an update on scott and carrie
Below is more information on Scott DeMuth and Carrie Feldman. I received the below email from Schoalrs for Academic Justice. It has 
information on Scott’s and Carrie’s cases, along with what you can do to help their causes:
***
Dear supporters of Scott DeMuth:
Thank you so much to all of you who have signed the petition in support of Scott DeMuth, a Minnesota activist and graduate student facing bogus conspiracy charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) for his community organizing and social research. Thanks to your work, Scott has received an outpouring of support from people around the world with over 1500 signatures on the petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freescottdemuth/), including positive responses from associations like Sociologists for Women in Society and the Collective Behavior and Social Movements section of the American Sociological Association.
Scott is out of jail and back in school after an appeals court denied the prosecutor’s motion to jail him until trial. But the fight is only beginning, as Scott is facing bogus conspiracy charges under the AETA (http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/about-the-aeta/), and his colleague Carrie Feldman (http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/about/) is still in jail on contempt of court for likewise refusing to testify in front of the Davenport grand jury (http://grandjuryresistance.org/grandjuries.html). Carrie is not a student; she is a member of the activist community Scott is a part of and was also hauled before the federal prosecutor. We will need all of your support to protect academic freedom and free speech to free Carrie and get Scott’s charges dropped (read all about it in Scott’s own statement http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/statement-from-scott-demuth/#more-174).
2. Urgent call for Legal Funds
Last week Scott succeeded in finding an excellent attorney, Michael Deutsch from the People’s Law Office in Chicago. A brief bio is available here: http://www.peopleslawoffice.com/bio/3/.
This is great news, but it also means that we need to raise a $10,000 retainer by Wednesday, January 13 (as well as legal fees further down the line). If you’ve been thinking about making a donation to Scott and Carrie’s defense fund at some point, or about putting together a fundraiser, the need is greatest now. Scott’s charge is absurd, but the federal government is quite capable of securing false convictions, and he needs an experienced and committed attorney in order to fight this battle and win. If we’re not able to raise this initial sum, it will be a serious setback in the progress of Scott’s case and support for both him and Carrie Feldman.
Send Carrie Feldman a letter or some books and keep her spirits up
Carolyn Feldman; Washington; County Jail; 2185 Lexington Blvd.; PO Box 6; Washington, IA 52353.
Donations can be made in two ways:
1) Click on the Paypal button on the right side of the screen here. at http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com
2) Or by writing a check to “Coldsnap Legal Collective” with “EWOK!” in the memo line, and mailing it to:
EWOK! c/o Coldsnap
PO Box 50514
Minneapolis, MN 55405
(If you mail a check, please email us at ewok@riseup.net and let us know to expect it.)
Please donate, and please spread this plea far and wide. If you need help setting up a fundraiser, contact Friends of Scott and Carrie at ewok@riseup.net.
3. Action Items:
a. Statements of support
Take a few minutes to write an original statement of support from your organization or as an individual and send it to the above address. You can also record your statement on video. Statements will be posted on the forthcoming scholars for academic justice website. Send statements to to: scholarsforacademicjustice@gmail.com
b. Letters to the Editor
This story has garnered much media attention in the academic and popular press, including an article about research ethics Inside Higher Ed (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/12/04/demuth). You can also write a letter to the editor of your newspaper or comment on recent news stories; see below.
are you monogamous enough for an i.u.d.?
About four years ago I had an Intrauterine Device (IUD) placed for 5 stress free years of fertility control. I chose an IUD because it is more effective than condoms and the pill, there is almost no chance for human error in regard to using it (the doctor puts it in and it stays put for 5 years), and it pumps many fewer hormones through my blood stream than the pill (one form of IUD is actually hormone-free). However, there were downsides: a bit of cramping the first couple of weeks, my insurance wouldn’t cover the cost (about $500) and I had to search to find a doctor to complete the procedure. (Click here for a quick FYI about IUDs if you are not familiar with what they are).
I am due to have my IUD replaced in the next year and so the frustrations associated with having the procedure done have resurfaced. First, insurance not paying: I have little to say here. It is stupid, since in the long run the cost of the IUD is less than five years of birth control pills and much less than the cost of a pregnancy. But, insurance companies tend to be totally illogical and ridiculous so I expected nothing less. (If you want an entertaining distraction, here is a funny comedy sketch spoofing the illogic of insurance companies.)
The most frustrating and enraging part is that many (if not most) doctors refuse this service if a woman is single and has never been pregnant. I have been given two explanations by doctors and nurses as to why this is and I suspect they are both true. First, is that for women who have not had children, the procedure can be more painful. The device must pass through the cervix, which is much smaller if it has never dilated for childbirth. I also suspect that for some there is a belief that young women don’t really want to remain childless. (However, the device can be removed at any time and has no lasting effect on fertility after removal). This is the reasoning behind why doctors almost unanimously refuse tubal legation (i.e. “getting your tubes tied”) to young women without children. The second explanation is that it harms a woman’s health if she is not in a committed monogamous relationship. For some doctors this means marriage. For other doctors this means a long-term monogamous relationship accompanied by a pattern of serial monogamy.
The reason for the unofficial relationship clause is supposedly for the health of the woman. Two strings descend from the IUD to the outside of the cervix so that the device can be removed. If a woman comes in contact with a sexually transmitted infection (STI), it can essentially travel up the strings to the uterus and ovaries, which allows a higher risk that an STI will be contracted and increases the likelihood that some STIs become cancerous. The thought is that in monogamous relationships this risk is reduced. The problem with this logic is that it assumes 1) that single sexually active women are promiscuous 2) That if a woman does have multiple partners she doesn’t use forms of STI protection such as condoms and 3) that women aren’t responsible enough to make an informed decision about their own bodies.
I was in a long-term relationship (which, to the best of my memory, my providers assumed was monogamous without asking me) when I had my first IUD placed. My IUD now needs to be replaced and this time I am single so the relationship privilege is absent. I am a responsible adult with the ability to make my own decisions. Given appropriate information about all of the risks and benefits I can make my own decisions regarding my own fertility as can most women and I resent the fact that medical professions can “judge” whether I am monogamous enough to get an IUD.
Many doctors refuse at the get go based on marital status alone. This reasoning privileges marriage (which may or may not be monogamous) and monogamy over other lifestyles. If I find a provider who will accept my request for an IUD as an unmarried woman I will have to decide if I should lie about my relationship status or take a risk and make a case that I am monogamous and do not have sex outside of relationships. I could try to sell my sex life as safe and tell them the truth: that I never have sex with any partner who has not been tested for STIs. However, that just may not be enough. But one thing is certain, if I remain principled and demand and IUD based only on the grounds that I want one, I am informed of the risks and I have decided it is the safest and best fertility control method for me, I can be almost certain that I will not find a provider to perform the procedure.
a weird web of unwieldy logic
A friend recently pointed me t
o a New York Times article from last month titled, “Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too.” In this article, Natalie Angier discusses some little known capacities that plant life has; namely, the ability to react defensively in response to damage or the threat of damage. These aspects of the article are interesting and worth sharing. The pointless part of the article is what I want to address here.
In this article about the wonders of plant life, Angier takes tangential jabs at vegans. She points out that she too can be an “ethical” eater if (and only if) she has an affinity toward a particular animal. (She will eat ducks but not lambs, chickens but not pigs). Apparently her inability to go totally veg* leaves her with some guilt and she feels the need to justify it by wagging her finger at vegans and taking the heat off of herself. She tells us that plants matter too, and vegans eat plants so apparently vegans don’t actually eat morally. This line of argument is complete bullshit and I am exhausted from hearing it so often. If a Jainist gave me some argument about not eating plants, I would listen closely; however, this is a meat eater spewing bullshit to try to somehow create a circular logic in which, if she makes a vegan diet seem unethical, then her flesh-based diet will cease to be unethical.
I hear this weird sort of babble all the time when people find out that I’m vegan. I am just surprised the New York Times published it. The only people who ever give me this line of crap are people who eat dead animals. The logic seems to be that if I don’t eat animals because they are sentient, then I shouldn’t eat plants because they are alive and can react to their environment. Further, Angier’s logic implies that if one is willing to eat plants, then one should also be willing to eat animals. How does Angier get from screaming at us about how a vegan diet isn’t moral enough to using plants’ abilities to react to stimuli as good logic for her to eat dead animals?
This article randomly jumps from vegan-hating, to research on plants back to vegan-hating. Angier doesn’t discuss WHY vegans don’t eat animals and how these reasons might make eating animals different from eating plants. The reasons vary, though for me it is a reasonable expectation of sentience. I don’t believe plants feel pain. However, if they did, I wouldn’t interpret that as a sign I should cause more pain by starting to eat animals as well. Rather, I would be more conscientious about how often I ate plants and which plants I ate and I would continue to keep my diet flesh-free. Further, Angier does not discuss any relevant facts about plants that DO want to be eaten. Many plants produce fruits they hope to be eaten so that the seeds can later be pooped out by animals–human and non-human animals alike. (This is advantageous for the plant because the poop serves as fertilizer for the seed.) And finally, if Angier really cared about plants she would not be a champion for “meat.” We feed farmed animals grains. Their bodies are not equipped to digest this sort of food and they absorb fewer nutrients and less protein from it than do humans . This means that more grain needs to be grown to feed non-human animals so that we can eat their meat than would need to be grown if we subsided off of plant life alone. In fact, the amount of grain produced to feed cattle in the US alone, could solve hunger WORLDWIDE if it went to humans directly, instead of going to human bodies by way of cow bodies. (Mark Hawthorne has a wonderful and brief article on this last issue.)
If there is anyone out there who would use an argument similar to Angier’s because they actually believe that it is unethical to eat plants, please explain yourself. I am eager to understand. But if you just thrust about the idea of “plant rights” to be an ass to those of us who refuse to be complicit in animal slaughter, please shut up. Your argument is silly, it is not unique, and I am sick and tired of hearing it.
fb drama-rama: a debate over animal rights
I think a common thing that vegans deal with is a tendency for people to try to make our arguments seem illogical and even bad and then the onus is on us to respond (or disengage).
I recently posted this picture on my Facebook page with some text noting that all oppression is tied:
no one has the same experiences with oppression, and all types of oppression have different histories, but don’t let that mask the fact that all oppression is rooted in an ideology that some groups have more rights than others. All oppression is built into systems of power which privilege those at the top of the hierarchy by giving them unequal reward and by turning the oppressed against each other. Until we realize these struggles are all tied we cannot join together to fight against the systems that allow us all to be oppressed.
A friend replied with a long logic-train argument that got so long that by the time the caboose rode by I was supposed to think oppression was OK because it is the only reason we don’t have small pox or allow rapists to run free. I responded at length and with exacerbation. He responded at length and with exacerbation. Others joined in the conversation too…
Often I bow out of these conversations but did not want to here. My friend thought his responses out and he cared. He does awesome human rights oriented work with his life and he is very intelligent. He did not argue this to be a pest (often people do this. If you are veg you have heard it: “If you think eating animals is bad, then why do you eat veggies, I once read a study that plants feel pain”; “why do you eat bread- it has yeast in it…”). Rather he came from a moral and intellectual position about which he seemed to genuinely believe. This is also the second time in one week I have had a conversation like this so I wanted to put it out there into cyberspace.
I decided to post the very long exchange below and would LOVE to get feed back from people. Please share your thoughts!! Did I respond well, what would you have said. Did he make valid points? How do you handle these sorts of conversations (whether you’re on my end or his)?
(Caveat: Remember this is Facebook, so sometimes one person is typing while someone else has posted something not yet read, proof reading is minimal and typos abound. The only thing I changed are our names)
* * *
BH: This raises a few uncomfortable questions in my mind. Doesn’t that equation suggest that the efforts to eradicate smallpox, bubonic plauge, polio, etc. were acts of genocide (viruses and bacteria being species) and hence morally equivalent to Hitler’s efforts to eradicate certain classes of humans? Isn’t that not only ridiculous but offensive? If we therefore exclude microorganisms from the equation, why not insects that carry them, or the rats that carry the fleas, or … don’t you have to draw a line between species somewhere? Wouldn’t repressing efforts to eradicate species dangerous to humans itself be a form of oppression against humans? Aren’t some forms of oppression actually in the interest of and supported by the very groups you identify (oppression of rapists, for instance)? Is oppression really always bad? Is a world without oppression even possible?
VEGINA: 1. all systems of oppression tell those of us in power that we can rationalize our abuses, as you just did above. that allows us (even though we might be oppressed in some ways) to maintain oppression by having us exert our power over others and having us believe it is OK and natural to do so. But we don’t have the right to do so.
2.I think that a world without oppression may not be possible, but a world in which we stop fighting against would be truly horrible.
3. as to your train of logic that says rejecting speciesm is like accepting rapists: those who take away others freedom do not deserve the same consideration. so, rape someone and i dont give a fuck about you. eat a factory farmed burger, and i think you are less worthy than the cow you ate.
4. how do i decide “where to draw the line”? i draw the line at sentience. if i have reason to believe that an organism has a vested interest in life and can feel pain and/or fear then it should not be killed. now, i may be wrong sometimes, i come from a racist, sexist, homophobic speciesist society so that will bias my ideas and i might erroneously kill a bacteria that feels pain. but at least i am *trying* to causing harm.
5. on the issue of plague and bacteria- i think the question of what to do when your life is threatened is a tough question. infestation, illness, etc. might make me reach for poison to kill sentient beings, i don’t know, i havent faced it. what i do know is that we dont have a right to test our drugs for curing human ailments on non-human animals. they are our burdens, not theirs.
WP: How can oppression possibly benefit the oppressed? That statement completely, as Carol points out, rationalizes the oppressor’s actions! It’s like the saying, “Everyone wants change, but no one wants to change.”
BH: When the oppressed are oppressing.
WP: ok give an example?
BH: I suppose”sentient speciesim=racism” isn’t as slick a slogan. I recognize a cogent argument in the qualifiied version, and I am somewhat sympathetic to point #5. But I’m still not convinced that a dog’s life is in abstract equivalent to a human’s, although certain dogs might win out over certain humans if I was forced to choose.
BH: Already did – supporting tough penalties for rapists.
BH: Lest there be any confusion, I am not supporting rapists. I’m saying they SHOULD be repressed.
VEGINA: The point is, BH, we are all in some ways oppressed and in some ways oppressors. when we accept our position as oppressors unreflexively, and don’t consider how our oppression is tied to that of those who we oppress, we validate the system that allows hierarchy and power imbalances based on differences. so, if a feminist eats a burger s/he is saying that the system of keeping some groups in power and others oppressed is an ok system, just not when it effects women. and i say that that is bullshit. the system works because it makes us feel divided.
BH: I do get that point, and see some validity in it. I’m just suspicious of simple equations.
VEGINA: BH, can you tell me why a dogs life is worth less than a humans? what about a monkey? or a dolphin? or a pig? pigs are more intelligent than dogs–why eat a pig and not a dog? what is your criteria for the value of life and the right not to be abused or used for human’s pleasures?
BH: Some people do eat dogs, and I’ve known people with pigs as pets. But that’s just an observation, not an answer. One answer to each of those questions of course is the culture in which I was raised, which is difficult to rid one’s self of, even if inclined to try. (Personally, I find dogs much more endearing than pigs.) Another is that we can relate to other humans in immensely more complicated ways that any other species (sign-languaging chimps not withstanding). Third, other humans have immensely more capacity for improving the quaility of life for all of us. If I could save a little girl who might one day invent a cure for cancer, I would rather do that than save even a beloved pet (if forced to choose).
A fourth rather selfish reason is that preserving a norm of sanctity of human life helps prevent humans killing humans, which is a much bigger threat than dogs, pigs or monkeys killing humans, and protecting the same sanctity of life to those species would do nothing to stop them from killing us if so inclined because they would not understand it. This last reason, of course, does not explain why it would hurt to extend the same sanctity of life, only why there is less incentive to do so.
BH: Upon further reflection, the last point is important. One could argue we are challenged enough defending the sanctity of human life, and trying to defend all sentient life is currently a bridge too far. I know the counterargument – that allowing oppression of other sentitient species morally undermines the sanctity of human life as well, by supporting the idea that some hierarchies and some forms of oppression are OK. But my point is that some forms of oppression are unavoidable anyway, and the pursuit of a completely oppression-free world is utopian. Thus, we all have to choose our battles, and we draw the line at different points. I choose to focus on keeping humans from killing humans.
VEGINA: my point exactly: you make the choices you make because culture tells you to,not because there is a good reason. eating cows is actually one of the stupidest things you can ever do- it is horrible for you and is the #1 or 2 cause of environmental degradation based on beef production in the US alone (that and cars in the US, it depends on who you ask and how they calculate it as to which is worse)
and the little girl you save over another animal might, as you suggest, find a cure for cancer but this is not reason to value her life more. Because just as she “might” find a cure she might also murder thousands of animals to do that (by the way, no cure for any cancer has ever been found, so why not spend the money helping reduce cancers and common diseases–which can largely be done by reducing meat consumption and preserving the environment. or spend the money instead on un and underinsured people so they can catch cancer early so it wont be as likely to be deadly). let me also point out that that girl might also grow up to be an army general or a war-mongering president and be responsible for a million human deaths. who knows.
to your fourth point, humans as a species have less sanctity for life than any other species as far as i can tell. what other species would engage in the mass slaughter of their own species for the sake of accumulating resources? the logic that allows sexism, racism, homophobia and speciesism is the same logic that allows us to engage in war. it is the same logic that allows up to engage in acts of genocide. it is the same logic that allows us to grow enough food in this country alone to feed the world’s entire starving population but to feed it to cows (which we will force to live short painful lives) instead so that we can have $2 fast food hamburgers.
and who says humans make life better for us all? there is no proof of that. many scientists say that it is the population growth that happened during industrialization that has lead to some of our greatest health problems, mass destruction of the environment, and the growing inequalities between core and peripheral countries. (Don’t forget, this growing gap includes increased deprivation on one end just as it includes improved comfort on the other)
VEGINA: Just saw your last point. to that i say, how does your refusal to eat animals or war their skin or use them for entertainment purposes distract AT ALL from any other for of activism you may engage in. Personally choosing not to use non-human animals for your pleasure does NOTHING to distract from any human-oriented cause. You rejecting a hamburger hurts NO ONE. It will actually change what and how food is produced in such a way that the human workers who are so exploited (by the way, factory farms in the US have been cited as severely abusive by some human rights organizations- i can give you more information on this if you want it) will have safer and (hopefully) better paid work. Saying that caring to end one oppression will undermine the concern for others is crap. If we all saw oppression as one big tower we had to knock over, we would have a much larger group working to push over that tower. and that was the point of this picture in the first place.
grand juries & aeta suck. scott and carrie rock
Below is a lett
er I wrote to prosecutors and judges in support of Scott DeMuth after he and Carrie Feldman were jailed for refusing to testify to a grand jury. I do not post my letter for Scott because I feel his case is more important than Carrie’s, his just has the added aspect of academic freedom attached and I know some of my readers are academics.
I am not writing a long post about AETA or grand juries since I think many of my readers are well aware of what they are, but for those that aren’t I am hoping this letter will pique your interest in learning more about grand juries and the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act. If, however, there is general interest in having lady Vegina give you a school girl type summary essay on these topics just leave a post and let me know because I am happy to post one.
I am also very much hoping that this letter will make you interested in Scott and Carrie’s situation. You can follow their cases, sign petitions for them and write Carrie letters while she is in jail. Below the letter are links to all things AETA, grand jury, Scott and Carrie.
Letter In Support of Scott DeMuth
I am writing this letter in support of Scott DeMuth, who was jailed following his refusal to testify in a grand jury hearing and his refusal to reveal the identities of people he has interviewed for his doctoral research. He has also been charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act (AETA). I urge you to drop all charges against Mr. DeMuth. As individuals who are sworn to uphold the law and the constitution you must drop all charges for multiple reasons: grand juries are abhorrent infringements on basic civil liberties, scholar-subject confidentiality is of the utmost importance for the continued production of scholarly knowledge, the AETA is an unjust law that violates the most basic of First Amendment rights and, most importantly, Scott DeMuth has done nothing wrong.
Mr. DeMuth made the only moral, ethical and responsible decision that he could in the face of the grand jury—he protected those to whom he had promised confidentiality. As a sociologist, he followed his profession’s code of ethics:
Section 11.01:
Sociologists have an obligation to protect confidential information and not allow information gained in confidence from being used in ways that would unfairly compromise research participants, students, employees, clients, or others.Section 11.06:
Sociologists do not disclose confidential, personally identifiable information concerning their research participants, other recipients of their service, which is obtained during the course of their work.–The American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics
Not only did Mr. DeMuth make the only ethical decision allowed him as a sociologist, he made the only ethical decision he could as an American. Grand Juries have become fishing expeditions; the way they have been used against animal rights and earth liberation activists is the modern-day equivalent of the Salem Witch Trials. As someone who studies and understands these movements, as well as U.S. Native American Movements, Mr. DeMuth understood that his persecution is part of a massive assault aimed at quieting dissent. He had no moral or ethical choice open to him but to remain silent and protect his subjects’ confidentiality.
Though those who favor grand juries argue they are required under the Fifth Amendment, they actually take away Fifth Amendment rights to protect one’s own interests and to be tried fairly in a court of law. To testify in a process that flies in the face of democracy would be tantamount to treason. Mr. DeMuth’s actions are wholly American and he should not be prosecuted for refusing to testify to the grand jury.
Neither should Mr. DeMuth be tried under the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act. The AETA violates First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and has allowed for Mr. DeMuth to be unfairly targeted for his ties to the animal rights movement. The AETA is overbroad and has no function other than to stifle protest and protect business interests. Labeling Mr. DeMuth a terrorist and charging him under this law is a fear-mongering tactic that violates our justice system, depletes a necessary sense of academic freedom, quells citizens’ rights to free speech and insults actual victims of terrorism.
Persecuting Mr. DeMuth to quiet a movement will not work. It will destroy this man’s life and the only possible good to come of it will be that this injustice will alert the academic community to that which the animal rights community is already aware—the abhorrent abuse of power that comes with both grand juries and the AETA. Mr. DeMuth has proven that he is a brave and principled man who will not betray the confidence of his allies or research participants at any price; prosecuting him will serve only to injure an individual who has been nothing but honorable.
I urge you to drop all charges against Scott DeMuth. He has done nothing but be a good sociologist, a good American and a good person.
More Info:
Here is a quick read about Grand Juries
Here is a citation for a long (but good) read about Grand Juries: Leipold, A.D. (1994-1995) “Why Grand Juries Do Not (and Cannot) Protect the Accused.” Cornell Law Review 80: p. 260.
Great information about AETA (and why it sucks)
Follow Scott and Carrie’s case
Statement from Scott, following his release for contempt (he is still awaiting trial under AETA)
Interview with Carrie following her refusal to testify to the grand jury
stupid stupid stupak
In early November the health care reform bill 
in the House, HR 3962, passed (240-194) with the Stupak-Pitts amendment attached. The language of the bill essentially prevents private health care companies from covering abortion services. The public option proposed wouldn’t cover them either, except for in cases of incest, rape or risk of the mother’s health. Now, similar language is being added to the health care reform bill that is about to be on the senate floor. This is a horror. Our representatives and president are already falling pathetically short on developing a health care plan that is anything but a farce, and these amendments are just adding insult to insult.
Any limitation to abortion access is egregious to women’s rights and women’s health on multiple levels. According the Guttmacher Insititute, 35% of women will have an abortion before the age of 45. Right wing and anti-choice zealots would have you believe that this is a symptom of a degenerating society, but the abortion rate is actually decreasing. This means that the burden of a procedure that is relatively common will fall into the pocketbooks of women. Women are already financially burdened with the cost of most forms of birth control available (of these some of the most effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place—i.e. the IUD and tubal ligation—are systematically denied to young, unmarried women who are deemed too young or irresponsible to make their own decisions). This costly procedure (currently over $450) is just another way that women (who, by the way, are systematically paid less than men a woman making just $.78 for each $1 that a man makes for the same work) are kept an underclass through financial inequality. The language of the Stupak amendment serves to keep women’s rights at bay, violating our bodies while simultaneously trying to make us too poor to fight back.
The money issue on an individual level will lead to a money issue on an organizational level in such a way that much-needed women’s health services will decline across the board. Remember why our mothers and grandmothers fought so hard to make abortion legal? It was because women were DYING getting back-alley abortion procedures. Without coverage, more women will need to turn to women’s clinics such as Planned Parenthood, which are already reducing their services due to a lack of funding. (By the way, the first things to go in these scenarios tend to be mammogram screenings and health education services). As these resources deplete, back-alley abortions will be back in full force. Further, the same old inequalities will be reproduced: women with money can purchase abortions, women without money will put their health at risk or have unwanted children—driving them into even more dire financial straights. The senate and the house are chipping away at abortion rights, by starting with the least privileged classes—poor (often minority) women. They did this first by limiting abortion in the proposed public option and they are trying to solidify the deal by getting private companies to stop covering abortion if a health care reform bill is passed.
Finally, the language of “exceptions” opens the back door for additional injustice. Exceptions for incest, rape and a woman’s health are given for the illusion that women’s interests are being considered, but the exceptions create a scenario where anyone other than the woman in need of an abortion procedure gets to control her body. In a country where religiously dictated morals guide politics, what level of “risk” will a woman be expected to endure? Will she be expected to be a martyr? Who will decide if incest or rape occurred? Will women need to stand trial or force their abusers to? If women stand trial will it actually be their character that is put on trail, as is currently the case in so many rape cases? Will a panel hear the woman’s story and decide if she is believable? Who will sit on this panel? Any of these scenarios will lead to victims being victimized twice—once by their abusers and again by an abusive system. In language that might reach those assholes whom are passing this bill, another unfortunate outcome will be that some men might also become victims, as claiming rape might become the only way to receive a safe and affordable abortion. I am sure this last scenario will be less common than the scenario of women dying of back alley abortions or women being forced to have the children of their abusers, or women having their health taken as second to that of the fetus, but I thought it’d bring it up since women’s rights don’t seem to have any sway in the current political climate.
In the abortion debate our government has never come down on the side of women. Roe v. Wade is only a precedent that gives women a right to privacy. It does not give any woman the right to manage her own body (look at the language of Roe v. Wade, it is actually the doctor’s choice which is privileged). The idea of giving women rights has been systematically rejected by our society and our government; women have no legal guarantee of an abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment has not passed, women graduate from college at higher rates than men but are less likely to hold positions of power in major corporations and the government.
These amendments to the health care reform bill would have us believe there are women out there who want to do nothing but sit around all day trying to get pregnant so they can have abortions. No one is pro-abortion, but lots of us are pro-choice and pro-rights. If the government seizes the right to control the bodies of one group in society, that groups loses power. The health care reform bills were originally intended to provide equal access to health care, but the Stupak amendment takes access to health care away from women and maps inequality onto our bodies.
For more information on how to contact your senator or get active, visit the Planned Parenthood Action Center.
dating dilemma
Ok, so I lied in that last post, but I will get onto Steiner’s questions tomorrow, I promise. I am diverting because the question of dating seems to keep popping up in my conversations and so I am going to address the dating question I am most often asked…
Do good feminists always date feminists? Can a vegan love a meat-eater?
These are questions faced by everyone really:
Will you date someone without your values?
My answer is no.
Admittedly, in the past I have been guilty of violating that statement, but I like to think that I have evolved since then. In the past I have had a “sliding scale” type of system I use after-the-fact to justify my dating decisions. I have forgiven myself for a gender-conscious partner who didn’t “identify” as a feminist on the grounds that at least he wasn’t sexist. And a vegetarian seems a much more excusable “slip” than a meat-eater. However, in principle, and from this point forward I hope I will not wane.
I have been told that this rejection of non-feminists and non-vegans is too close-minded. The idea expressed to me most often is that I need to be open to other people and maybe they will open up to my ideas. I think that with a choice as intimate as who you date, this sort of openness is not useful. No one would question a devout Christian for wanting to date a devout Christian, and most people would be shocked if an outspoken right-winger hooked up with a liberal activist. However, my demand to partner up with people who reject sexism and consuming animals’ flesh is often challenged. Further, the hostility with which my dating-boundaries are met, applies much more heavily to the vegan-only rule than the feminist-only rule.
It is usually more understandable to people that I will only date feminists than that I will only date vegans. Feminism, to most people, implies some sort of ideology about gender roles, so I think it seems more logical to some, particularly in a heterosexual context, that similar gender ideology is a necessary pretext for a smooth relationship. I think the reason the vegan-only rule is less tolerated is that non-vegans (and some vegans too I suspect) see my eating habits as a “diet” or a “lifestyle choice.” I am sometimes treated as a dogmatic fool to suggest I will not share my body or my heart with a person who eats meat (or uses animals in any exploitative way). However, to me veganism is about my worldview and my moral compass. I honestly, truly, with each and every inch of body know that eating animals is murder. Every hamburger is the byproduct of unnecessary torture, pain and murder. With each slice of cheese I mourn the rape of a cow, the pain of a mother and child at being forcibly separated and the slow, painful death of a “veal” calf. Being complacent in the consumption of animal products would be a must to have a successful relationship with a non-vegan. And to me, that silence and compliance is an abhorrent injustice.
Another hurdle lies in that fact that, in the quest for a feminist and vegan partner, the world of possible partners is limited. In a seemingly slim population (though I am guessing everyone’s list of must-haves makes anyone’s dating population slim), one can run the risk of settling—overlooking other points of incompatibility because one is enamored at a person’s feminist and vegan ideology or fears not finding another feminist vegan. It is important to put these moral imperatives at the top of your list, but not at the expense of all the other things you care about. Standards are standards, not to be sold out.
The choice that seems so clear in principle gets cloudy when, in a society where a marginal world-view can so often leave you isolated, you might be in need of reassurance, support and love. As my own relationship sits on rocky ground and I perceive the possibility I might be moving forward in my life without the feminist vegan that I so love, this dilemma seems more real. Because, while what I want most is acceptance of and love for all life, universally, another thing I very much want is for someone to accept and love me, specifically. And therein lies the dating dilemma…
ny times gives us some time…
In a New York Times Op-Ed piece yesterday, Animal Vegetable Mineral, philosopher Gary Steiner discusses ethical veganism, using the rocky terrain of thanksgiving as a lead-in. Steiner touches upon a plethora of problems the “ethical vegan” encounters: social isolation, tolerating a meat-mongering society, the frustration of realizing people really don’t care about the moral rights of non-human animals and the odds and ends of figuring out the myriad products that have animal parts in them for no discernable reason. It is definitely a must-read.
This op-ed piece gave me butterflies—mainstream media has taken the concerns of vegans seriously. The heart of his op-ed is a welcome sight in such a widely read and respected newspaper:
…The human practice of delivering animals to the table in the form of food is abhorrent and inexcusable.
However, likely due to the constraints of length and of being in a mainstream outlet, the brevity with which Steiner discussed many of these topics left me a bit antsy. And so, Steiner’s piece will be the impetus for the next several Vegina posts. Specifically, I will address a particular series of questions Steiner presents but doesn’t have time to answer in full:
Is it O.K. to eat dinner with people who are eating meat? …What do you do when someone starts to grill you (so to speak) about your vegan ethics during dinner? (Wise vegans always defer until food isn’t around.) Or when someone starts to lodge accusations to the effect that you consider yourself morally superior to others, or that it is ridiculous to worry so much about animals when there is so much human suffering in the world? (Smile politely and ask them to pass the seitan.)
I have chosen to follow-up on these questions for several reasons. First, they are present in the daily lives of most vegans and weigh heavily on the mind and heart. These questions are important for people committed to any social or ethical cause since we will always be faced with the question that underlies all of the above conundrums: When is it necessary to maintain a sense of civility over that of standing up for what is just? The answer to this question is where Steiner and I seem to differ.
While Steiner’s article is a no-nonsense rejection of the murderous antics of the necromnivore, his answers to the above questions seems to favor civility (even if it is facetious) over the contention that may be necessary to generate any real change, or at least a real challenge. Though Steiner doesn’t go into the logic behind the solutions he offers to his questions above (“…defer until food isn’t around”; “Simile politely…”), it seems likely for the reason that he later mentions: “I have lost more friends…over arguments about animal ethics.”
In the next few days I will address these questions from my own perspective, so come back, have a look and leave a comment—interesting conversation is likely to ensue!
a little story. a lot of hope.
Children’s books have very confusing messages about animals. Farm animals are perhaps pictured in the most problematic way—shown in pairs (usually mother and child) or as small nuclear families, living in peace on a spacious farm. It would never occur to the average child that a cow in a picture book is the same animal as the hamburger s/he ate for dinner. Nor would most children be able to comprehend the actual “farms” most chickens live on if all they ever learned of a chicken came from a storybook.
These stories create a confusing terrain for children: they are told that animals are lovable and live much like humans, at the same time they are fed animals to eat and taken to zoos and circuses where animals are used as entertainment. It is easy for a child not to question such contradictions since their books and movies allow them to a believe that animals are happy in their service to humans. Children are not taken seriously enough to be told the truth about the lives of the animals that they eat or watch or wear.
That was until Ruby Roth came on the scene.
When I first heard about Roth’s book, That’s Why We Don’t Eat Animals, my heart skipped a beat. It’s a storybook for children explaining plainly how animals like to live, how they actually live and how we should treat them. I wondered if Roth could actually pull it off. I avoided looking at the book for some time because I assumed disappointment was inevitable. I was wrong.
The illustrations are unique and engaging. The text is beautiful and simple:
Pigs need the sight, sound and touch of one another. Sometimes they snuggle so close that its hard to get them apart.
Love is part of their nature.
(I would have loved to have quoted the last page for you all, which is my favorite passage in the book, but I don’t want to make this post a spoiler!)
Drawings and descriptions of how animals want to live their lives juxtapose drawings and descriptions of how animals on factory farms, in the oceans and the rainforests are actually forced to live their lives. Roth treats the reader with respect, giving frank descriptions that are to-the-point, void of rhetoric and honest. She effortlessly moves through issues like factory farming, pollution and extinction–topics that are even difficult for adults to grasp. It is a simply written and beautifully illustrated book that introduces children to the most basic of facts about animals’ lives and the impact that humans’ decisions can have.
Definitely a must read! You can buy it on Roth’s website.
thanksgiving. abstain!
I have always wanted to take a stand against thanksgiving day, but worries over hurt feelings and a day spent alone at the office drive me to a good friend’s veggie potluck every year. I know some thoughtful omnivores who respect me and their other veg*an friends enough to make their thanksgivings veg only. I think the gesture is awesome. I know well-meaning veg*ans who have veggie celebrations. I am not sending an F you to people who try to mitigate the damage of the holiday, but I am encouraging a more radical stance. This year, I am saying NO and hoping you will consider doing the same.
Sit tight. This is a long one.
~~~~~
thanksgiving is an atrocious “holiday.” I encourage my fellow feminists, vegans and others who just don’t like bullshit or abuse or violence to JUST SAY NO to this holiday. And by “no” I don’t mean a little twist on the typical celebration. By no I don’t mean: “Lets have a vegan potluck” or “Lets take the day off and go to the beach” or “Lets just hit up the movies” or “Lets skip the big dinner so that we can sleep on the sidewalk all night, camped outside some store that has some Black Friday sale on some item we really want to buy.” By “just say NO,” I mean, just DON’T DO it. Any of it.
Sure. You will have a thanksgiving potluck at work, your vegan potluck the Saturday before will call itself a “thanksgiving potluck,” etc. etc. People will turn the normal place you plan on being into a “thanksgiving” celebration. I get it- you can’t take the day off work. Bring the vegan cookies but also bring the rhetoric and whatever you do, please DO NOT do anything of this sort on thanksgiving day.
No turkey, no tofurkey, no stuffing, no movies, no shopping, no airplane tickets. Just don’t do it. Reject thanksgiving in its entirety.
Racist Roots.
There are a few celebrations dating back to the 16th century which are touted as the “first” thanksgiving but the thanksgiving feast we turn to as foundation of our modern, secular holiday was in 1623 at Plymouth Plantation in Massachusetts. After a harsh winter these European settlers, who lost around half of their population that winter, celebrated what they were able to harvest. They invited their neighbors, the indigenous peoples (a.k.a Native Americans) who had taught them how to farm.
This could be a sweet story I guess, but now lets think about what European settlers did (and are doing) to Native Americans (in no specific order, and not nearly a complete list of atrocities): Conestoga Massacre, Gnadenhutten Massacre, Sand Creek Massacre, Camp Grant Massacre, Wounded Knee Massacre, Trail of Tears, The Reservation system, “The Reservation schools,” 1830 Indian Removal Act, Cointelpro infiltration of Red Power Movement, current inequalities in education, employment and poverty…And this is just a start. As colonizers, we happily took their farming skills and their seeds and then we took their land and culture and families and freedom.
If the fact that the thanksgiving tradition is rooted in so much violence, exploitation and racism isn’t enough to deter you, then let’s talk turkey. Depending on the estimate, somewhere between 40 and 45 million turkeys are cooked and eaten in the US for thanksgiving day alone. This is vile on several grounds. First, and most important, is that eating turkey is lame. Second, it propagates an old habit in America—over-consumption. I’ll start with the later point.
Over-Consumption.
We live in a consumption-obsessed society and all holidays in this country are whored out for their capitalist capacity. thanksgiving doesn’t warrant gift-giving but it sure does warrant a whole lot of shopping—for kitchen-goods shaped like turkeys, food, food, food, airline tickets, gas, food and food. And then there is Black Friday—which encourages us to take out more credit than we can pay back and glorifies sleeping on the same sidewalks that homeless people are vilified for living on—all in the name of a great sale.
thanksgiving engenders over-indulgence. That middle and upper America has come to accept over-indulgence as a “right” has lead to even more great atrocities (namely that we will let our government do anything to protect our right to have too much). A day set aside for binging and buying and sitting on the couch and over-spending is, much like eating turkeys, lame.
Eating Turkeys is Lame.
No animal, human or non-human, lives to be exploited by people for any reason, much less the trivial reason of “taste.” (I will not go into this here. Here is a nice summary of the basic principles of veganism).
For those speciesists unable to swallow the idea that turkeys have a right to live for themselves, rather than for the sake of being killed for humans, you should at least agree that the turkeys people choose to eat should not suffer needlessly. However, the normal rate at which our population consumes the flesh of dead animals, much less the frantic pace at which we consume dead turkeys for thanksgiving, leads to a system of factory farming that generates horrific suffering:
[Turkeys] are typically crowded by the thousand into huge factory- like warehouses where they can barely move…each given less than three square feet. Both chickens and turkeys have the end of their beaks cut off, and turkeys also have their toes clipped. All of these mutilations are performed without anaesthesia [sic], and they are done in order to reduce injuries which result when stressed birds are driven to fighting.
…Commercial turkeys also suffer from genetic manipulation…An industry journal laments “…turkeys have been bred to grow faster and heavier but their skeletons haven’t kept pace, which causes ‘cowboy legs’. Commonly, the turkeys have problems standing and fall and are trampled on or seek refuge under feeders, leading to bruises and downgradings as well as culled or killed birds.”
…Once inside the slaughterhouse, fully conscious birds are hung by their feet from metal shackles on a moving rail. The first station on most poultry slaughterhouse assembly lines is the stunning tank, where the birds’ heads are submerged in an electrified bath of water…Poultry slaughterhouses commonly set the electrical current lower than what is required to render the birds unconscious because of concerns that too much electricity would damage the carcass and diminish its value. The result is that birds are immobilized but are still capable of feeling pain, or they emerge from the stunning tank still conscious.
After passing through the stunning tank, the birds’ throats are slashed, usually by a mechanical blade, and blood begins rushing out of their bodies. Inevitably, the blade misses some birds who then proceed to the next station on the assembly line, the scalding tank. Here they are submerged in boiling hot water. Birds missed by the killing blade are boiled alive. This occurs so commonly, affecting millions of birds every year, that the industry has a term for these birds. They are called “redskins”.
from Mercy for Animals
And let’s not forget that for each of the 40-45 million turkeys slaughtered many more died in overcrowded, abusive conditions of the factory farm and in transport to the slaughter-house. Further, slaughterhouse workers, who are typically illegal immigrants or poor ethnic minorities with few other options for work, also suffer great physical danger and injury in the process of factory farming. (Fast Food Nation– the movie or the book- is an accessible resource for more information on this topic).
As a nod to the rights of turkeys, many conscientious people grab a Tofurkey instead, but this still isn’t enough. For starters, any thanksgiving celebration commemorates what has already been explained as a violent shameful part of America’s past, propagates over-spending, over-eating and the over-use of resources and glorifies the murder of animals for food.
Vegina 