Revolt, Resilience and Remarkable Ardour in the novel The Vegetarian (original) (raw)
Related papers
A Defense of the Feminist-Vegetarian Connection
Hypatia, 2005
Kathryn Paxton George’s recent publication, Animal, Vegetable, or Woman? (2000), is the culmination of more than a decade’s work and encompasses standard and original arguments against the feminist-vegetarian connection. This paper demonstrates that George’s key arguments are deeply flawed, antithetical to basic feminist commitments, and beg the question against fundamental aspects of the debate. Those who do not accept the feminist-vegetarian connection should rethink their position or offer a non-question-begging defense of it.
Should Feminists Be Vegetarians? A Feminist Defense of Ethical Vegetarianism (MA Thesis, 2002)
A small but vocal group of feminists—including Carol J. Adams, Josephine Donovan, Greta Gaard, Lori Gruen, and others—have passionately argued that nonhuman animals are oppressed, and the appropriate feminist response includes the adoption of ethical vegetarianism (if at all possible). Though most feminists continue to exclude nonhuman animals from their praxis, remarkably few have responded to these arguments. One exception is Kathryn Paxton George. Her recent publication—Animal, Vegetable, or Woman? A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism (AVW 2000)—is the culmination of more than a decade’s work and encompasses standard and original arguments against the feminist-vegetarian connection. In this thesis, I sketch the arguments offered in favour of the feminist-vegetarian connection and defend ethical vegetarianism against all of the central challenges that George raises. As she claims to offer A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism, I set an evaluation of her key arguments within a feminist framework. First then, I review shared precepts of feminism, with a focus on ecofeminism, as it is in this terrain that the feminist-vegetarian connection is most often discussed and defended. Second, I outline George’s arguments against ethical vegetarianism and present the “quasi-ethical” diet she advocates in its stead (feminist aesthetic semi-vegetarianism). Third, I demonstrate that none of her key arguments succeeds. Among other flaws, she equivocates between dietary and ethical vegetarianism, improperly applies the principle of nonarbitrariness, relies heavily on problematic hypotheses, makes false and un-feminist assumptions, and begs the question against central issues of the feminist-vegetarian debate. Fourth, I demonstrate that support can be found throughout George’s book for two inconsistent applications of her preferred dietary proscriptions. I examine each of these and find both to be problematic. On the first count, abidance by George’s “quasi-ethical” theory would require us (Westerners) to live a lifestyle that is nearly reducible to the vegan ideal that she takes great pain to disparage. On the second count, she needlessly condones actions that she takes to be “morally wrong in any case,” while simultaneously encouraging people to protest against them. I conclude that, as each of the key arguments that George offers fails, the cumulative weight of her critique of ethical vegetarianism is nil. She does not prove that feminists cannot consistently or should not ethically advocate vegetarianism. Moreover, an analysis of what is required for opponents of the feminist-vegetarian connection to offer a persuasive defense of their position reveals that their prospects are bleak, if not utterly hopeless.
Feminism and the Vegetarian Debate
This paper examines a debate that has been active within feminism for many years around the subject of vegetarianism and specifically veganism. Some feminists argue that eating any animal products is incompatible with a feminist ethic. In this article, which is adapted from a chapter of my PhD thesis (2008), I examine both sides of this argument from moral, health and environmental perspectives. While it is understandable that some people will choose to avoid animal products for ethical or other reasons, I consider that the inclusion of some animal products in one's diet is not, per se,, incompatible with a feminist ethic.
Response: Feminist Positions on Vegetarianism
1995
has organized his paper, "AUtilitarian Argument for Vegetarianism," around the positions for and against vegetarianism that are derived from the two main currents of traditional ethical theoriesutilitarianism and some variant of a rights-based approach. These currents are reflected in the work of Peter Singer and Tom Regan, respectively and are taken up by many others who write in the area. It is easy to understand why, in the context of his project of providing a utilitarian argument for vegetarianism, he chooses to limit the discussion to the two groups he addresses-utilitarianism and "human supremacism." Yet, it leaves out an entire area of recent deliberation and debate concerning the moral imperative of vegetarianism, that which is presented in contemporary ecofeminist thought. This is an area which deserves consideration, and not only for reasons of comprehensiveness, representation and inclusivity. It deserves consideration, also, and perhaps more importantly, because the issues addressed and points made by feminist writers on the topic speak directly to the need to combine "private decision with political action."2 I wish to focus instead on a third set of arguments that can provide-on some variants-the basis for DISCUSSION Between the Species 98
Meat and Patriarchy - A Vegan Ecofeminist Perspective
Meat and Patriarchy - A Vegan Ecofeminist Perspective, 2018
The core of this project is to discuss the vegan ecofeminist assumption according to which rather than being a simple choice of preference by the consumer, the Western practice of meat-eating is a compulsory institutional norm representing both the expression and foundation of the patriarchal society. In the first part of this study, it is contended that differently from Western secular feminism, ecofeminist representatives have endorsed an intersectional approach. The adoption of such a paradigm demonstrates that the oppression of women and the subjugation of the non-human nature originate from the same source: the patriarchal ‘logic of domination’. In the second part of the dissertation, it is argued that the practice of compulsive meat-eating represents a direct expression of both naturism and speciesism, and as such, meat’s historical connection with “virility” and “manhood” are subjected to scrutiny. Subsequently, the dissertation will proceed by investigating the ways in which the patriarchal society has imposed meat-consumption as the dietary praxis. Specifically, the attention will be focused on the sabotage of humans’ innate sympathy towards animals, the process of objectification and fragmentation that deprives the animal of his/her original identity, and the implementation of a language that creates cultural meanings in support of the oppression of non-humans. Finally, in the conclusion, the validity of the adoption of a plant-based diet as a way of advocating animal and environmental rights and as a tool to give rise to a pacific model of society founded on care and compassion will be discussed.
Global Media Journal: Canadian Edition, 2019
Vegan ecofeminism growing out of ecofeminist ideas has been one of the first critical theories that explicitly politicized food and its cultural representations in terms of gender. As a diverse body of scholarship and activism, it has cogently demonstrated how meat has historically figured and continues to do so in interrelated oppressive structures, practices and meanings inscribed in diverse media. Nonetheless, ecofeminism in general, and vegan feminism in particular, have assumed an ambivalent trajectory ranging from prolific to dismissal as essential thinking. Feminist and critical media scholarship seem to have had its due share out of this dismissal of vegan feminism from broader critical theory as current feminist media research preserves its anthropocentric focus in dealing with diverse contemporary media phenomena. This paper attempts to reintroduce the theoretical and practical contributions of vegan ecofeminism for critical media scholars in an era of rapidly expanding digital landscapes and transnational media industries and growing global social inequalities and ecological destruction. The introductory part of this paper tries to make this paucity more clear within the landscape of feminist media research. This point leads to a brief revision of (vegan) ecofeminism’s history and presentation of Carol Jay Adams’ The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist Vegetarian Critique as the epitome of the field illustrating intersections of oppressions around gender, species and other social categories forcing their way into dominant cultural imageries and media in terms of meat eating. Subsequent sections review the charged reception of (vegan) ecofeminist insights and their demise and comments on contemporary theoretical discussions on gender politics of veganism and related growing trends. Having forefronted the history of and current debates on vegan feminism in scholarship and research, the final part highlights some potential arenas of media research where this versatile body of knowledge problematizing intersecting social categories may be extended to compensate for its mainly anthropocentric focus. Mots-clés: Vegan feminism, ecofeminism, feminist media studies, gender politics
Vegetarian Ecofeminism: A Review Essay
Although the roots of ecofeminism can be located in the work of women gardeners, outdoor enthusiasts, environmental writers, botanists, scientists, animal welfare activists, and abolitionists over the past two centuries, ecofeminism's first articulation in the 1980s was shaped by the convergence of the peace, antinuclear, and feminist movements. In the past two decades ecofeminism has developed so rapidly that the time for a broad review of it has already passed; even recent taxonomies do not adequately describe its internal variations. For these reasons, I have chosen to trace the branch of ecofeminism that has been the subject of most disagreement by feminists, ecofeminists, and environmentalists and is the least understood. This misunderstanding (and the subsequent misrepresentation) of vegetarian ecofeminism must be addressed, I will argue, because this branch of ecofeminism is the logical outgrowth of both feminism and ecofeminism. For if ecofeminism can be seen as the offspring of feminism, then vegetarian ecofeminism is surely feminism's third generation.
Essay on Vegetarian Ecofeminism
2019
A final essay on "Feminism and the Environmental Movements", course of the fall semester 2019, Charles University, Prague. It's subject is the ideology of <>, it's goals,beliefs and how or if it can be applied.
Sex, Work, Meat: The Feminist Politics of Veganism
Feminist Review, 2016
Since the publication of The Sexual Politics of Meat in 1990, activist and writer Carol J. Adams (2000 [1990]) has put forth a feminist defence of veganism based on the argument that meat consumption and violence against animals are structurally related to violence against women, and especially to pornography and prostitution. Adams’ work has been influential in the growing fields of animal studies and posthumanism, where her research is frequently cited as the prime example of vegan feminism. However, her particular radical feminist framework, including her anti-pornography and anti-prostitution arguments, are rarely acknowledged or critiqued. This article challenges the premises of Adams’ argument, demonstrating that her version of vegan feminism is based upon an unsubstantiated comparison between violence against women and violence against other-than-human animals, and on the silencing and exclusion of sex workers as subjects. The article contests the limited reading of Adams, an...