Essay on Vegetarian Ecofeminism (original) (raw)

Related papers

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.

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

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.

“Consistency in Ecofeminist Ethics: Contextual Moral Vegetarianism and Abortion" (2005/2006)

International Journal of the Humanities , 2006

Feminists today are internally divided on the question whether they ought also to champion the interests of non-human animals. Some ecologically-minded feminists (or ecofeminists) have advanced contextual moral vegetarianism as a logical outcome of feminism. Other feminists have been either non-committal or even hostile to that view for a variety of reasons, one being a fear that animal advocacy will affect the abortion debate in a manner unfavourable to “choice.” This article examines whether an ecofeminist drive toward contextual moral vegetarianism must come at the expense of these more conventional feminist commitments and ultimately concludes that it need not. Methodologically speaking, I describe the advantages and limitations of the three ways that vegetarian ecofeminists commonly make their case for contextual moral vegetarianism and assess their implications for abortion in each. The first approach provides accounts of animal moral standing, generally employs the “argument from marginal cases,” and is largely associated with the work of male academicians. I show how even this approach which grants comparable moral standing to some animals and fetuses of late gestational age can nevertheless avoid compromising standard feminist commitments to reproductive freedom. The second approach is an “ethic of care” toward animals that takes seriously our affective response to, and concrete experience with, both animal suffering and well-being. I demonstrate how care-theory can likewise avoid important concessions with respect to abortion, though also submit that care-theory, if left unpoliticized, holds dangers of its own. The final approach is an analysis of the larger socio-political context in which current meat consumption and production takes place. While this approach best explains why vegetarian ecofeminists generally prescribe contextual—not universal—moral vegetarianism, vegetarian ecofeminism would most benefit from a combination of all three.

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.

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.

Critical Ecofeminism: Interrogating "Meat," "Species," and "Plant"

Meat Culture, 2017

Using a critical ecofeminist lens, the essay brings Plant Studies into conversation with Critical Animal Studies, examining the various bases and arguments for food ethics and food practices. If all matter is alive, where do we draw the line between ethical eating practices and unethical eating?

Vegan Studies as Ecofeminist Intervention

Ecozon@, 2020

On November 5, 2019, 11,000 scientists from 153 countries declared a climate emergency, and their report presents in stark terms the nature and certainty of the crisis, providing six paths forward, one of which focuses on agriculture: “eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products . . . can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions” (Ripple et al. 4). We have been given a plan to help us mediate this crisis, but what will it take for us to act on it, or, for that matter, to discuss the “animal question” in ways that are not predicated on vitriolic fear and willful disdain of plant-based consumption? In this essay, I offer a vegan studies approach as a theoretical and lived ecofeminist intervention in a political moment characterized by environmental uncertainty, overt racism, misogyny, and anti-immigrant policies that have become conflated with the presumed threat veganism poses to an increasingly authoritarian present.Keywords: Veganism, Green New Deal, climate crisis, United States politics.