Do Vegans Hate People?

On its surface I think the question "do vegans hate people/humans?" is really bizarre, but as time goes on I find it's something that needs to be addressed. If you're reading this I assume you agree. This is a big question that hopes to explain the ethics and values of thousands of people. As a vegan that's talked to, been friends with, been family to and cared about omnivores, vegetarians and vegans I think I'm qualified to answer from my own experiences. That being said I can only answer for vegans who think like I do or have had similar experiences. So take this blog as one small part of the answer to that very big question.

I will be up front and honest about my opinions. Vegans do not hate people; to hate humans is actually an anti-vegan sentiment. If I hated people I would not call myself a vegan.

To explain why it is anti-vegan to hate humans I will give a general definition of what veganism means to me. Veganism is a lifestyle that tries its absolute best to not participate in the use or oppression of any animal. That sentence obviously includes the typical vegans don't eat eggs or drink milk, but it also includes the less typical (for whatever reason) vegans don't eat honey, don't wear wool, don't wear leather, and don't buy products that test on animals. It says tries its absolute best because it's impossible to be perfect, we live in a culture built on the dead bodies of animals. We may slip up now and then, but cultural change and not personal perfection is the ideal, so trying the actual 100% best each person can is how we be vegan.

Note that in my sentence I said any animal. Humans are animals. It is part of veganism to not use or oppress other humans. That is why nearly all vegans I know are anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-ageist and so forth. Vegans consider humans to be just like any other animal. We care for all animals equally - and we care for them all a lot! Have you ever asked a vegan how much they care for a cow? Well if they're like me they'll go all starry eyed and go on about how beautiful and wonderful cows are. Ask me in the exact same way how much I care for humans, and I'll say the exact same thing. Humans are wonderful and beautiful too! I love humans, just as much as I love all animals.

So why then do vegans get the stereotype that they hate humans? Well that's hard to say for sure. I think it has to do with the fact that vegans are so adamant about their love for non-human animals because they want to speak out loudly about an otherwise ignored group. Saying I love humans is pointless. We are human. We should love humans. It goes without saying. We need to say I love non-human animals and I think they have rights because that doesn't go without saying, it's not part of the norm.

I think the problem is that this open love of non-human animals has made people worried and defensive. It's an action done without enough information to actually understand where vegans are coming from, because if the people who said this did understand they'd laugh at how silly it sounded. Saying vegans hate other humans is a defensive action, it's a desperate attack to dehumanize vegans. Once vegans are dehumanized, they are no longer given the consideration we should give all humans and can be put down and ridiculed. So in this light it is something done to vegans because the person saying it doesn't want to hear or understand vegans. They are legitimizing this lack of want.

So don't worry. I'm vegan, and I still love you. Whoever you are.

Why do Omnivores Love PETA Stickers?

As a vegan I think PETA has its time and place. I find no qualms in using PETA materials if I 100% agree with everything that specific material says and if it's appropriate to my cause. I'm not going to stereotype PETA and say it's bad all the time, I think that's a programmed unnecessary human response, but I will call PETA out when it does something that hurts the animal rights movement. I think stating this is important, because to talk about anything from such a controversial organization you need to provide context. That is my context. Now we can begin.

I've found that omnivores love PETA stickers. My little cousins, aged 8-14, constantly ask me for PETA stickers and have even signed up for PETA on their own to get stickers mailed to them. I've had university students who have no intention of being vegan or vegetarian ask me for PETA stickers, step back 3 feet, and say to their friend "oh my god this is so cute, look at this one, oh gosh I love that one". One man even put one that said “Fish are friends not food” on the back of his iphone, even though he's an avid sushi eater. I've even had omnivorous adults ask if they can take stickers for their omnivorous kids at home. What is going on?

On one hand I'm happy that people are taking the stickers and putting them everywhere. They're basically advertising for veganism. This is a dramatically unique occurrence. These people are saying veganism is legitimate, it has real ideas with some merit, and are not afraid to say they agree with it in some ways. At the very least it's a million times better than the omnivores who approach me and say I must hate humans because I'm vegan. It's an attitude of respect and solidarity. Okay... so it's somewhat good for veganism, but what does it mean?

Are these stickers doing any good if an omnivore can pick them up, say pigs are 'friends not food', and then eat a pig for dinner? My gut reaction is that this is bad, veganism is being appropriated by the masses, and it's losing its meaning. But then again – I don't see these people when they go home. It would be presumptuous of me to think that these stickers inspired no critical reflection at all. Maybe in a month or two months someone will look at that sticker in the confines of their own home and give it real thought. At the very least the sticker is saying there is a problem, and the person who asks for it is agreeing.

So I may not have an answer for why omnivores love PETA stickers, because I think that question is bigger than one blog, but I've decided that it's not a completely bad thing. If I support people who are playing with the ideas of veganism and trying them out, maybe they'll have the courage one day to try them for real.

Teaching Children About Where Their Food Comes From

From my experience children and teenagers know very little about where their food comes from. My cousin entering grade 10 tried to tell me today that cows often die naturally and then we eat them. When I assured him I have watched how cows die and it is human caused he tried to argue with me. He couldn't accept that if an animal dies of illness, old age, or suicide that we cannot eat it because we'll get sick. My cousin isn't stupid, he's extremely intelligent; he's just part of a generation of children and teenagers that are not told where their food comes from. When they aren't told, they make it up from what they know. What they know is nostalgic images of open farming fields, how lions kill zebras, and how humans die of old age.When we don't correct them we encourage these lies they've accidentally made up. When they grow up they are so skilled at creating these alternative stories that the real story seems so far fetched and so impossible that they don't even stop to think about it. It simply isn't possible that cows often go through the process of being skinned and cut up alive. But they do, so where are we now?

I will never have children, but I know I don't have that in common with most people. Many humans look forward to starting a family and having children. Perhaps the last thing they think about is what they will tell their children about the food on the table, other than to eat it. If someone had told me when I was six that to get steak you had to kill a cow I'd never have eaten steak again. It's actually a logical reaction. To make steak someone dies. I don't want someone to die, so I won't eat steak. To eat steak even though I don't want someone to die would actually be silly.

Children and even teenagers are not always given respect, they are treated as lesser beings rather than equals. If we respected them more we'd tell them the truth about where their food comes from. We'd allow them to have all of the information so that they could make informed decisions on their own. Instead by not telling them we are deciding for them. We are removing their autonomy.

If you balk at the idea of telling children where their food comes from because it might be too horrible - why are you even giving it to them? Surely they'd disapprove. Therein lies your answer.

Vegan Dating

I am an outsider when it comes to the world of vegan dating. My four year anniversary with my boyfriend will be this August. We were both omnivores when we met each other. Over time this obviously changed. Although I went vegan first, I never asked my boyfriend to; eventually he realized on his own "it was stupid not to be vegan." Most couples and single people aren't as lucky as I was.

The first vegan I ever met started a vegan/vegetarian club at my university so that she could meet more vegans. She was married to an omnivore and was a bit unhappy about it. She loved her husband, but you could just see it in her face that something was wrong when she talked about eating dinner at her house. Then there was a friend I met through my vegan club that was dating an omnivore. Then of course all of the countless threads you'll see on any vegan forum about "would you date an omnivore?"

So, would you date an omnivore? There are plenty of vegans (myself included) who find the idea absolutely ridiculous. Just look at carlylyn's deviantart account and her print "I Only Kiss Vegans." Consider the artist's statement: "A present for the vegan men out there and a little inspiration for the vegan women. Hold out for a vegan man, girls, and don't settle for anything less. Kissing meat eaters is way gross. " Way gross indeed. I can't look at omnivores or vegetarians without thinking of death. Even petting omnivorous cats makes my skin crawl.

Is there a happy middle ground? What about dating someone who eats vegan when they are with you? Or is this just a new way to pretend someone has values they really don't? I'd say so. The same goes for people who "go vegan" for their significant other. It's basically saying: "Going vegan for the animals who suffer doesn't make sense to me, so I'll go vegan for a nonhuman animal instead." While the end result is that they're vegan - are they really vegan? Or are they only eating a vegan diet? According to Gary Francione one of the most important parts of animal rights is telling other people about veganism. If your significant other can't even go vegan for animals, how can they even talk to anyone else about doing it without being a hypocrite?

Veganism only works if enough people are vegan that a culture that doesn't want to treat animals like property exists. Every time we encourage or accept someone that isn't vegan we're going backwards. The person you date, love and maybe even marry will be your other half. If they don't agree with you, you just don't have the same values. Saying I won't date people who think using animals like property is okay is being strong. It's being vegan. Doing anything else is compromising the movement we dedicate our lives to.

Why I'm Not a Vegan Abolitionist

After my last blog post highly praised the simplicity of the vegan abolitionist position I think it's appropriate to delve a little more into my opinions, questions, and quandaries about vegan abolitionism. I don't call myself a vegan abolitionist because I'm not one, but I'm definitely leaning in that direction. I still need to do more research because right now I rely on the wiki article by Gary Francione about abolitionism for most of my insight into the movement. I strongly agree with all of the six principles listed, except number four. That's where I start to waver a little.

Number four states: "We recognize that we will not abolish overnight the property status of nonhumans, but we will support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda. We will not support positions that call for supposedly “improved” regulation of animal exploitation..."

That's a loaded principle so let's start to unpack it. I agree that the property status of nonhuman animals won't be abolished overnight, it will take time. I do not support positions that regulate animal exploitation. Factory farm cages or family farm cages, I don't prefer either because the animal is still treated as property. In fact spending time promoting better treatment for animals considered property merely entrenches their status as property. As you can see I completely agree with the abolitionist position up until this point.

It's in the vagueness of sentence two where I get a little lost. My personal opinion is that I will support anything that is actually vegan, even if the position of the group isn't always pro vegan. If the group, organization or event allows me to be express my opinions about veganism in an uncensored way then I will happily support it. I will also support groups, such as the sanctuary I volunteer for, that encourages what I consider the basic fundamentals of veganism without actually mentioning food. For example the sanctuary creates an atmosphere where humans of all ages can learn to respect and care about other animals. They are allowed to pet, groom and simply be near expressive animals who have their own names, histories and personalities. Each animal is treated as a respected individuals. These animals happen to be naturally vegan so I feel no qualms about volunteering my time and effort to make sure that they are fed.

So here in lies the problem - am I reading too deeply into number four or reading it correctly? By supporting campaigns that don't say 'vegan abolitionism' on them am I making myself not a vegan abolitionist? Even if these campaigns follow every other rule? I'm still not positive, but I'd have say I think that means these campaigns are not vegan abolitionist which means I'm not. I'm okay with that though, I'm not in it for the ability to say I belong to a certain elite group. I will pick and choose what I believe in - but as it stands of course if given the option I'd support vegan abolitionism over anything else.

Animals are not Property

As someone who does a fair bit of vegan outreach learning how to talk to omnivores and vegetarians about veganism is always a learning process for me. You have to completely know yourself, your own position, and then try as best as possible to figure out the person you're talking to. So many things can go wrong. You can spend ten minutes talking to someone about how cows are treated in factory farms, only to find out that they prioritize protein over suffering because they 'work out'. Activism turns into a game where you're trying to figure out a stranger completely in under two minutes. In fact it sounds a little hostile and manipulative, which really isn't veganism at all. Lately I've been thinking - what is the alternative?

According to the vegan wiki the first principle of vegan abolitionism is that the animal rights position states that all animals have the right to not be treated as the property of others. I've always toyed with abolitionism and deeply respected it. As for the principles I follow 5/6 but don't call myself an abolitionist because I don't want to sully their movement (like many people do to veganism in general). So then let's consider abolitionism (or at least my understanding of it) and how that might make vegan activism a lot easier.

The first very basic idea is that no animal should ever be treated as property. That answers every question. Don't you need protein? No animal should ever be treated as property so I don't use animal protein. Don't cows need to give milk? No animal should ever be treated as property and when they are bought, sold, and then killed when they no longer produce optimum milk they are being treated as property.

Of course you may get some people who will disagree with the basic idea that animals should not be treated as property - but there is the division. I can't imagine a vegan who thinks it's okay to use animals like property, so this person will never be vegan anyways and there's no point playing the dance to figure them out. There are just too many cultural barriers in the way. Vegan abolitionists seem to accept that a lot easier than I do, a person that spends far too much time trying to find the best way to talk to every person. When you do that though you compromise your own beliefs. So often I find myself accidentally encouraging pescaterians, vegetarians, and sometimes omnivores. To encourage veganism to everyone you need to lower your own standards so that you can meet where they are at. In the end though you end up telling them it's okay to use animals as property - which I fundamentally think is a basic wrong.

So for now I'll try to answer every "why don't you do this" question with because it is a basic right for all animals not to be treated as property and see where it takes me.

Being 'Very Vegan'

My brother told me about a conversation he was having with his coworkers at Starbucks this morning, but the part that stuck out to me the most was when I was referred to as 'very vegan'. One of his coworkers (let's call him John because I have no idea what his name actually is) mentioned people that are 'very vegan' don't eat honey, don't wear wool, and are emotional around non-vegan food items. I almost laughed at first, until I got a little worried.

Wool and honey are simply not vegan, but does that mean someone who isn't 'very vegan' would use these items? Does John not actually know what a vegan is because he isn't one? Has John met a few 'bad vegan' who calls themselves just vegan? Or am I just a special elite class of vegan that tries to pretend that people who aren't like me aren't vegan?

To get a little background I'll explain why I never eat honey, never use wool (or lanolin) and get emotional around non-vegan products. I presume it would help if we're all on the same page. It's true bees naturally produce honey and sheep naturally produce wool - but the honey and wool we're dealing with is very far from its 'natural roots'. Today most bees are bred to produce more honey than wild bees, which is why wild bees are dying out. We've introduced competition natural bees can't compete with. The bees we've made are sprayed with toxins, accidentally crushed collecting honey, or killed at the end of the season. Sheep are bred differently as well - they're bred to produce more wool. Yes they need to be sheared, because we made them that way. Sheep got along for thousands of years without us shearing them just fine - until we tampered with how they look and grow. Being sheared often scares, upsets and traumatizes many sheep. When sheep no longer produce optimum wool they are killed for their meat. If we didn't buy the wool - the meat wouldn't be so cheap. If the meat wasn't so cheap no one would buy that, and then no one would farm sheep. At the end of the day though the answer is really as simple as this one sentence: If I don't need it and someone may have been bothered if I took it, I won't.

From the way other vegans are sometimes I wonder if I am an elite class of vegan snob - until I write down the above and know that I'm not. Veganism is about not using animals. Wool and honey use animals - ergo not vegan. So how did I suddenly become the 'very vegan?'

One of the scariest things is that I use the phrase myself. When telling people I'm vegan I want them to understand that means I have very different boundaries. If you eat non-vegan food in front of me I'm either going to tell you how disgusting it is, tell you where it came from, cry, or just walk away. I usually prepare you for that by telling you "I'm very vegan". People typically find out I'm vegan the day they meet me. If you're not vegan you might think I'm crazy, if you are vegan you might just think I need to grow out of it. Gary Francione responded to the idea of extremism best. Is it more extreme for me to cry, or is it more extreme for someone to eat the flesh of a creature who never saw the sun, was anemic, was taken from his mother twelve hours after birth, never developed real muscles, lived in a stall that was only large enough to turn around in, and then suffered while he died? The second we forget all of that we allow ourselves to eat meat, because we're eating meat and not another animal. Not a subject or a living being, a dead thing with no face. I will always think about what someone is eating because I am proud to know the truth and will not let them suffer in silence. Someone died, it is a very big deal.

 I don't think being emotional is a requirement for veganism, but I do think not eating honey or using wool is. I have a problem though - if I pretend that 'very vegan' doesn't exist and describe myself as vegan people will have no idea when they cross boundaries. People might stick honey in food they offer me and not tell me. People will be shocked, defensive and angry with me when I tell them where their food came from. So should I explain the whole story about how I'm a real vegan and other people aren't? What if I don't have time and all I can do is say I'm either vegan or I'm not?

I don't have an answer to that one, but until I do I'll just try my very best to lead by example and provide as much context as possible.

Vegans and Vegetarians Are Not the Same

Part of being vegan is being kind to all forms of life, including humans. Some people take this a step further and say that we should respect everyone's decisions. On a surface level this idea sounds great, but does it mean that we should respect and encourage omnivores and vegetarians? Most vegans won't encourage omnivores, but we come to a gray area when vegetarians are involved. Should we be happy they are vegetarian? Should we encourage them? Should we accept them even if they tell us they will never be vegan?

I've met many vegetarians who, when finding out I was vegan, acted as if we were the same; as if their vegetarian diet and lifestyle choices had absolutely no effect on animals and were equal to my own. They even acted as if we should be close friends just because they were vegetarian. On a surface level this doesn't seem like a very big deal, but it is the result of encouraging vegetarians into thinking we are similar. It is the result of vegan groups that say 'for vegetarians and vegans!' or for vegetarian groups that happen to accept vegans as if it's a give in. Now what is the problem with that, you might be thinking. Doesn't it just encourage everyone to get along and support each other? Yes it does, but at a very big price.

By encouraging vegetarians to feel perfectly comfortable around vegans we are sending a message. We are saying we accept them as they are and that there is no need to ever become vegan. This also belittles all of the reasons that we ourselves are vegan and have chosen not to be vegetarian. It forces us to ignore those reasons and pretend that they aren't real, when in fact they are the central core of our vegan experiences.

So what is the alternative? We could just act like vegans and talk like vegans around vegetarians and they will soon realize we are very different. We could mention the thousands of animals a vegetarian diet kills, how it still includes cholesterol, and how it is still harming our planet - I know that's what I as a vegan talk about, but I often feel compelled to censor myself when vegetarians are around. I shouldn't though, but I consider it because some vegetarians get very very upset when you show them that as vegetarians they aren't really helping anyone. They do not save real animals, they are still supporting the meat industry, and they are prolonging suffering in different animals. Upon realizing this many often become overwhelmed, or worse defensive. Vegans become the enemy, the too picky elitists who are too aggressive and too preachy. So is speaking our mind, and being vegan around vegetarians, really the answer?

I would say yes, that's the answer. It's the only way to not compromise our morals, our values and the reality about how and why animals suffer. Vegetarians are still strongly tied into, and support, a reality where animals are objects to use. We'll definitely lose a few vegetarian allies along the way, but we were never out to make friends with them anyways. Vegans are not vegetarian for a reason, and the second we forget that we're going to need to make a new term for those vegans who still remember.

Welfare Vegans are Invading the Internet

A welfare vegan is someone who, for a variety of reasons, does not always follow a vegan diet. There are other criteria that make up a welfare vegan, and not every single welfare vegan person meets this one, but it is common and prevalent enough online that it's becoming a real problem.

In my opinion welfare vegans should refer to themselves as vegetarians who try to eat a mostly vegan diet. After all, they don't eat a vegan diet. I've met several in the past who have actually referred to themselves in the way I prefer (all hope is not lost!) and I have thanked them for not degrading the term vegan. I do not mean to put the term vegan on a sacred pedestal, but without standards the very meaning of veganism is lost.

Once upon a time the word vegetarian represented what veganism is today. It was a total rejection of any animal product, including milk and eggs. I'm not sure when, but somehow this changed. Eventually enough people who only stopped eating meat called themselves vegetarian that the real vegetarians decided to come up with a new word so people would realize what they really were. The term vegan was chosen to signify the beginning and end of vegetarianism. To me that means we start with the desire to not harm animals, and take it further than vegetarians. We take it to the ultimate level where no animal suffers in any way in our diet (or at least we try our very best). In a welfare vegan diet animals do suffer because it includes vegetarian products.

The intellectual fight over the term vegan is more than an issue of semantics. Today there are people who call themselves vegetarians who eat fish and chicken. I have been to a restaurant that included fish ingredients in its vegetarian options, because it is after all vegetarian (wtf no!). I am worried that one day when I go to a 'vegan' restaurant someone is going to stick cow milk or chicken period in my food, and then I'm going to have to make up a new word no one will no about and no one will cater to.

Not only do welfare vegans threaten our restaurants but they take up space in the big wide internet void. When people type the word vegan in a google search there are plenty of blogs that pop up - and we don't have the option of censoring them. Most people have never met a vegan, and reading a welfare vegan's opinion about hiding in the backyard to eat your vegan food if no one will tolerate you eating it in public or eating vegetarian food so that you can make your diet look easy (how can it look easy if you're not even showing them your actual diet?!) gives a vegetarian impression on vegan issues. That's fine, until people begin to think vegans actually think and act this way. I can't count the number of times people have spouted cookie cutter welfare vegan advice at me only to be confused when I explain that it involves animal suffering so it's not vegan.

The next time you see a welfare vegan please correct them and let them know they aren't vegan. It's fine if they're not (as long as they will be one day!), and until they eat a strict vegan diet they shouldn't label themselves in ways that devalue and degrade veganism. Peter Singer that means you!

Veganism is Not Just a Diet

Veganism is often considered a diet. If you remove meat, milk and eggs from what you eat most people would consider you to be vegan. I'd like to challenge that idea. I think that only half of veganism is diet. That belief is rooted in my personal understanding of veganism as a social movement. One of the major purposes of veganism is to make a loud enough challenge to the meat eating culture that being vegan becomes normal. By repeating it and putting it out there we are engaging in the same normalizing process that the media uses to sell us products and lifestyles. We don't want animals to be treated nicer, we want to be entirely free of the idea of eating or using them at all. To get there we need a profound cultural change.

What I eat as a single person is important, but it's not the be all and end all of veganism. By buying organic tofu instead of veal I am choosing to financially fund food options I agree with, but I am only one person. By telling people about what I am eating and why I am more than one person. I am being vegan. I am engaging in the social movement and encouraging others to get involved. That is why when I see private vegans, vegans who are hush hush I'm telling you I'm vegan because I know you are but no one else really knows because I don't bother telling them, I feel betrayed. It's a tricky slope because you don't want to encourage a vegan scale, where one person is more vegan than someone else and subsequently better. No, that's an absolutely horrible idea. I would say though that if someone is happy living their whole life as a vegan and not challenging anyone else about their non-veganism I ideally wouldn't call them vegan. I would say they eat a vegan diet, but they're definitely not vegan.

So then the question arises about people who don't eat vegan food but who very avidly advocate vegetarianism. If eating vegan food is half of veganism, are they closer to being vegan than people who actually call themselves vegan? Alec Baldwin is a fantastic example. He is vegetarian, so he definitely doesn't have eat a vegan diet. However, he narrated the short film Meet your Meat. He does ad campaigns for PETA and is in their vegetarian starter kit. While you could know who he is and not know he's vegetarian, if you read up on him for any period of time at all you'd quickly learn about it. It is an intricate part of who he is and who he presents himself to be. Alec Baldwin encourages vegetarianism and even presents it as an ideal. So while Alec Baldwin may not eat a vegan diet I would consider him to be vegan in his activism practices. I wouldn't consider him vegan though (because diet is half of it!), but I'd say he is halfway there.

Pamela Anderson is another great example. She's vegan. She poses naked for PETA. It's an extremely important part of who she is. While you may not always agree with how she advertises veganism and animal rights it's hard to challenge that veganism is an integral part of her media image. I don't always agree with everything she does, but I'd say she is a perfect example of a well rounded vegan.

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not saying people shouldn't eat vegan diets, eating vegan food is and always will be an integral part of veganism. I am however challenging the diluted message that eating vegan food makes you a vegan. As long as the meat culture exists, and possibly after, vegans need to encourage cultural change. While you don't need to immediately become vegan and challenge any family members that puts milk on the table, I'd say you aren't vegan if you never plan to.

The Formal Education of Veganism

One of the things I enjoy most about my feminism class is that I learn a lot about veganism, even though the v word is never mentioned. I grew up assuming feminists were women who were ranting and raving about rights we already had for no reason. They were aggressive bitches getting in the way of the world. Somehow I just knew that was the way things were. When I first went vegetarian I abandoned that idea, but only because I was now labeled as the aggressive other and could sympathize with other minority social groups; it was not because I actually understood feminism. Then my boyfriend's aunt got me a subscription to Bitch and I was introduced to a very different world for the first time.

Feminism, to me, is a rejection of the status quo. It often questions the universities it is taught in and appears to encourage the women at my school to vandalize the bathrooms (we actually have advertisements in our bathrooms which is an invasion of my personal space, but I feel inspired every time I see that permanent marker graffiti saying that the ads are sexist, women don't look like that, stop calling other women sluts, self love etc.). I'm always baffled that such an extreme and radical idea, that is still largely criticized by society as not necessary or important, is taught at all let alone the fact that it's a program you can get your bachelor, masters or PhD in.

Then there comes the feminist art. Oh gosh the feminist art. In the 70s feminist artists created an art school for females only and took over an abandoned mansion in California and turned it into an art exhibit that is still around today. Women put paint brushes in their vaginas, cut holes in their pants and verbally assaulted misogynists, took pictures of their tampons and the list goes on. Oh the interesting things I learned. How grotesque it was, I'm not sure if it's all forward or even which way it's going but it's wild and it's new and it's feminist and people actually pay money for it. A mainstream art gallery actually built a whole new wing to house a feminist sculpture which played on the imaginary dinner party theme but on the plate of each guest there was a depiction of her mythical vagina. When the art first came out there were line ups around the block to see it. Perhaps you may not agree with all of it, I'm not sure if I do, but the point I'm trying to make is look how out of the box this is and how much society hates it but people pay to learn about it in schools and to see it in galleries.

Which is of course where veganism comes in. Veganism is just as radical, according to society, as feminists. They are both the absurd idea that someone doesn't have rights, when society would love to tell us they have plenty rights enough. They are both loud, outrageous, and often rely on the grotesque to get their message across. It fills me with hope.

While I look in my classrooms today I can't imagine a single person that would enroll in the history of veganism, or vegan culture. Then again, when I look around my always full first year feminist class of over 200 I don't expect any of them to be there either. While we definitely have a long way to go (I'm still shocked every time I meet someone who doesn't know what a vegan is) there are people that think we don't need to be all the way there before we start to publicly educate about where we're going. I think bringing veganism into the universities is a real step that would legitimize it as more than a personal choice or a diet option. In the universities it might be seen as a real fight for rights, and then of course trickle down through society through the media that loves to take our most profound ideas, dilute them, and sell them back to us as lifestyles. All the same, while they never say the v word in my feminist classes I'm always reminded that one day if I fight for long enough I might have this.

Vegans are not all the same

An omnivore recently asked me if I ate a lot of meat before I became vegan and how it was for me to stop eating it. To put it bluntly as a child I loved steak, but I loved cows more. I stopped eating steak as soon as I made the mental connection that it was a real animal. While that may seem silly, it shouldn't be surprising. We are encouraged to see meat as dead and passive, not alive and suffering. I stopped eating all meat when I made the connection that meat means death and I don't want to cause death. After listening to me talk for a little while a vegetarian asked me if all vegans were like me. I guess he'd never met one before. I laughed and said not at all. I pointed to my boyfriend and said we're pretty radical when it comes to vegans. That idea, are all vegans the same, is something I'd like to explore.

I find culture lumps all vegans in one category. Fanatics that want to convert you and might even throw things at you if you eat meat in front of them. That's a very shallow message, and while you might not believe it you're still encouraged to believe that all vegans are the same. Like we're one massive blob and the second you become vegan you're pulled into that blob, learn everything about veganism, and are thrown back out to interact with a now hostile world. It assumes that there is a common vegan experience and a common vegan knowledge. As if we have vegan libraries and vegan 101 lessons and that the messages about veganism are universal. It assumes that we are not people, we are vegans. We have no identity as individuals but instead mold ourselves to replicate a collective group model.

The first time that I realized that there were different kind of vegans was when speaking to a stranger I met on the bus. We had a lovely chat after he heard me use the v word while on my cell. I was pointed in the direction Francione and researched him. He suggests there are two types of vegans. Welfare vegans think that if we can find a way for animals to be happy and not suffer we can eat and use them. They want to show everyone how easy veganism is and don't always follow a vegan diet, but still call themselves vegan. These are the kind of vegans that say we should enforce legislation where factory farm conditions are made better. Some might even say dogs and cats are natural meat eaters so they keep them as pets and feed them meat without question. This is a big over generalization, but it has many qualities I expect you'd find in a welfare vegan. The other kind of vegan is a vegan abolitionist. They say that we shouldn't support laws that make things better for animals; these laws make it harder for us to realize that eating or using animals is wrong. It is simply morally unacceptable and we should never do it. We should only support organizations that are vegan abolitionist and say that the end goal is veganism, not those that settle for promoting vegetarianism. You should only talk to people about veganism regarding animal rights first, and health, the environment and religion second if ever. You don't soften your message for anyone, because when you soften it you lose it. Not everyone will be vegan, but eventually you'll find people that will be. Once again this is probably a very brief over generalization that has the potential to be slightly inaccurate because it's only based on shallow research.

Okay so there are two types of vegans – the problem turned out though that I wasn't in either category. I definitely wasn't a welfare vegan, but I wasn't an abolitionist vegan either. I'm not a religious person, but my veganism is spiritual. I believe that I am vegan because my life is just one life. It is wrong to take anyone's life so that I can continue to live. I'm lucky being vegan is so healthy, because I'd still be vegan even if it wasn't. My belief comes from a profound attachment I have to non-human animals, and I know not everyone has it. I know people are vegan for different reasons and telling someone about my spiritual vegan ideals may not make them vegan because maybe they just don't care. It doesn't mean I'm wrong and they're right, but instead that they grew up in a different culture and now manifest it in a very different way than I manifest my culture.

So should we have a vegan 1 to 10 scale? 1 means you're welfare, 10 abolitionist, and I'd probably be like a 5? Well that isn't fair, and doesn't seem right, especially since I consider welfare vegans to be normal people that often follow a vegan diet but aren't actually vegan. Should they be 3 separate and distinct groups? Well no, because they aren't separate. No vegan has developed in isolation, and a lot of the traits of abolitionist vegans have developed in response to what they feel are inadequacies in welfare vegans, and vice versa I assume as well.

I think the best way to look at it is like a whole is vegan culture. Inside this culture there are people of course, and they bring with them the mass culture. So it's like bits and pieces of people fit into this culture blob and take on part of it, but keep part of their old selves. People with similar mass culture experiences often group together in the vegan culture to create vegan sectors embedded in the larger vegan matrix. So you get vegan abolitionists, and welfare vegans but you also get other groups like Christian vegans, Hindu vegans, Pagan influenced agnostic vegans (which seems to be the best way to describe me), health vegans, environmental vegans and so on. Then of course you get people who cross these boundaries and fit into multiple vegan sectors. While this is view of veganism is definitely rooted in my faith in social constructionism and classical conditioning I think it adequately describes the multifaceted and constantly in flux nature of veganism.

There is no one type of vegan. Things would definitely be easier if there was, but alas it's not so. We all need to forge ahead and create our own identities while never forgetting that our identities are made out of what mass culture gives us. We do not make entirely new things, and while our identities are not just responses to mass culture they are shaped by it. I think the easiest way to find ourselves is to educate ourselves about the kind of vegans that are out there, and see how well that fits or doesn't fit into our world view. While it may seem controversial to break up veganism and add boundaries and groups it's an important response to the idea of the uniform vegan.

Veganism is a Feminist Issue

I often get the feeling that feminism doesn't have time for veganism, or at least that some feminists would like to tell me that. According to the women's collective at my university they have limited members and resources and right now they'd like to just focus on humans. I replied that it's just as offensive to say that they'd rather focus on human over non-human animals as it is to say that they'd rather focus on white people over black people. I never received a response from the women's collective, they probably decided to take the 'high road' and not reply. That's a very loaded situation though, and as a feminist myself I can't help but be left with questions.

Did the women's collective think I was attacking them? How did they not realize that I was using their own slogans to show them that their labels are just as arbitrary as race? Were they too comfortable labeling others as oppressors that they couldn't accept the reality that they might be oppressors as well? Why did they dismiss me so quickly? If I've learned anything from feminism, which I would like to think I have, the number one rule is that if someone tries to dismiss you (by calling you a bitch, saying you have no credibility or even just stifling your voice like they did to me) they think you are a threat.

I didn't call the women's collective on their lack of response. I had been helpful and polite. I had told them I'd be happy to help with any issues that didn't pertain to veganism, as long as veganism wasn't completely ignored because it's a big part of feminism. I pointed out to them that ignoring something is just as bad as disagreeing with it. I was done playing the nice vegan, the politically correct perfect adversary that takes your opinion into account when it's just damn speciest and offensive. Perhaps I'll write them an email later, take one for the team and practice my 'manners' (read censoring yourself to get what you need for the sake of animals everywhere), but only when I've answered some questions for myself.

I hate to generalize and attempt to be objective, but I can't imagine a non-vegan feminist. Feminism, as I've experienced it to be, is challenging a patriarchal culture to liberate the oppressed. This oppression may be obvious (such as the woman who is denied a position because she is a female) or unobvious (such as the male heterosexual who is confined to the culturally created box of sex and gender). Eating and using animals is the very unobvious, to some people anyways. It is the domination over other animals and placing them in a category of lesser being. It is saying their lives are worth less than yours, changing them from subjects into objects that can be traded and sold like slaves. It is removing their identity and agency from the body, removing it so successfully that when people think of cow they think of its flesh before they think of it as a feeling, moving, animal. When they think of it as alive they think of it as born to die, smiling, and accepting its fate as a servant to our desires and wants.

My rant goes on. How can anyone call themselves a feminist and then sit down at a dinner table and pay for the enslavement and murder of a non-human animal? Skin colour, height, weight, sexuality, and disability are not reasons to discriminate against someone. Why are amount of legs, size, fur, and cuteness suddenly acceptable categories to discriminate against? They are all the same – arbitrary labels made up by the colonizer to justify unjustifiable oppression and violence on a people labeled as 'other'.

I am not saying all feminists must immediately be vegan. I am not saying that I will judge all feminists for not being vegan. Society is very good at hiding oppression, and to be quite frank we don't always know the truth. I spent seventeen years not being vegan. I am however saying that feminists have an obligation to listen to vegans and an obligation to include veganism in their feminist ethics as soon as they are made aware that they are contributing to oppression. They don't need to be vegan immediately, but it needs to be something they hold as an ideal limit to suffering that they actively work towards in hopes to soon achieve.

So perhaps the next time I see a feminist I'll ask if they're vegan. If they aren't I'll ask why not. I will inform. I will be polite. I will also stand up for myself though, and when feminists resist veganism for no damn good reason I'll tell them they're being speciest. We can't be too comfortable being an activist that we forget why we're activists at all.

I am a feminist because I want to work against oppression, and I only hope that if someone knew I was causing oppression that they'd tell me.

5 Easy Tips to be an Inspiring Vegan

I don't think you should ever dilute a message to make it available to a broader audience. Context and necessary information simply gets lost. That is why I want to make it clear that this list should be read as a few ways to be a vegan that inspires change around you. I'm sure there are more tips, I encourage you to look for them. This is a beginner version to start thinking about how to be an inspiring vegan to vegans and non-vegans alike. It takes some thought, and hopefully if you don't do these things you might ask yourself why you don't. If you do all of them then perhaps you can share some of your inspiring vegan tips with me!

1. Introduce yourself as vegan.

If you get a new job, are starting a new class, meet a friend of a friend or are anywhere where someone asks you to tell them about yourself say you are vegan. Give a face to veganism. Most people don't know any vegans, and simply being able to think "hey that stereotype isn't true because I knew a vegan and she wasn't like that" is a great start to breaking down barriers.

You'll also find people will apologize a lot more when they say speciest things around you, and it's a great way to get them to realize that they are saying something offensive (I've noticed my professor slowly eliminate animal jokes from his language as the term has gone on and if he uses them he'll actually pause in class, look at me, and explain to me why he used them).

2. Brand yourself as vegan.

Wear shirts or necklaces that say vegan or have facts, quotes, or even thought provoking questions about veganism. Put pins on your bag or on your jacket. Advertisers throw thousands of ads at you a day, and they often don't even say much of anything. The fact that they're repeated makes them appear normal, makes you think about them, or even just tells you this is real and important.

You can often buy your vegan label items from companies that support something vegan. One of my necklaces that says vegan I bought off etsy and it was made by a woman who runs a farm animal sanctuary. The money from all her necklaces goes to the animals there.

3. Request vegan food.

If you're going to a friend's house, a family dinner, or even just at a mall or a campus fast food place request that vegan food be available. Point out that it's not just a personal choice but a belief and that it's actually more radical to serve dead animals and their byproducts than it is to ask for a meal made without suffering. The more you ask the more people will actually start taking you seriously and look for vegan items on their own. Complaining is also very important, because if you don't say there is no vegan food someone won't know they need to offer it.

4. Veganism is relevant almost everywhere, so talk about it.

If we don't talk about veganism people will think it doesn't have a natural place in every day conversations – and it does! Only talk about veganism as relevant to the current issue, because you want to be see as sharing and not trying to control an argument. When someone is talking about dieting say that veganism is the safest way to lose weight and that vegans are 9 times lower on average in weight than non-vegans. When someone is talking about pets talk about adopting or how you love all animals, including chickens and cows. When someone is talking about cancer say 71% of endocrine disrupters (hormones that disrupt your hormone system and cause cancer) that you consume come from cow milk. When someone is talking about charity talk about how animals die every day in ways that are so horrific no one talks about it. When someone is talking about a natural disaster ask what happened to the animals that were left behind and not shown on the tv.

5. Talk about it as an ethic and lifestyle.

Veganism is not just about what you eat. It's about how you live and approach the world. Make sure to correct people when they don't understand that, such as people reducing veganism to a label on food made differently.

When people compliment you for being altruistic, caring about others, or even being helpful say it's because you have a vegan ethic. Tell people that veganism is a non-violence world view that believes no one should suffer. Humans and animals are equal. Make sure to tell them it's not an attack on them, saying they're any less nice, but tell them you're nice because you believe in veganism.

Rethinking and Revisioning the Idea of the Wild Animal

After my first few classes in a course entitled Sex, Gender and Pop Culture I found myself wondering if feminism had anything to say about animals other than humans. I strongly believe that feminism is very relevant and necessary today, but I wondered if it wasn't being self reflective enough. Surely enough my professor Alyson Mitchell, you should google her she's fantastic, had the answer. She directed me to a few blogs and books. Being in university, playing mommy to my refugee animal friends, and trying to coordinate a vegan club keep me busy – so let's just say I'm listing off unacceptable reasons for procrastinating and putting off the reading until 'the summer', whenever that comes, if it even does at all – because summer to me has come to mean this utopian ideal of sunshine, lounging by the pond and having loads of spare time. At any rate I did read one of the recommended books and was left both inspired and confused.

The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol Adams is fantastic, but I'll come right out and say that it left me feeling frustrated. It is a 'Critical Feminist-Vegetarian Theory' according to the cover. On one page Adams says we live in a meat-culture and on another point blank talks about how horrific the cow milk and chicken egg industry is. So I thought, well this book looks pretty old. Maybe she means vegan when she writes vegetarian, like a pure vegetarian before the word came to mean many different things to many different people. No such luck of course, as Adams goes on to talk about how she went out to eat ice cream. It's nuanced so well into the book that I almost wonder if she doesn't realizes where her ice cream comes from, or even hope she means soy ice cream and she's just forgetting to add it. So while I love the book I need to say it's a great step in the direction of eliminating non-human animal suffering, but it by no means is all the way there.

One section of the book talks about liberating your vocabulary. Instead of saying animal you should say other animal, to directly imply that you yourself are an animal and you do not mean human animals. Most of the time the word animal says all on its own that humans are not included in the animal category, which is problematic. I am beginning to try and say and type other animal when possible, but when it sounds just wrong I use non-human animal which works almost as well I think. This is just an example of the type of suggestions this section of the book makes.

The book suggests that instead of saying wild animal we should say free animal. It doesn't really explain why, but my understanding is that the word wild has a negative connotation. Wild sounds untamed, savage, uncivilized, and like someone in need of domination. Not everyone sees this when they see the word wild, but the alternative isn't much better. To some wild is a romantic notion, an idea of purity that has not been tampered with by the human species. That is also problematic, because it prioritizes saving wild animals like one pack of wolves over dogs who die in the thousands every day because shelters are overflowing with strays.

The book suggests that we say free instead of wild. Free implies however a freedom from the human species, that they are only free when we do not interact with them. Should we turn out cats and dogs from our homes into the streets so they can be free? Do we still need to protect animals that are free? When we use the word free are we labeling them in a human engineered way, as if we ourselves are not free in our cities? I have some idea about the answers to these questions, but I've decided I don't quite like these questions. So yes, free is definitely better than wild – but free is I hope not the best word we can come up with.

So I looked beyond the book and began to think what can I call these animals in the woods, in the ponds, and in the skies? My next thought was natural animals. That raised other questions. Are the animals in our homes unnatural, have we tainted them? Does that imply humans are unnatural? Does that strengthen the human nature divide? The word sounded nice and romantic, but no it wouldn't do because it implied some horrible things.

The next word I came up with was original. It is a privileged word though, as if these animals are special and have some unique value. I suppose that's not far off from the fact though – as they are original and living in their intended ecosystems. They are the original model for our 'domestic' non-human animals, while our 'pets' are copies of a copy of a copy (thank you Beaudrillard for that idea!). They are modeled after an ideal that wasn't real in the first place, because how we view 'wild' animals isn't real at all – it is our anthropocentric projection. Thus 'domestic' animals are a copy of something fake, and that original fake is what we would call the 'wild' animal. The word original seems flawed though, as I'm sure anyone would be quick to point out that evolution can in fact prove that they are not original. They too are copies.

The word original is so far from the word wild that it would be a difficult transition. I can just imagine in lecture responding to a question about 'wild' animals and referring to them as original animals, only to completely confuse the lecturer and everyone else in the class. Confusion is never the intention, and since there often isn't time to explain to why I am using the word original I think confusion would come readily. It's too difficult a word, I think wild needs to be replaced by something obvious. We can replace meat with flesh and it's obvious (to most people in at least some way) what the word we are replacing is.

So I've come up with more questions now, but I guess that because I'm so used to wild it's difficult to find a replacement so easily. What would you say instead?

Why we Are Vegan and Why it is not Private

Veganism is not private. I think to understand this statement we need to first explore why people are vegan, and then use that knowledge to figure out how we can best act to suit the needs of the vegan social movement.

I think all vegans should be able to answer the one simple question, 'why are you vegan?' It is something, I feel, we are required to answer and should expect to be asked. When I first became vegetarian once upon a time my answer was because I don't want to contribute, in any way, to the possible suffering of an animal. I went vegan the day that I learned that vegetarians still contribute to suffering. Since I didn't know any vegans at the time why I became vegan was something I thought I knew – but didn't really explore. To me I was vegan because I didn't want to hurt animals. Sometimes it was because I wanted to save animals. Statements like that open up a lot of questions. Who am I being vegan for? Am I really altruistic, or do I just want the attention of others who praise me for my noble choices? Would I be vegan if it was harder, or if I wasn't really saving anyone?

A friend once told me a good story. Perhaps it's a well known vegan story, or maybe he just made it up. I can't quite say. He said to me when people go vegan we aren't really saving anyone. It's not like at the slaughter house they keep a tally of vegans and every time someone goes vegan they release the right amount of cows, sheep and so forth. So if we're not really saving any tangible physical real non-human animal, why are we vegan?

I do think we are eliminating non-human animal suffering, but with theoretical other animals. Veganism is not just a diet. The diet of one vegan isn't very useful in isolation. If we imagine we are voting with our wallet, as the film Food Inc. suggests we should, I think we can get a better picture of why we are vegan. I am vegan because one day I want animal (non-human and human alike, which don't fool yourself still exists) slavery to end, and to get there we need to change the system. It needs to not make sense for people to have slaughter houses and wear cows. To do that we need a change of consumers from omnivore to vegan. When what you are buying changes what people will produce changes. I am vegan in the hopes that if I continue at this one day farms won't exist anymore, they will be a horrific relic of a past humanity is ashamed of. I am saving hypothetical non-human animals from suffering, the ones that have not been born yet.

It's important to realize that real structural change does not have an easy quick fix. So, by being a private vegan and sitting in your corner and not talking about veganism – you're not really helping. You are not saving physical real non-human animals now (because veganism doesn't do that) and you're not saving theoretical non-human animals in the future. If everyone was vegan you'd be doing a great job, but that's not the case. As an isolated vegan your vote is just one vote, but as a vegan that lives a vegan lifestyle you can influence the votes of others.

The idea is a little dismal at first, that what I am doing (no matter how hard I try) is not saving anyone today. It's not even saving anyone that I will ever know, will ever exist, or of course can ever say thank you. I think sitting with that idea for a while is acceptable, but then we need to make a new definition for ourselves of why we are vegan. One that fits the goal that we actually need to have. I am vegan because suffering is unacceptable. Animal (non-human and human) suffering is built into how our society functions, it is often ignored because other animals are not equal to humans, and I will do anything in my power to change that in a permanent way.

I like to think a vegan lifestyle as a road to non-violence. You start wherever you can and work towards the end goal of reducing suffering as much as physically possible. If you are always moving towards that end goal and making practical and responsible choices to get there, then where you are right now isn't the most important. So yes, being a private vegan is acceptable if that's where you are right now, but to think that being a private vegan is the end goal is a big mistake. Living vegan starts with your food, and then it begins to emanate from you. It is present in your morals (ending suffering peacefully whenever possible) and becomes a way of life. People that talk to you can see your vegan-ness, and choosing not to hide it and to say I am this way because I am vegan is very important.

So to all the vegans that sit quietly at dinner tables and don't speak up because it would be impolite or awkward to do so – I hope that's only one step on your path and you don't always plan to allow suffering to pass in silence.

'What if' : A Cultural Tool to Erase Accountability

Being vegan is not a private or personal choice. To some it is a threat, no matter how quiet you are about it. Even just sitting at a table and eating a salad (not that a salad is ever an acceptable alternative to a steak) raises questions. Why is she or he eating that? Should I be eating that? Am I being judged because of what I'm eating? I've found that many of these questions go unasked. Without a successful outlet omnivores often lash out in inappropriate ways at vegans, which can sometimes make sense when we consider the back log of unanswered questions they've been stewing in. Seeing a vegan as a self righteous and self imposed judge is a lot easier than seeing yourself as a murderer. When successful outlets exist, usually a positive relationship based on sharing between vegans and omnivores, each question is answered one at a time. Taking the questions one at a time can show us that they aren't about the character of the person who is eating, but really about the non-human animal that is being eaten or used in some way. It is important to deal with these questions as they arise, but since that isn't always possible we need to figure out how to deal with that outburst that happens later. About half of being vegan, and an integral part of Post-Veganism, is about living by example and opening up discussion when possible.

A typical outburst, and one I find extremely unhelpful, is one person initiating a 'what if?' scenario. I've heard it many times. What if the cow was free range? What if the eggs were laid by happy chickens owned by this lady I know from work? What if a native person hunted the non-human animal from the forest? These are all important questions and should all be answered, but only when appropriate. Most of the people, I think all of them actually, were omnivores who regularly bought flesh, chicken eggs and cow milk from the grocery store (which means they consciously or subconsciously support factory farming). None of these questions apply to their life in any way, they are only interested in the theoretical.

These questions, from what I gather, have a dual purpose. Firstly, they are questioning your vegan-ness. They are assuming there is a situation that exists where it is acceptable to not be vegan. In assuming this they believe you have either overlooked it (and upon realizing it won't be vegan anymore) or have considered it and are still vegan to keep up appearances (but there is no real moral justification behind it). Secondly, they are looking for a way it is acceptable for them to not be vegan. In doing so they have already decided, for whatever reason, that they don't want to be vegan.

When confronted with the 'what if' scenario the best thing I think anyone can do is just not answer the question. What if a native person hunted their own food with a bow and arrow is very different from the person before me who buys into a culture where 'food' doesn't have a chance to run away because it's never even seen the sunlight. Even if I said a native person was morally right to hunt their own food (which I don't believe is true, every life is equal and since it is not right to kill or harm a human it is not right to kill or harm non-human animals) it doesn't mean this person will go hunt their own food. They will take up time trying to weave a scenario where vegan does not work, and when they finally do do it (if you let them) this person will live in the nostalgia of the mind. They are happy just to know that it is acceptable in some way, even if what they do doesn't at all remotely resemble the acceptable way.

I doubt that any person does this with the purpose to deceive or trick a vegan. I think it is a subliminal reaction, a flight response in a tricky situation. When 'what if' comes up - I think the best thing to do is steer the conversation to the present. A response could be 'well that's an interesting idea, but it doesn't apply to your life does it? Do you hunt your own non-human animals? How about we talk about where your non-human animals come from?'

Be careful with 'could be', a relative of 'what if'. This could have egg in it, but that doesn't mean it does. The non-human animal could be from a slaughter house, but that doesn't mean it is. Could be exists for the same reason as what if, to derail the conversation and find an acceptable safe territory. My response to could be is always 'look into it'. Based on our society's cultural reliance on the carcasses of abused other animals it is more likely that it does contain non-human animal products from slaughter houses. Even if that were not true and it were only a 50 50 chance to contain or not to contain, the person is consuming on the assumption that it is not so. If it was so, would they still do it? That is the real question that should be asked. If they would still consume it if it did contain it or it was true, saying could be is just a way to cover up the truth. If they wouldn't consume it than they should look into it, because some moral dilemma is clearly stopping them from doing so and they wouldn't want to consume something if it did contain the adverse product.

As a final note I would like to say that it is important to live up to what you say. I remember once saying to a friend something like 'well I guess it would be different for someone who is anemic and is told they need to eat meat by doctors, but that's not the situation here' only to find out that this person was in fact anemic. We shouldn't avoid saying this in case it backfires (because it rarely will), but be ready to talk about it when it is relevant. It was a difficult conversation to have, but it is a very different conversation to talk to someone who is physically anemic than someone who is hypothetically anemic. Upon telling this person about how cow milk is made she was instantly horrified and upset. The first thing she said was 'I had no idea' and then asked for more information. While it was difficult for us to talk about meat (as she had tried being vegetarian and her doctor told her she couldn't be anymore), talking about products like cow milk and chicken eggs that she doesn't need to consume (which cause just as much suffering as flesh does) was easy because she wasn't asking 'what if' to escape a moral dilemma.

An Introduction, or a Way to Begin Thinking About Post-Veganism

There is no magical sentence or simple definition that can explain what Post-Veganism is. It is a collection of lived experiences that have stayed with me as ideas. I first began thinking about it not long after I became vegan. There were small events at first, like the 'vegan' I met who still bought cow skin or the 'vegan' I'd been excited to meet but found out she ate cake made with cow milk and chicken eggs at birthday parties. There were many disappointments that led to a collective experience of doubt.

I began to wonder what did it mean, for me a self proclaimed vegan, when these people also told the world they were vegan? Was I more vegan than they? Was I a 'better' vegan? Did it even matter, because really we all had the same end goal - didn't we? It was like tumbling down the rabbit hole (because no matter how over used, tired, worked and worn that simile is I think it's necessary to start in some alien land where we all have some kind of common ground), nothing was what it had first appeared to be.

Things grew worse when I realized that it wasn't just regular vegans who were letting me down, before long even my old idols didn't measure up. I've never been a 100% PETA (People for the Protection of Animals) supporter, I don't think anyone can be. The organization is so large, and does so many things, it's difficult to say I agree with it all. I did, however, think they were doing some good things and often had good intentions. PETA was the organization that had made me go vegetarian once upon a time, and I think that has a lot to do with my reverence for it. It was like a mother to me, telling me how to go out in the world and how to not hurt animals. Like all children, I grew up and learned my 'parent' had many flaws. The vice president of PETA told his interviewer (at McDonalds!) he didn't care what he ate. PETA said sugar refined through cow bones is still vegan, and I should stop being so uptight about personal purity - but I know it takes the bones of over 7,000 cows to make one sugar filter! How is that vegan? PETA made negotiations with KFC about more 'humane' ways to kill chickens, and I was frustrated because I couldn't imagine any amount of negotiation that could make killing a chicken ever acceptable. Then of course I learned that Peter Singer, so hated for his liberal animal rights stance that he needs security outside of his classroom when he teaches, will be happy to eat vegetarian food if vegan food isn't available. Even as a new vegan I had already learned vegan food is always available, as long as you ask for it. How can he inspire anyone while simultaneously sending out the message that it's acceptable to drink the cow milk made for a veal calf who would lick his own urine because he was anemic, because he needed the cow milk that Peter Singer as a grown adult human did not? So all my old idols slowly died. I wasn't ready to abandon them, because being vegan can be lonely sometimes - but they were all starting to look like hypocrites and I no longer respected them.

Things got gloomier still. As a vegetarian I had long ago learned the painful lesson that non-human animal rights organization like human societies are speciest. They don't care about all animals - they care about pets. Things were changing though. The WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals) contacted me to help them lobby to rid my university of chicken eggs from battery farmed chickens. It seemed, at first, that a group who used the word animal in their name actually meant it. I later learned an even more painful lesson - the WSPA only wanted to end some suffering chickens experienced and not others. They said chickens should not have cages and should have perches, but they didn't care that the chickens were owned by people who would decide how and when they would die. They didn't care that there is no painless way to kill an animal, or that owning an animal for profit is never ever in the animal's best interest. So groups that had never cared about animals before were suddenly pretending to. As a vegan I knew the difference - but they were sending the message to omnivores that it is okay to pay money so that a non-human animal will eventually be killed for profit, as long as we make their life in slavery (because that's what owning another being is, slavery) as nice as we can without losing too much money.

I remember one conversation very well. A stranger asked me what kind of chicken eggs I eat that don't hurt chickens. He was extremely upset when I told him how chickens were treated and was now looking to me for guidance about how he could not be involved in this suffering. I told him I don't eat eggs from animals, but since he couldn't understand not eating chicken eggs I did what the WSPA told me to do - I told him about 'free range' farms. It was then that I realized that no matter what I said, I was giving him the okay to eat chicken eggs. I don't think I've ever felt so sick and disgusted with myself. So let me never make that mistake again, there are no nice eggs. No egg has ever come to your table without an origin of cruelty. No chicken has ever sat there and smiled and thought, "I want to be here", no matter how much commercials might like to convince you otherwise.

Many of my experiences have led me to eventually accept a scary thought, that something is terribly wrong with veganism. Not just something though, the more questions I asked and the more I learned I found out that there were many things wrong with veganism. These problems are part of a lived experience that has made me question veganism, and as a result begin to think about Post-Veganism.

This blog, hopefully, will raise many questions and explore my process of answering them. I may not answer them all - but beginning to learn from my experiences and realizing that there are questions we can't ignore is a step I think I need to make. I assume I'm not the only vegan that has thought about these things. Writing them down is my contribution to a greater vegan culture, because vegans writing about vegans is (I believe) a powerful and important thing to do.