness of this or that piece of meat and that I just don't want to admit it. The thing is that I really don't. Many vegetarians or vegans find the very sight or smell of meat repulsive, just by virtue of having come to terms with the realization of what's done to animals to serve them up on a plate. It's called association. (And even Clark ends up touching upon this in his Slate article, mentioning how certain types of meat have become gross to him after years of vegetarianism; he only does so, however, after overstating his visceral attachment to the smell and taste of bacon.)
Clark brings up the existence of so many meat analogs on the market as some sort of proof that other vegetarians also crave the taste of meat. Sure, there are a lot of fake meat products on the market, but the thing is that there are actually a lot of non-vegetarians buying them, too. For instance, I have friends who feed their kids soy-dogs rather than meat-based hot-dogs, because of the sodium, preservatives and fat content of the meat-based ones. I try to avoid meat analogs, since although some of them are nicely fortified with vitamins and minerals (like B12), most seem to be high in sodium and are often made using GMO soy. I ate more of them while living with my omni spouse (who adored them).
Woolfendon ends her article echoing Clark's call to chefs everywhere to provide more inventive (i.e. vegetarian dishes in restaurants that are more than leafy greens on a plate). I have to say that over the past couple of years, I've found more and more places -- even a lot of the local pubs in my small city -- offering a wider diversity of vegetarian options. It's not uncommon to find grilled or raw vegetable wraps, pasta dishes, stir fries or veggie-burgers anymore. Interest in meat-free products is on the rise in the mainstream, and this is being reflected in restaurant options. Vegan options are still a dismally altogether different story, however...
With regards to Clark's article itself, I was glad to see him address the issue with folks who refer to themselves as vegetarians, although they still eat fish or chicken. He points out -- and rightly so -- that ''unless we're talking about the kind of salmon that comes freshly plucked from the vine, this makes you an omnivore''. On the other hand, I was disappointed that he chose to marginalize vegans, limiting what he says about them to: ''they call themselves vegan, which rhymes with 'tree men' These people are intense.'' It's funny how an article that seems to diminish perceived differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians would segregate one type of vegetarians in that manner.
The overall tone of the article seems almost apologetic. ''Hey guys, I'm just like you -- I even wear leather shoes! See?'' It's as if in purportedly attempting to demystify the relationship between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, Clark also attempts to portray an image of vegetarians as being indistinct from non-vegetarians, and although in most ways they are, I think that in some significant and more weighty ways -- the underlying reasons to what's on their respective plates -- they aren't. And although blurring that over may make dinner conversation a bit more light, it leaves me with a sense that the only good vegetarian is a closet vegetarian, or a vegetarian who shuts up and keeps his vegetarianism to himself, and I'm certain that won't benefit any cow or pig destined for the slaughterhouse in the long run and in a sense, I feel it's being a bit hypocritical in how one presents oneself to the world. As a lovely vegan friend once said to me when I'd mentioned my reluctance to out myself at work: ''There's no shame in being a vegetarian!'' I'm pretty well sure that lecturing and proselytizing aren't the way to go, but I'm even more sure that pretending that one's reasons for becoming a vegetarian should be kept private under fear of social ostracism. I think there's important gray area that should be explored when it comes to how we walk around in the world as vegetarians or vegans, without shame or fear of reprisal and least of all, fear or reprisal from your fellow vegetarians. And I can't help but feel an underlying sense of that from both of these aforementioned articles. Just a whiff of it...
Woolfendon does take issue with Clark's assertion that vegetarians '''know' that meat tastes good''. I second Woolfendon's exception to that. I get this from one of my well-meaning omni friends all the time -- her voice takes on a complicit purr and she tries to elicit a confession out of me that surely I must have overpowering memories of the mesmerizing deliciousness of this or that piece of meat and that I just don't want to admit it. The thing is that I really don't. Many vegetarians or vegans find the very sight or smell of meat repulsive, just by virtue of having come to terms with the realization of what's done to animals to serve them up on a plate. It's called association. (And even Clark ends up touching upon this in his Slate article, mentioning how certain types of meat have become gross to him after years of vegetarianism; he only does so, however, after overstating his visceral attachment to the smell and taste of bacon.)
Clark brings up the existence of so many meat analogs on the market as some sort of proof that other vegetarians also crave the taste of meat. Sure, there are a lot of fake meat products on the market, but the thing is that there are actually a lot of non-vegetarians buying them, too. For instance, I have friends who feed their kids soy-dogs rather than meat-based hot-dogs, because of the sodium, preservatives and fat content of the meat-based ones. I try to avoid meat analogs, since although some of them are nicely fortified with vitamins and minerals (like B12), most seem to be high in sodium and are often made using GMO soy. I ate more of them while living with my omni spouse (who adored them).
Woolfendon ends her article echoing Clark's call to chefs everywhere to provide more inventive (i.e. vegetarian dishes in restaurants that are more than leafy greens on a plate). I have to say that over the past couple of years, I've found more and more places -- even a lot of the local pubs in my small city -- offering a wider diversity of vegetarian options. It's not uncommon to find grilled or raw vegetable wraps, pasta dishes, stir fries or veggie-burgers anymore. Interest in meat-free products is on the rise in the mainstream, and this is being reflected in restaurant options. Vegan options are still a dismally altogether different story, however...
With regards to Clark's article itself, I was glad to see him address the issue with folks who refer to themselves as vegetarians, although they still eat fish or chicken. He points out -- and rightly so -- that ''unless we're talking about the kind of salmon that comes freshly plucked from the vine, this makes you an omnivore''. On the other hand, I was disappointed that he chose to marginalize vegans, limiting what he says about them to: ''they call themselves vegan, which rhymes with 'tree men' These people are intense.'' It's funny how an article that seems to diminish perceived differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians would segregate one type of vegetarians in that manner.
The overall tone of the article seems almost apologetic. ''Hey guys, I'm just like you -- I even wear leather shoes! See?'' It's as if in purportedly attempting to demystify the relationship between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, Clark also attempts to portray an image of vegetarians as being indistinct from non-vegetarians, and although in most ways they are, I think that in some significant and more weighty ways -- the underlying reasons to what's on their respective plates -- they aren't. And although blurring that over may make dinner conversation a bit more light, it leaves me with a sense that the only good vegetarian is a closet vegetarian, or a vegetarian who shuts up and keeps his vegetarianism to himself, and I'm certain that won't benefit any cow or pig destined for the slaughterhouse in the long run and in a sense, I feel it's being a bit hypocritical in how one presents oneself to the world. As a lovely vegan friend once said to me when I'd mentioned my reluctance to out myself at work: ''There's no shame in being a vegetarian!'' I'm pretty well sure that lecturing and proselytizing aren't the way to go, but I'm even more sure that pretending that one's reasons for becoming a vegetarian should be kept private under fear of social ostracism. I think there's important gray area that should be explored when it comes to how we walk around in the world as vegetarians or vegans, without shame or fear of reprisal and least of all, fear or reprisal from your fellow vegetarians. And I can't help but feel an underlying sense of that from both of these aforementioned articles. Just a whiff of it...
