conflicting messages
23 June 2006 19:09![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amulUnlike my usual half-witted banter and jibes, this is a serious question about vegetarianism and veganism, although it's possible that I've been unable to extract my serious curiosity from my general habit of disdain. I'd like some honest input and feedback.
I do not understand why so many products are made by companies supporting these two philosophies which pretend to be meat.
It seems to me that if you choose not to eat meat, for whichever of the many reasons people espouse these days, that you should not eat meat. You shouldn't pretend to eat meat. It seems to me that by making Tofurkey sandwiches, and fake gyro platters, you're still supporting the industry which you claim to oppose. You're acknowledging the supremacy of the meat industry by acting like meat is something which can only be sidestepped, not truly avoided.
There are foods out there which are not meat, and which don't pretend to be meat. You don't have to eat things which are meat-substitutes, which seems a lot like talking crap about Microsoft while still using Windows because "it's too strong a market force."
Plus, it seems like cheating to me. If you're going to make a sacrifice for something you believe in, then you should actually have to sacrifice something for that belief. What good is the person who tells his children not to smoke and then sneaks behind the shed for a drag? What morality is there in winning by a technical loophole?
"Oh, I'm not eating a bacon cheeseburger. I'm eating a tofurkey burger with fake bacon and cheese substitute. Because, you know, while I really oppose eating animals, i just like the taste of them too much to stop."
Mahatma Gandhi got an entire country to listen to him by engaging in ritual fasting until people worried about his health enough to listen to him. He didn't sneak a cheeseburger during bedtime and argue, "Well, religious harmony is really important to me, but I'm kind of hungry." The hippies of the 60s didn't hold sit-down protests except when they had class.
In order to affect change, you must sacrifice for your ideals. If you don't change your way of thinking about the world, then how can you change the world? How can you even argue that you have changed?
On top of all of this is the simple fact that meat substitutes taste bad. They taste about as close to the meats they're trying to mimic as Purple Drinks taste like grapes. Saag, on the other hand, tastes exactly like itself and it isn't meat, either.
"Oh, but it's so much harder," people will tell me, "to make tasty, nutritious meals that are not meat or meat-substitutes. It takes more time, it takes more effort."
Well, yeah. That's why meat became so popular in the first place, and to willfully ignore that while protesting it seems a charlatan's trick. it seems like avoiding the real issue.
I agree that meat has far too much prevalence in our society. I agree that there are many products which use animal byproducts when they don't have to. I also agree that I'd like my food to be made out of, you know, food.
But I think that if you're going to stop eating meat, then you should stop eating meat. if you think meat is something our culture can do without, if you think that we need to, as vegans are so fond of saying, "change our traditions," then how about we start with yours? How about you try to give up your dependance on meat-centric meal planning, give up trying to eat things with Egg Substitutes and Cheese Substitutes and Fake Meat Patties and actually try to stop eating the stuff?
If you're going to make a sacrifice, then it should cost you something. I don't see how you can argue any different.
I do not understand why so many products are made by companies supporting these two philosophies which pretend to be meat.
It seems to me that if you choose not to eat meat, for whichever of the many reasons people espouse these days, that you should not eat meat. You shouldn't pretend to eat meat. It seems to me that by making Tofurkey sandwiches, and fake gyro platters, you're still supporting the industry which you claim to oppose. You're acknowledging the supremacy of the meat industry by acting like meat is something which can only be sidestepped, not truly avoided.
There are foods out there which are not meat, and which don't pretend to be meat. You don't have to eat things which are meat-substitutes, which seems a lot like talking crap about Microsoft while still using Windows because "it's too strong a market force."
Plus, it seems like cheating to me. If you're going to make a sacrifice for something you believe in, then you should actually have to sacrifice something for that belief. What good is the person who tells his children not to smoke and then sneaks behind the shed for a drag? What morality is there in winning by a technical loophole?
"Oh, I'm not eating a bacon cheeseburger. I'm eating a tofurkey burger with fake bacon and cheese substitute. Because, you know, while I really oppose eating animals, i just like the taste of them too much to stop."
Mahatma Gandhi got an entire country to listen to him by engaging in ritual fasting until people worried about his health enough to listen to him. He didn't sneak a cheeseburger during bedtime and argue, "Well, religious harmony is really important to me, but I'm kind of hungry." The hippies of the 60s didn't hold sit-down protests except when they had class.
In order to affect change, you must sacrifice for your ideals. If you don't change your way of thinking about the world, then how can you change the world? How can you even argue that you have changed?
On top of all of this is the simple fact that meat substitutes taste bad. They taste about as close to the meats they're trying to mimic as Purple Drinks taste like grapes. Saag, on the other hand, tastes exactly like itself and it isn't meat, either.
"Oh, but it's so much harder," people will tell me, "to make tasty, nutritious meals that are not meat or meat-substitutes. It takes more time, it takes more effort."
Well, yeah. That's why meat became so popular in the first place, and to willfully ignore that while protesting it seems a charlatan's trick. it seems like avoiding the real issue.
I agree that meat has far too much prevalence in our society. I agree that there are many products which use animal byproducts when they don't have to. I also agree that I'd like my food to be made out of, you know, food.
But I think that if you're going to stop eating meat, then you should stop eating meat. if you think meat is something our culture can do without, if you think that we need to, as vegans are so fond of saying, "change our traditions," then how about we start with yours? How about you try to give up your dependance on meat-centric meal planning, give up trying to eat things with Egg Substitutes and Cheese Substitutes and Fake Meat Patties and actually try to stop eating the stuff?
If you're going to make a sacrifice, then it should cost you something. I don't see how you can argue any different.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 24 Jun 2006 11:41 (UTC)1) The Meat Industry
I don't see how eating meat-like veggie products supports the meat industry. In fact, it's supporting it's direct competition. No animals were harmed in the making of a tofu burger and if that's your primary concern, it's a happy alternative. The meat industry doesn't get your money, or your business. Most vegetarians I've met object to the direct suffering. If meat packing plants stopped production and started making tofu that looked and tasted exactly like chicken? They'd be thrilled. The idea that eating meat substitutes supports the meat industry seems like a very tenuous argument to me. It's like the time I was dating a guy that asked "If lesbians don't like to have sex with men, why to they like penis-shaped sex toys?" I almost hit him.
1)Sacrifice
It sounds like you're discussing Making a Point versus a simple lifestyle choice. Claiming every moral choice demands a sacrifice screams "martyr complex" to me. If someone goes on an on about Their Sacrifice, then yeah, I expect to see some sacrificing, but that isn't inherent to vegetarianism.
Aside from that, being a vegetarian has it's difficult moments:
Purchasing and fitting-in time to cook your own Tofurkey amid the main Thanksgiving prep.
Having to be the pain in the ass when choosing a restaurant for dinner unless you want plain spaghetti.
Informing the hosts of a dinner party of your eating habits while worrying about being demanding.
Rarely splitting a pizza.
Accidentally getting food with meat in it, your fault or the business.
"Helpful" people trying to talk you into trying meat again.
Being "that guy" to your friends and family. While they like you, meals are easier when you're not involved.
3) Faux meat sucks.
Not true at all. James and I have a pretty meat-centric household and we still buy some meat substitutes because we like them. I like Morningstar farms fake bacon better than real bacon. It's baconish flavor without the greasiness and over crisping. We like Quorn. It's healthy, tasty and fun to say. Spicy black bean "burgers" were always a favorite of mine as are portobella mushroom burgers. Which despite being a slab of marinated vegetable, portabella mushrooms are some of the most burger-like things you can get. Finally one problem vegetarians, particularly new vegetarians, frequently have is getting enough protein. Meat substitutes are a handy way to do that without an endless existence alternating tofu and beans.
This post really strikes me as you not understanding why people don't do things the way you think they should, regardless of their own beliefs. *You* think giving something up requires a consistent clear-cut sacrifice more so than just giving up that specific thing itself. *You* don't like the taste of meat substitutes, so how can anyone like them? I guess the simple answer would be because not all vegetarians are you. I'm probably coming off a lot more confrontational than I intend and for that I apologize. Try to think of this as adamant as opposed to angry.
no subject
Date: 24 Jun 2006 11:45 (UTC)no subject
Date: 26 Jun 2006 08:13 (UTC)Since you number your points, I'll try to do the same.
1) The Meat Industry
Frankly, this entire sub-thread has become a giant distraction to me, and I'd just as soon drop it. The key point here is that I don't understand the reasoning behind the choices of people whom I respect, and have therefore made the mistake of assuming them to have the same reasons as the people whose attitudes I find disdainful. This seems to have created a cycle whereby those who might tell me things I'd find valuable in this sort of discussion probably became less likely to talk to me about it.
2) Sacrifice
Everybody seems really up in arms over that term, and apparently I came across seeming to mean it in a much more melodramatic way than I intended. See my response to Erin (http://amul.livejournal.com/333366.html?thread=942646#t942646) about what I was trying to say.
(side tangent:
Being "that guy" to your friends and family. While they like you, meals are easier when you're not involved.
This is the point at which my perspective differs. My issue with "that guy" isn't that he's harder to cook for, it's that he's less inclined to trust me when I say, "it's good, and you can eat it." Oh no, he makes me pull out the recipe book and tell him every damn thing that's in it. Why can't he just trust that I'll be considerate of his choices?
Probably because I'm always whining about how he'll never get to try any of the recipes I'm really good at.
)
3) Faux meat sucks
I tried to be clear that I was excluding things like Spicy Black Bean Burgers from this point. The fake bacon is part of it, though. After what everbody else has already said, I guess I'm willing to concede that it's a little Double Plus UnGood of me, but I still think that it'd be easier to throw out all your preconcieved notion and learn a new system whole cloth than to try to figure out analog substitutes for every little thing.
I think it's the Indian Food background, really. It's not the only culture that has a predominantly vegetarian cusine, and these cusines all have breakfasts, lunches and dinners. Why not just learn a whole new language rather than constantly trying to find some new way to say "fuck" that won't get bleeped out by the censors?
4) Your post script
Yes, it's become very clear that I don't understand the logic behind the choices I'm interested in discussing, and that I've made the mistake of lumping them into the same category as those people who've made choices with the same external symptoms.
Really, though, that's why I asked in a public forum.
another long-winded vegetarian enters the fray
Date: 26 Jun 2006 16:10 (UTC)You may not remember it, but early on after we first started talking (yeah, yeah, a millennia ago as far as what has happened since) you asked me about my vegetarian habits then proceeded to tell me that you resented that someone who you were cooking for would give you parameters according to their issues. When someone came to YOUR house, you didn't want them telling you how to live/cook/etc. I decided then and there that I could never eat your cooking because your statement meant I couldn't trust you to respect MY choices, whether I was at your house or my own. Asking what is in something isn't by definition disrespectful. You've certainly come a ways since then, but there's a fragment of that still echoing to me in this discussion.
I realize you now regret the choice of "sacrifice" in your post for the stir it's caused, and with good reason. It speaks more to your (perceived) attitude than anything else you said afterward. Also, it's too easy to poke in response to it, so I won't bother.
No one should poke someone else's moral structure if it isn't hurting them. You chastising vegetarians for inconsistencies is in many ways not much different than Hindus hassling you that you can't be Hindu if you don't marry a Hindu girl, join the temple, etc. We are all subsets of the larger, un-accepting culture and not a one of us should play "holier than thou". If too many vegs have preached at you, remember that you have, perhaps inadvertently (at least in my case) preached critically at them. None of us is of such perfect moral fiber that we lack any flaws in our logic structure. In college I finally became completely vegetarian when my roommate asked me (with zero judgment in her voice) "If you know it is wrong, why do you do it?" and so I didn't eat meat again. It was that simple for me. To me, it is wrong, therefore I will not participate in as much as I am able. What you do is your business, from what you eat to who you sleep with. It's all the same issue to me.
For my part, it comes from living as simply as I can. Meat is not something I want or need. It is something I find distasteful in it's cultural/social/environmental implication IN THE MANNER IT IS USUALLY OFFERED. That is a vital point, sorry for the all caps though. It has to do with eating real food. I honestly have no great issue with truly free-range meat (though it is difficult to prove unless the animal lived free and was hunted and killed quickly). I tweaked out a few people by saying that if I died young and healthy, I would prefer to be eaten than to be buried. Don't waste good stuff. I respect meat eaters who would in fact kill their own food. I couldn't and see no reason that I should pay someone else to do my killing for me. Those are just some of the reasons. I have little issue that other cultures eat bugs, cats, dogs and whatnot. It is what is culturally appropriate for them, and I have little stomach for any of it. Ditto for eating all parts of the animal. If you're grossed out by the liver, why would you eat the ass?
I was drawn to Indian food when I was in high school in part because it was so yummy and bonus: without being meat. So I started to learn to cook, and it all grew from there. My family is very meat'n'potatoes, so it is useful to have analogs around in order to deal with them and not be a social liability. Once, and ONLY once, my father made a disparaging remark about tofu and I told him I would not cook for him if he insulted what I made. He never did again because I'm a better cook than he is.
That's enough random blathering. Hope it shed some additional light. All vegs are not the same, just like any other subgroup.
Re: another long-winded vegetarian enters the fray
Date: 4 Jul 2006 00:53 (UTC)You may not remember it, but early on after we first started talking
Um, yes, I remember it quite well. It had more impact on me than the rest of the conversation, which was pretty major in my life as well. I've thought about that conversation quite often over the last few years, and for a long time whenever Christine and I would get sick of arguing, we'd talk about what you said.
I liked you, wanted to cook for you, but somehow my attitude towards the world prevented that from ever happening.
It was one of the reasons why I've spent the last few years trying to make all the changes I've been working towards.
Re: another long-winded vegetarian enters the fray
Date: 4 Jul 2006 02:26 (UTC)When you come back to balance (or something close to it), please elaborate.
no subject
Date: 26 Jun 2006 22:08 (UTC)It's not a matter of trust or an insult to someone's cooking. I check labels and boxes and recipes myself because, in my experience, most non-veg*ns and non-healthfreaks don't know that things like monoglycerides or sodium stearol lactylate are made of animal byproducts, and aren't aware that seemingly-veg*n-safe foods like white bread and some brands of peanut butter (absurdly enough, IMO) contain animal-derived ingredients that strict vegans avoid.
So far you're the only person who's eaten with me and shown any sort of interest in learning what food is made of. My parents, for example, didn't understand why I couldn't eat their insta-mashed potatoes and "chicken-flavored" stuffing from the box. I always check labels myself unless I'm cooking with another vegan.