Do I Owe You An Apology?

When I first started this blog, I was blogging pretty regularly -- at least once a week, if not twice.  About half of my posts were on veganism or diet and the other half were a combination of news or parenting experiences.  Then my kids let me know that they did NOT want to be visible on my blog, so I lost about 25% of my material.

I know this is a common experience among Mommy bloggers, particularly for those whose kids are old enough to know what a blog is and to have a nascent awareness of public and private.  I have to respect that.  My kids don't want strangers commenting to me about their lives on the Internet, no matter how entertaining (or mundane) the stories may be.  (There are exceptions; the recent blog about my daughter's Battle of the Books competition was approved by her.  In fact, she wanted me to write that one.)

I've also found myself kinda bored with veganism, so I feel I've "lost" another source of topics.  I'm currently thinking most about news of various sorts and have lately been paralyzed by world news (Japan, Syria, Libya, Egypt...and Wisconsin and the generally sad state of the US economy).

I really do mean paralyzed -- I don't know where to start a post about any of it.  Japan's situation breaks my heart and worries the hell out of me (nuclear power, IMHO, needs to go).  The human rights abuses the world over sicken me.  The level of hatred people have for each other stuns (but, sadly, does not surprise) me.  Dictators need to go, yes, but I also worry about the uncertainty of who will replace them.  The continuing downward spiral of our own economy and the suffering that goes with it....

Of late, I've probably been the most consumed with various stories of abuse toward women:  Lara Logan, Lynsey Addario, Eman al-Obeidy, women in our military, and the 11-year-old Texas girl.  I've been enraged at thoughts of their personal suffering and also keenly aware of the sociological pattern they're a part of.

I actually have been writing; I just haven't published any of it here.  I'm working on a very long, detailed sociological analysis of the Lara Logan case, relating it to other well-known cases often covered in sociological textbooks.  Some of you might find it interesting, but it is definitely more academic than "bloggish," and has a ton of footnotes and cites.

I'm not sure it's appropriate for a blog.  Let me know if you think I should reconsider that and "entertain" you with a lengthy sociological discussion of bystanders, mobs, and reference groups, of how particular cases are sadly anything but unique. I warn you though -- it's a long piece (20 pages and not at all done).

For those of you who follow this blog because you are particularly interested in veganism, I worry I've let you down.  You should know I'm still at it and that I will still write about it from time to time, but I don't currently feel that I have something to add beyond what I've already said, and certainly not beyond what other (arguably more committed) vegans have said and continue to say.  In a nutshell, I believe a vegan diet is a healthy one, that avoiding animal products in other areas of life (e.g., clothing, sports equipment, makeup,  furniture) is an ethical choice, and that avoiding animal use in general, if done by enough people, has HUGE environmental (and animal) benefits.

So, veganism is a good thing to do, even if you sometimes fall off the proverbial wagon and have to haul yourself back on.

I'm in that category, in case the title of the blog never clued you into that.  My biggest downfall continues to be...cheese.  How unusual.

If I've disappointed some of you by not writing about veganism as much as I had originally intended, I apologize.  Hope you'll still stick around.

Concessions

I've been 'almost vegan' long enough that eating vegan at home is easy.  But I still find doing so out of the house to be a challenge, particularly if I'm staying at somebody else's house.

I've just returned from a two-week trip to spend time with my East Coast family, during which we celebrated my in-laws' 50 years of marriage.  It was a lovely trip and my in-laws were very supportive of my dietary choices.

However...I had to make some concessions in my diet because a) I couldn't stock their pantry and fridge with my stuff and then drag it back to the other side of the country and b) I couldn't expect to use their kitchen every day.  I did go out and buy tofu, soy milk and tempeh.  I did not buy fake cheese, fake butter, fake ice cream, or any of the other vegan items (such as stevia or agave) that I generally use at home. 

Translation:  this "almost vegan" ate some dairy while on vacation.  I found it the most convenient compromise.  I did NOT, however, eat meat or eggs (though I suspect the one piece of anniversary cake may have had eggs in it). 

While at their house, I ate an incredibly boring diet of oatmeal in the mornings, coffee with soy milk (and white sugar), toast (with butter), brown rice and tofu and veggies (or tempeh) for dinner, and a tempeh and veggie sandwich and fruit every day for lunch.  It was all fine, but monotonous. 

I did cook for them twice:  pinto and plantain stew (from Veganomicon) and a veggie and tempeh stir fry (they added shrimp to their portions, though they said they liked the tempeh).  During the week I watched them eat lobster, veal, chicken, eggs, bacon, liverwurst, turkey and ham, cheese, yogurt, ice cream.  They also eat fairly big portions of fruit and veggies every day, but watching them eat made me aware AGAIN of how many animal products I am NOT eating anymore.  (For the record, I have NEVER had veal.) 

When we went out for their anniversary dinner -- at a very nice Italian place -- I asked the cook to prepare an eggplant dish without the smoked mozzarella (but GOD it looked so good!) and to just give me a side of pasta.  Done.  Vegan even while at a VERY non-vegan restaurant.

I did have a *little* ice cream and I did have that piece of their anniversary cake.  Should I feel terribly guilty? 

I don't particularly, though I know there are vegans who would never have made these concessions, even while on vacation, and even while living in somebody else's house. 

Would YOU have taken over somebody else's kitchen?  Why or why not?  What concessions, if any, do you make if you are staying in somebody else's house?

Then I Opened My Big Mouth...

So...I got myself elected/appointed "Parish Education Chair" at church.  I'll skip the story of how THAT happened and just say that technically, I'm kinda helping to oversee ALL education this year -- from preschool to adult.  This also means I'm now on church council.

Joy.  (They are very nice people, but the timing of the monthly meeting -- third Wednesdays at 5:30 -- is less than ideal, in fact WAY inconvenient.  What would be wrong with, say, 7:30?)

It's one of those things I cannot change -- there are other things that go on on Wednesday nights and really, other things that go on EVERY night and this is, well, the established time and theoretically the most convenient for the most people.  But not for me. 

I'll live.

Back to topic -- at the first meeting I mentioned that there were a few things on MY agenda that I think are relevant to parish education.  First?  Gender inclusive language to refer to God.  Get rid of "Lord," "He," "Father," "Kindgom," "King".  Replace with such phrases as "Our Loving Creator," "the Almighty" "Our Parent," "Realm," "Ruler".  In the last two churches I belonged two (the previous SEVENTEEN years prior to coming to this church), this was already done.  Prayers had been rewritten to get rid of patriarchal language; hymns and creeds as well. A statement as to WHY this was done was in EVERY bulletin, EVERY week, as well as in the church information available in every pew.  The reasoning?  God is NOT human, does NOT have any genitalia that we know of and continuing to refer to God as male continues a tradition of lifting men above women -- something *most* people these days think is wrong.  Whether or not this is explicitly stated is irrelevant -- when that which is MOST HIGH is referred to as male, people get the image that males are higher or better than females.  It's inherent in the structure of the concepts, which is precisely why the language should change.

So in the first meeting, I mentioned that at the very least, we should get the teachers to refrain from exclusively referring to God as "He" or "Father" in Sunday School classes. Get the kids to talk about various ways of imaging the divine and get the older kids to talk about the patriarchal culture that has dominated religion(s) and how that limits how we think of God.

Lead. Balloon.  One guy said that his daughter is not so insecure as to think that one must refer to God in gender neutral terms in order to feel good about herself.  He also said to me that "if you need a more liberal church, you should go to a more liberal church".

I'll get back to THAT in a minute.

Referring to God in gender neutral or gender inclusive terms is as "normal" to me as eating breakfast in the morning.  I don't think of God as human; I do recognize that Jesus was an historical  figure and a male one so I do not mind referring to *him* as *he*.  But not God.

So being in a church that does NOT use inclusive language (one pastor told me, when I discussed this with him briefly last year, "Well, THAT will never happen") is increasingly intolerable.  It's not enough that *I* generally change the terms when I recite the creeds or prayers or read in front of the congregation.  It really bugs me that so few in the church think as I do.  (If they do, they are mighty silent about it.)

A few weeks ago, I was the reader in church.  I changed words such as "kingdom" to "realm" and "He" to "God" and I also changed the traditional ending, "The word of the Lord" to "Here ends our lesson".  (To which the traditional response is "Thanks be to God," something that does not need changing.)  The one pastor for whom this is blasphemy pointed to me my "mistake".  Uh, no.  Not a mistake.  (The changes had been cleared, by the way, by the director of children's and family ministry and by the senior pastor, though it is entirely possible that the younger pastor did not know this.)

The point?  I don't know how much longer I can take this, yet here I am, appointed Parish Education Chair.

As if the whole rigmarole about inclusive language isn't enough (the senior pastor thinks of it as "optional," meaning that readers may change the words if they want to), I then had another "brilliant" idea.

Every year, our church has a Blessing of the Animals Sunday (Oct 3 this year).  Lovely tradition.  Everybody brings their pets (or pictures of their pets -- no horses have yet to show up at church) and each one receives a blessing and a treat.  The kids, in particular, LOVE this Sunday.  Pets (at least those unlikely to have an accident) are even allowed in the sanctuary.

So, it occurred to me that the previous Sunday (Sept. 26) would be good to have an animal theme for adult education hour.  I mentioned that one of the challenging issues of our time is animal rights and that it would be a thought-provoking discussion (NOT SERMON) to have and we could tie it back to two church traditions -- the Blessing of the Animals Sunday and the church task force, Caring for Creation (which has presented on such topics of supporting local farmers and reducing food-to-grocery-store-miles).  We could even briefly explore how the Genesis command of "have dominion over all" has perhaps led to some things we should re-think. 

Logical?  I think so.  Could I do it without proclaiming that everybody go vegan?  Yes, I could.  Am I willing to?  Again, yes, even though I think going vegan is the logical conclusion to the facts about animal suffering, HUMAN health, and environmental degradation.

So, what was the initial response?  A few people said yes (and by the way, I *do* have the blessing of the council to do the talk).  But two people were less than responsive -- one guy (who used to run the adult education hour) said that I have to "present the opposing side".  What is that?  As my (omnivore) husband joked, "the NRA".  Even the senior pastor (in a separate meeting) joked, "the opposite side is 'let's kill the animals!'".  (His daughter is vegan; I suspect that little fact makes him immediately see the ridiculousness of requiring the "opposing view".)

What REALLY gets me, though, is that I've NEVER seen any other speaker during adult education hour have to present anything other than what he or she is there to present (end of life decisions, archeology in Israel, missionary trips, history of Handel's Messiah, etc.).  WHY should *I* be required to do differently? 

It's a tough topic -- thinking that animals HAVE rights is revolutionary and I'm the first to admit that it still makes me a bit twitchy.  But it's a great topic BECAUSE it isn't easy.  It's also a great way to let people know what's involved in those eggs or meat or milk that they routinely purchase.

There is always a tension between fighting the good fight in a place that arguably isn't ready for it or joining those who have already fought it.  Once, back in Divinity School, I asked Professor Krister Stendahl (former Bishop of Sweden), whether or not one should bring up controversial topics in church or whether one should be more quiet about them.  He looked at me and said, 'Well, sister, some people fart on the inside and some fart on the outside.'  I *think* that means there's no clear answer and some people are destined to push the envelope and others are destined to walk away to a place that is more comfortable for them.

Holy Moly.  I am SO wishing I hadn't volunteered to do this talk.  And that guy who suggested maybe I should find another church?  Maybe he should know that idea isn't too far from my mind.

Miracles

Last night, I made a three bean salad (kind of a mix between the recipe my mother used to make and one from Freedman and Barnouin's Skinny Bitch in the Kitch).  With that, I served watermelon, pickles, tomato slices and "chik'n" gardenburgers on whole wheat buns.  And well, my husband did sneak in some non-vegan "Pirate Booty" as a side item.  (The boys were thrilled; I, of course, don't eat that.)

Miracle of miracles -- EVERYBODY was happy with the food.  If you've read very many of my family-oriented posts, you know getting four people (my daughter is away this weekend) to like the same food is indeed a miracle.  (To be fair, it's also a miracle when everybody is happy with a non-vegan meal, too.)

THEN, my 10-year-old announced he's vegetarian.  Now, this boy LOVES meat, so I'm not expecting that this vegetarian thing is going to be permanent (at least, I'm not expecting it to stick right away). 

Since I am very aware of the tendency for parental enthusiasm to backfire (that is, to cause the child to do a 180), I just kinda...shrugged.

"Oh!  Hm!  OK!  Uh...why?"

He was equally nonchalant.  (He's nothing if not perceptive...I'm sure he knew *exactly* why I was acting so uncharacteristically unimpressed by a declaration of vegetarianism.)  "Well," he said, taking his time to answer, "I just think I like the food."  He shrugged back at me and put yet more ketchup on his burger. 

Maybe Reagan was right that ketchup counts as a vegetable in the diets of children...they certainly eat far more that the recommended serving size.

My husband and I shared a conspiratorial wink across the table. 

I thought about all the things I could say -- animals that were (theoretically) alive because he wasn't eating meat, environments saved because he wasn't contributing to animal agriculture, improved health.

I kept quiet.  For now, it's enough if he decides he just....likes the food.

Alienation

A number of months ago, when I wrote a  post about how overwhelming it is to attempt veganism and to avoid foods now known to be problematic (i.e, all stuff with high fructose corn syrup) one of my friends commented (privately, I believe), that I should be careful, or I'd end up an alien in my own world.  (I was proposing giving up ALL products with high fructose corn syrup, all peanut butter and all products with GMO ingredients, AND being vegan and buying exclusively organic.)  At the time, I thought that comment was a bit dramatic, but now I'm not so sure.  He may be right; trying to do all these things will box me into a lonely, limited corner.  I suspect it's a huge reason why more people don't attempt veganism, or at least don't attempt it consistently. 

The ONLY vegans I know are you guys here on the internet.  I have no "real-life" vegan friends.  I find myself frequently in situations where I have to make non-vegan choices.  For instance, when shopping for sports equipment for my kids, I'm constantly confronted with leather.  Should I not let them play?  That choice seems ridiculous.  Should I just search higher and lower for the elusive non-leather baseball and soccer stuff?  I've tried the latter and had mixed results, both in terms of quality of items and in terms of ease of finding them.  One kid ended up with leather shoes because, after going to four stores, nobody had a non-leather baseball shoe in his size.  Maybe there's actually a hidden group of vegan parents of baseball players buying out all the shoes for 10-year-old boys.  I dunno.  I certainly haven't met them.  I suspect there's just a lot of 10-year-old boys playing baseball. :)

The latest alienating -- literally -- experience is the struggle I'm having over WHY to be vegan, and to what extent.  The most vocal (and academic) vegans emphasize that there is no sufficient reason to justify continuing disparate treatment of non-human animals (Thank you, Tim, for your words).  We don't *need* to eat them; we can get what we need from non-animal foods.  Despite that we know they suffer pain and know they're alive, we continue, as a society to treat them as objects -- as if they existed purely for us (for food, for clothing and for entertainment).  We know that over centuries we've bred them such that they meet OUR needs but would not exist in nature as they are (many domesticated animals no longer know how to breed and suffer horrible physical oddities because, for instance, we've raised them to have more meat than they "should" have or to produce more milk than they would need to have for their own young).

Despite the vast evidence -- philosophical, scientific and logical -- that one can present for WHY animals should no longer be treated as they have been, most people find it "extreme" to suggest that the reason to eat a plant-based diet is NOT just for us (it's better for the environment and our health), but that it is better AND MORE ETHICAL for the ANIMALS.  As soon as I even suggest that I'm starting to think that way, I feel as if my friend's warning has come to pass -- I'm an alien in my own world.  I'm an extremist and a weirdo.

The pull of cultural and religious and social norms is amazingly strong and those are the only arguments, really, that people can use to justify their continuing to eat meat and dairy.  And those norms are, as all cultural and religious and social norms are, relative -- they are not simply "right" or "wrong" but instead are what we are used to.

And the more I think about WHY people do what they do, the more I think -- even as a sociologist -- that simply doing what we're used to doing is not a sufficient reason to continue to do so.

But I still feel like an alien.

Prejudiced Reviews

I should be preparing for company for Memorial Day, but instead I'm writing an admittedly half-thought-out and hurried post on books and reviews -- namely, that many books on veganism appear to be reviewed only by vegans.  As I write this, three children are whining for my attention, the laundry needs folded, the dishes need to be done, and it's pouring rain; my thoughts are interrupted constantly by what most people call "real life". 

But heck, I want to blog!  Real life, you'll just have to wait.

The prejudiced reviews are a real problem.  I want to read more books on the subject -- but I also want to read the good ones and one way, traditionally, to know which books are good is to look for reviews.  If all reviews come from people already committed to a vegan philosophy, then of course those books espousing veganism are touted as being the final argument, and there must be no need to say more.  There must be nothing to criticize.  There must be nothing wrong with veganism.  Or, to put it the other way, there must be everything wrong with non-veganism.

It troubles me that, for instance, a forthcoming book with a provocative title (Meat is for Pussies) appears only to have been reviewed by other vegans (who, judging by the reviews I've read, think the book is nothing but pure truth). 

I haven't read the book (but I plan to).  It may be, indeed, that it's wonderful.  The problem, however, is that without more "objective" reviewers, to outsiders (read:  non-vegans) it appears hopelessly prejudiced. 

I imagine that there are two predictable vegan responses to my concerns.  One, the mainstream media ignores us.  (Lately?  Not so much.)  Two, the only people who will read this and review it positively are committed vegans. (I'm not so sure; it seems to be that even non-vegans are starting to recognize that veganism has something to teach everyone, even if many many people will decide it goes too far.)

Vegans take hits from critics all the time for being extreme, utopian, unrealistic, judgmental.  Non-vegans take hits all the time for being selfish, speciesist, cruel, uncaring.  Both sets of labels are harsh and only contain, at best, kernels of truth.  Most vegetarians or almost vegans or plain old omnivores that I know are, if they have any expendable time or income, doing thoughtful things to lessen their impact on the environment, for instance -- including making new food choices on a regular basis.  And many vegans I've met are extremely sweet people who try very hard to appreciate where others are coming from.  However, some of the more vocal proponents of veganism take pride in mincing no words and they come across about as militant and evangelical as leaders of a movement can be.  That understandably closes the ears of many, many people.

I've been having an "argument" of sorts over on a google blog group called veganviews.  The argument is the typical one:  whether something short of veganism (like I espouse) is possible and whether vegans can even get their heads around it, given that they philosophically are opposed to use of animals for any type of human consumption.  (The answers, according to vegans, are no and no.)

It's obvious that veganism challenges some of the core assumptions of our collective cultures, most notably the idea that people are somehow "above" animals and can therefore raise, breed, and use them for our benefit.  (As you know, I take the position that limited and careful use should be OK -- but that to get to that place requires massive social changes; it falls short of the vegan ideal.) 

Can veganism be reviewed thoughtfully by a non-vegan?  I think it can.  Too bad that so many of the books written by thoughtful vegan researchers are not reviewed (so far as I can find) by non-vegans, and are reviewed only in small, alternative places unlikely to be known to most people (making it even less likely that a non-vegan will even know of them).

Do you know of books (other than Skinny Bitch and The China Study and Eating Animals) which espouse veganism AND have been reviewed (even critically!) by non-vegans, particularly in major presses or news outlets?

If so, I'd love some book recommendations and the names of the reviews that go with them. 

Applebee's

I'm in the thick of the end-of-the-term madness and have little time right now to write a proper post.  But I thought I'd share my experience this evening eating out with my kids and my sister, her husband, and their three kids.

We went to Applebee's.  Family friendly.  Relatively affordable.  Relatively large menu.  We knew each of the kids (each picky in a different way) would actually eat something there. 

We discovered nearly immediately that the menu offers NOTHING vegan; not even anything vegetarian.  Unless you want a plain baked potato or just an order of fries, this restaurant caters exclusively to the meat-and-dairy-eating crowd.  Not a huge surprise, of course, but *most* restaurants these days have at least a pasta and vegetable option or a garden burger.  Not Applebees.

I sat there mulling my options:  cheat and eat something with dairy (as in a ceasar salad or a bowl of French onion soup) or just have a beverage and be REALLY hungry on the two-hour-long ride home.

Then I noticed the menu had a dijon chicken and portobello mushroom item that came with steamed veggies and potatoes.  Could, I wondered, they make that with more mushrooms and leave out the chicken?

I asked for that.  The cooks did a very good job and the presentation was, frankly, very attractive.   My sister, a committed omnivore eating a spinach and shrimp salad, looked over and said, "THAT looks good.  Next time I'm here, I'm ordering that, that way." 

A little vegan victory for this almost vegan.  :)

Calorie Counting and Grade Grubbing

So, according to several vegan writers, if you go vegan you can skip calorie counting (Skinny Bitch is one of the books that proposes this).

I suppose that might be true if a) you NEVER "cheat," b) you NEVER consume sugar, and c) you NEVER crave something like that white flour-and white-sugar-high fructose corn syrup-filled pumpkin scone at Starbucks. 

It may also be true for people under 35 (the age when my metabolism decided to come to a grinding halt).

For us mere mortals, those three caveats are hard to stick to.  There is temptation everywhere and old habits are hard to break, particularly those lattes that gosh darn it! have too many calories and too much sugar in them.  (For the record, I rarely buy them anymore, though I still daily drink one or two cups of regular coffee that I make at home.)

I've discovered that if I want to lose weight EVEN WHILE eating a vegan diet, I have to count calories.

I've found a website, caloriecount.about.com, to be incredibly helpful.

It works just like you would imagine it would:  you keep a log of EVERYTHING you eat, paying particular attention to quantities, of course.  (It's amazing how much oatmeal I was eating before I learned to eat ONLY what is considered ONE serving.) You also keep a log of all activities. At the end of the day, you hope to have expended more calories than you consumed. 

I've quickly discovered two things.  One, I eat more than I thought I did.  I bet most people do.  Two, I do less than I thought I did.  Again, I bet that's true for most people. 

OUCH.

The website first asks you to give them basic information:  your current weight and height, your age, your desired weight, whether your lifestyle is sedentary or active, etc. 

It also asks you to measure your wrist, to give them an indication of your body build.  I always assumed I was "average," but, according to them, I have a large build.  Or, at least, my wrist (which looks thin to me) has a "large" circumference.

That is actually INCREDIBLY good news, as I have never been able to be as "thin" or as "light" as those guidelines suggest one my height could be (and still be healthy).  (If you have a heavier frame, you're allowed to be at the upper end of "normal" without any worry of being too heavy, as I'm sure you all know.  I just never realized I was actually one of those people.) 

According to their analysis of my diet, I am consistently high (that's good) in consuming vitamins A and C, and I do a darn good job managing my calories (now that I'm paying more attention to them).

But most days I am deficient in almost every other category they have, such as fats, protein, potassium, iron, carbs, and calcium (the calcium thing WAS easier when I was eating dairy...).  I'm also, according to them, not eating enough fiber, which makes NO sense to me whatsoever; I actually question their analysis here.  If you're eating between 7 and 10 servings of fruits and vegetables a day, how could you NOT be consuming enough fiber!!??

There's other evidence in my life that fiber is a non-issue.

I am also, according to the website, still eating too much sugar. 

Good lord.  I have cut back SO much; if *I* am still eating too much sugar then I guarantee 99% of the rest of America is eating too much sugar. 

Perhaps that's no big shocker.  But golly, sugar is clearly an American addiction!

So, I am making choices as I go.  If, for instance, after recording my breakfast, I see where I'm deficient, then I make sure the next snack or meal intentionally addresses one or more of the nutritional deficits.

I no longer just reach for bread and peanut butter when I'm in the mood for a snack.

I've never kept this kind of log before, but doing so is a good thing.  It's made me FAR more aware than ever of how even somebody who eats "well" intentionally can have some rather serious deficits in their diet. After all, choosing a mostly vegan diet in this culture is a VERY intentional choice.

It's made me aware of how being vegan IS harder than being an omnivore in terms of getting adequate nutrition (not, of course, meaning to infer that all omnivores eat well). 

It's not impossible, but it is harder.  Let's be honest!

The website grades your food choices and analyzes what you eat in a surprisingly complete way.

Overall, I consistently get a grade of "A" for my food choices.

God, I am SUCH a grade grubber.

But, some individual choices are still problematic. Use even a teaspoonful of sugar in your coffee and you get a "D" for that particular choice.

Geez.  That may be the first "D" I've ever earned. 

I've discovered that choosing molasses instead of white sugar earns me a B+.

:)

Diet Advice

Think of this post as a Dear Abby column, only you all are Abby.

I had my last child 5 1/2 years ago.  I lost most of the weight immediately (as I was lucky to do with the other two as well).  However, I'm still hauling around the last 10 pounds.

One of my totally selfish reasons for trying a vegan diet was the somewhat promised claim in Skinny Bitch (I still love the book) that going vegan = weight loss.

Nearly a year into the diet with very very few instances of cheating AND exercising most days (minimum 30 minutes, max 90) and I STILL weigh the same.

I'd like to think it's "all muscle," but one look in the mirror shows otherwise.   Three pregnancies = no waist to speak of.  Certain "assets" are smaller than ever.  The thighs are "too big".

I know part of it is my age (42).  Anybody who thinks you can maintain the body you had at 20 for the rest of your life is NUTS.  Metabolism slows down; muscle is harder to maintain.  Things get...soft.

Still, I harbor this dream that I *should* be able to lose these last 10 pounds (preferably all from my hips and thighs).

OK -- please advise!  :)

Sufficiency and Veganism: Is "Almost" "Enough"?

Note:  This will be cross-posted at my friend Gina LaRoche's blog, Seven Stones Leadership.  The two blogs and their audiences are quite different, though Gina and I both think that the theme of sufficiency -- something she often writes about and something I've implicitly discussed in several blogs -- is a common thread.  For those of you already super familiar with veganism, much of what is here is not new.  For some of her readers, however, it might be.  


Even since I started this vegan "thing," I've had this nagging question in the back of my head:  is what I'm doing "enough"?

The hard-core vegans -- those who NEVER eat any dairy or meat, NEVER wear any leather or fur or silk, NEVER eat any honey, NEVER wear any wool -- those people adamantly believe that my "almost" veganism (I wear leather shoes that I've had forever, though I haven't bought new leather since going vegan, and I occasionally consume dairy and honey) isn't enough.

Consuming meat and dairy is normative in American (and indeed, *most*) cultures.  So is wearing wool, eating honey, wearing silk, wearing leather, and for some classes, wearing fur.  It's not surprising, given how "normal" all of that is, that many people think vegans are, well, a bit nuts.

At its core, veganism is about not using animals for human use (other than for pets).  Hence the bans on so many things that most people don't even think about.

When I first heard of veganism, back in the early 90s, I wasn't terribly impressed.  The gal I met hid behind her dyed jet-black hair and talked in imperceptible tones.  I didn't connect at all.  I was already "mostly" vegetarian, though more for economic reasons than for any sense of the environmental degredation caused by factory farming or the inherent cruelty involved in killing animals for food.  (If you want a lazy way to learn about the true horrors of factory farming and the (hopefully) unintended health consequences this kind of "farming" creates, just watch the excellent documentary Food, Inc. or see my post, "Overwhelmed".  Not a bad idea to re-read that book you skimmed in high school either-- Upton Sinclair's The Jungle.)


Most of us know that as a species, we’re destroying the planet, using up natural resources, putting ourselves and future generations in literal and figurative debt. It is HIGH TIME that we all think of sufficiency, rather than excess or abundance, as one of our goals. 

One way to think of sufficiency is to consider how our diet choices have far-reaching consequences for both the environment and the lives of others (human and non-human).


Among vegans, the idea of sufficiency is much less talked about than the goals of "being humane" or "promoting animal rights" because, by definition, they preach a no-animal-products-ever hard line, which obviously goes beyond the mere goal of “sufficiency”. I've seen discussions among vegans on the use of worms and ladybugs in home gardens (both should not be purchased, according to vegans). I've seen discussions of how important it is NOT to use manure as fertilizer because it is an animal product produced by the factory farm system. (Yet, in my own experience, nothing is better than a little poop to get those vegetables to grow!) I’ve seen discussions of vegan condoms (honestly, I'd never thought about condoms in terms of veganism). I've participated in discussions of whether or not it's ethical to sheer sheep and use their wool (see "The Wool, Our Eyes and 'Truth'" ).


If you're wondering if some of this vegan stuff is going a bit too far, you're not alone.


But this leaves me wondering:  What *is* enough? I’ve discovered that it’s impossible to have this conversation with hard-line vegans because their entire philosophy holds that human use of animals is immoral and should therefore be forbidden.   Sufficiency isn't a goal for them.  Though perhaps it's a more politcally palatable and attainable goal for the vast majority of us.

I'm left wondering whether it's enough to have eaten meat only once this past year (as I did)?  Or for the rest of my family to have taken a less drastic approach and simply cut their meat consumption by nearly 50%, and to have switched from conventionally raised meat to that which is organic, grass-fed and free-range?  Is it enough that I have nearly eliminated by dairy consumption by switching to non-dairy milks and flax seed egg replacers in my home, though I allow myself dairy when outside the house?


Behind most of the facts that vegans often espouse lies a simple one that bears repeating, often: EVERY thing we do has a consequence.


Some vegans counter my "almost veganism" with a rather depressing idiom:  "Every raindrop thinks it doesn't contribute to the flood."  This point of view, obviously, is an anti-sufficiency perspective.  Others quote the philosopher Peter Singer, who wrote that "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we'd all be vegetarians."   Indeed, I have no doubt that a huge majority of people I know would rethink their meat consumption if they had to watch animals being slaughtered.   Others counter my almost veganism with a very true fact:  "Factory farming is neither sustainable nor humane." (If you watch Food, Inc., you'll KNOW, and this is why I've forced my family to choose different meats if they're going to continue to eat meat.)  Finally, other vegans put the reality quite bluntly:  "Meat is covered in poop."


OK, this last one is a *bit* overstated, but with all the E. coli outbreaks in the news -- look at the CDC website if you don't believe me -- we *should be* aware of how often our meat (and sometimes other food) is contaminated. The American value of efficiency -- getting the most bang for your dollar -- has led to unintended horrible health consequences.


Ursula K. LeGuin wrote that "to light a candle casts a shadow". To live is to affect the planet. That much is human. But to live as abundantly, as extravagantly, as most Americans do – privileging efficiency over sufficiency – is, by definition, to be terribly wasteful and poor stewards of our environment.


How often do we eat out when we could have chosen to eat in? How often are our portion sizes ridiculously too big (especially in restaurants)? How many of us are overweight?  (The official statistics suggest that more than 50% of Americans are overweight -- THAT is NOT just genetics!) How many of us have too many clothes largely because they’re cheap due to being made overseas by grossly underpaid workers? How many of us are convinced that we “need” a new cell phone every two years even though our current one works just fine?


When we think of sufficiency, we have to be prepared to say we don’t *need* something. We don’t need a new pair of sandals just because the press says that last year’s model is outdated. We don’t need a medium scoop of ice cream just because the price differential between small and medium makes the medium a “better value”.

Similarly, we don’t need to eat meat every day just because that’s normative or because it’s relatively cheap (due to US subsidies of the industry, by the way --- read Skinny Bitch, too, or Eating Animals).

Sufficiency. Most people can get their head around this goal.


What, however, is a sufficient change in our diet choices?  


I'm a big believer in:


"The good is not the enemy of the excellent."


"A journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step" (Chinese proverb).


I'd bet the planet and the animals and humans on it would all do better if people moved toward "almost vegetarianism". It's not veganism (arguably the "best" diet choice in terms of environmental impact and humane treatment of animals).  It's not even true vegetarianism.


But it’s probably politically more palatable and therefore more attainable.


And it may be sufficient.

Need a Recipe for Your Non-Vegan Kids? This Worked

It's been, as I've said before, a HUGE challenge to change the kids' diets from, for lack of a better descriptor, "conventional" to vegan or "almost" vegan. We are a LONG way, still, from what I would consider ideal. But we're making progress.

I could mention here that the husband is an omnivore and has no intention of changing, so there's THAT. I take comfort in knowing that I am NOT alone in being in a mixed marriage. But certainly that sends mixed signals to the kids. No way around that. :)

But this week, I did find something that they will eat. And it's healthy. And raw. And of course, vegan.

A twitter friend (@veganRD) gave me a recipe for a green smoothie. The kids, as predicted, showed NO interest in tasting blended green veggies.

Frankly, at their age, I wouldn't have gone near it either. It *does not* look appetizing. And kids aren't known for their vegetable passion anyway.

But it occured to me that if I serve it as a dip, maybe -- just maybe -- they would go for it.

They did. I feel triumphant.

So, here's the recipe. Think "guacamole on steroids".

Smoothie/Dip Recipe (with nods to @veganRD)
1 smalll zucchini
1 tomato
1 celery stalk
1 green onion
1 t. lemon juice
1 garlic clove
1 c. spinach or chard
6 basil leaves
1/2 avocado
1/2 t. white miso

cayenne
salt

Blend (with some water to make a smoothie; without to make a dip).
Enjoy!!

I will absolve thee of thy sins...

This blog is meant as a vegan confessional, a dialogue between me and my vegan or veganish or vegan-aspiring friends.

What "vegan sins" have you committed lately?

I'll start: on the way home from my daughter's soccer game, I was dying (yes, DYING) of thirst. The golden arches were right ahead. I approached the drive thru, fully intending to buy an innocent water.

I bought a small mocha frappe. Whipped cream and all.

And I totally enjoyed it.

OK. Now it's your turn. GO!

Appropriating Jesus for Veganism?

I NEVER thought this would be a topic for my blog, even though I'm Christian and even though I have a degree from Harvard Divinity School.

But never say never.

I've run across some *interesting* claims this week on various vegan blogs, all having to do with Easter, animal rights, Christianity and Jesus. The gist is the following: Christianity is about tolerance (that's certainly debatable!); Jesus was an accepting and caring person; Jesus would not have abused animals; Jesus preached against animal sacrifice.

The blogs then end with: AND THEREFORE...Christians shouldn't a) dye eggs, b) have pet bunnies, c) eat meat. One blog even claimed that Jesus was certainly a vegan.

(Aside: this is a quick thought piece, as were the other blogs I've read on this topic. Please don't vilify me for not quoting chapter and verse here.)

Here's the gist of what I know from living my life as a Christian and spending some quality time studying my own religion with some of the best scholars available.

1) From what we know of the historical Jesus, he was concerned with "reforming" his own religion, which he felt at the time was too controlled by one group of Jews (the Pharisees), thus excluding other groups. He also felt that the religion, as then taught by the Pharisees, had gotten away from what he perceived to be its most important tenants. (Much of the writings in the gospel of Matthew -- the oldest Gospel -- are so similar to rabbinic writings of the time that it is clear that, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount is basically a summary of widely-held rabbinic teachings that have been put into the mouth of Jesus. Jesus, at least in the eyes of his contemporary and first-century followers, was trying to get people to remember the tenants of the "true Judaism". Like all religions, there are debates then and now about what that is. Jesus didn't particularly like a legalistic interpretation of his religion, which was very much a Pharisaic view of it, but that does NOT mean that he didn't believe in the importance of good works. He did. And Christians worth their salt do too. Prayer is not enough.)

2) From what we know of the *church*, followers of Jesus had several agendas and, like all groups with agendas, worked through politics and accepted local belief systems to gain followers. Not all writings about Jesus ended up in the "canon;" what ended up in our Bibles is the result of POLITICAL (read: human) choice, not "God's pen". There is plenty of Greek influence in our religion; plenty of pagan and (obviously) Jewish influence too. Christianity didn't spring from God anymore than any other religion did. (Yeah, I know millions disagree with me. Sorry, but history shows that I'm right.)

3) Jesus was a product of his time. People ate meat. People sacrificed animals. People drank milk. People wore leather. People used honey for food and for medicinal purposes. People raised animals. People ate what was in season and what grew locally. Meat was important in order to get through those months when nothing much was growing. To think otherwise is pure fantasy.

4) The story of Jesus throwing over the tables in the temple (my kids refer to it as "Jesus' temper tantrum") is a story of Jesus' fury over people using a sacred space for profane activities (exchanging money). It is NOT about his desire to save the poor turtle doves from being sacrificed. (At the time, there were two main forms of tithing to the temple -- giving turtle doves or giving *I believe* Roman coins. The poorer people brought the animals; the wealthier people brought the coins. Jesus was upset with both groups, not just the ones bringing the animals, and his concern wasn't about the animals' welfare but about the propriety of exchanging money in a house of worship.) Some vegan blogs I've read like to say that what Jesus was really concerned with is the welfare of the animals.

BS

I have no problem with, basically, a vegan worldview. I have no problem with criticisms of traditions that exploit animals or people. The world has changed since Jesus' time and it will continue to change. We can change. (Religions can change too, albeit they usually do so at glacial speed.) Frankly, the example of the rise of Christianity (or the rise of Islam or...) is a great example of how societies and worldviews change.

I *DO* have a problem with people propagating crazy interpretations of scripture and/or history. If there's EVIDENCE of Jesus being a vegan, I'm happy to hear of it. If it's just what somebody thinks we SHOULD believe about Jesus because he was so caring or so tolerant, that's a whole other ball of wax and hardly supportable with available historical or scriptural evidence.

And it really isn't why Christians "should" or "should not" dye eggs or eat meat.

Or have pet bunnies.

Cooking in An Almost Vegetarian Household with Three Kids

One of the challenges to becoming *totally* vegan, at least for me, boils down to one thing: cooking.

I've never been much of a cook. I *like* good food. I even *like* cooking, though I have absolutely no intuitive sense for it. I rely solely on recipes and pray like hell they've been written for non-cooks like me.

Cooking has never fit well with my life; left to my own devices, I'd probably eat a very monotonous diet and only cook twice a week. I love raw vegetables and fruit; I like bagels, brown rice and oatmeal just fine; I've been known to define microwaving a bocaburger as "cooking".

To cook really good meals takes time, and, especially in the evening, time is in short supply and kids' tempers are on a short fuse. (Admittedly, those tempers are generally dramatically improved by food.) I think the kids' diets (and mine) have suffered from my cooking (or lack thereof). This has been true for a long time, since before I went on this "vegan kick". I'm trying to correct that.

I have to remind myself, before I get going too far here, of what I have done right with the kids' diets: they have ALWAYS had fruit and vegetables every day. We've always limited sweets (though not as much as some parents). We don't drink soda except on special occasions. Juice is pretty much only served at breakfast. We've never encouraged milk drinking, figuring that they could do just fine with water and could just use milk on cereal. (That's still the case.)

I think I could have done a better job becoming vegan had I learned to cook BEFORE I had kids. Once I had kids, to be totally honest, cooking became what we did between 5 and 5:30 every evening in order to feed the kids SOMETHING that resembled dinner and in order to keep them on a kid-friendly schedule (i.e., in bed and bathed by 8 pm).

A typical meal here (then and now, since "almost veganism") is steamed brown rice and stir-fried vegetables (depending on who is eating it, with tofu or chicken or shrimp). Another typical dinner meal is tacos -- now we use fake ground beef, but the rest of the meal is what it always was (canned refries, chopped lettuce and tomatoes, hot sauce, avocado, hard shells, and for some, cheese). Neither meal takes more than 30 minutes to prepare.

I also admit that neither meal is very exciting and the kids are tired of both of those. So. Am. I.

Now that I work and two of my kids do sports, the evening meal is even more rushed and even more of a non-event. In theory, I think it's terribly important for a family to eat dinner together every night. But, for practical reasons, there are several nights a week where that does not happen. I also -- again, theoretically -- think that if you are driving your kid to soccer and getting McDonald's on the way home, that is, to quote Barbara Kingsolver, an "interesting" choice.

But I have to plead guilty to having done that every once in awhile (if you need statistics, I think once a month is honest). I've done this EVEN since becoming "almost vegan," even since having my consciousness raised as to the horrors of factory farming.

I have purchased "Happy Meals" for the kids on the busiest of our evenings, on days when the best laid plans have gone awry and I've already placated the kids with fruit and crackers and they are HUNGRY and it would be a form of cruelty to expect them to wait until 8 pm, when a homemade dinner would be available.

The irony of being almost vegan and doing this is not lost on me. But neither is the reality that fast food -- though overused by millions -- does exist for a reason. Alice doesn't live here. And neither does a homemaker. And, at least here, there is no vegan/vegetarian drive through that I know of (and the kids refuse to go for the salad options -- they're KIDS).

The slow food movement is an important one -- and one I like to think I'm now a part of -- but there are nights when I can't do slow food.

I regularly read several vegan blogs. Many of them emphasize how food, prepared with love and time, tastes better and is better for you. I don't doubt that. But it *seems* that many vegan writers are childless (or perhaps they never mention their children). It *seems* that they have lots of time to shop at a variety of farmers' markets and specialty grocery stores and that they have even more time to lovingly prepare their food.

I love days like that. I just don't have enough of them.

One of the vegan cookbooks I have even says that they (the writers) prefer "two hour recipes". (Admittedly, they do have many recipes marked with "45," indicating that, in theory, you should be able to prepare the whole thing in 45 minutes. The problem is that if you want to prepare two or three of these 45 minute recipes -- things that go together-- you're probably not going to get them all done in 45 minutes, and the next thing you know, you have been cooking for two hours and everybody is cranky as hell and SOMEBODY needs to be taken SOMEWHERE.)

I rarely have two hours to dedicate to dinner, at least not on school nights. I DEFINITELY don't have that time for breakfast or lunch.

Breakfast here is still frozen waffles and fruit, or boxed cereal and fruit, or oatmeal and fruit. Lunch here is still (for the kids) PB &J sandwiches or soup, and fruit or vegetables and crackers. An occasional yogurt finds its way into their lunches, too. (Sorry, vegan readers...)

We also eat a variety of frozen vegan things (various veggie burgers), and ramen noodles (are they vegan??). I worry, sometimes, that the vegan or vegetarian police will show up at my door and serve me some legal notice for giving my kids ramen, steamed broccoli, and cut up bananas and a fruit smoothie for dinner. Sure, the vegan lasagne with the homemade sauce, fake cheese and tofu ricotta would be better for them (if I could get them to eat it), but I only have time for that kind of recipe about twice a week.


I do think things are improving here. We all eat even more fruit and vegetables than we did before. Meat is served (to everyone else, not me) about three times a week (but only one meal a day). There's definitely less dairy consumption, though I suspect that won't disappear from this house entirely.

But slow cooking every day? I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Knickers in a Twist

So, Obama and the Democrats narrowly passed a bill to ensure that every American has access to some health care. Undoubtedly, there are going to be problems -- with implementation, loopholes, claims of who is covered, what is covered, how long people wait for appointments, etc.

Just because I am ecstatic over this legislation doesn't mean that I don't recognize there are going to be problems as it becomes the new norm. Any change this big brings problems!

This is going to affect doctors' patient loads and probably malpractice insurance too. We already need more primary care doctors and now we're going to need even more. It's likely that some people will have to give up something (not clear what yet) in order that other people have a wee little bit of health care. There is no aspect of health care that won't be affected, but it's clear that this is a long-awaited attempt to FINALLY give Americans -- living in the land of "I-did-it-myself-I-never-accept-government-help" myths -- a contemporary welfare state where ALL citizens have similar rights to health care.

Change is afoot.

And boy, are some people PISSED OFF.

They have their knickers in a proverbial twist.

It's the end of the republic; the constitution has been abandoned; Armageddon is on the horizon, if not already here. We're socialists now.

I can't help but compare the restructuring of the American welfare state and the accompanying growing pains/economic ripple effects to my favorite obsession, veganism.

*IF* enough people went vegan, there would be ripple effects throughout the economy that are not unlike the upcoming changes in the health care industry.

Corporations like Tyson and Smithfield might go under, or perhaps be pressured to produce only free-range, grass-fed animals who aren't left to stand in their own manure in CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations). This vision is not the vegan dream, to be sure, but it is admittedly a better vision for animals than the current factory farming nightmare.

Farmers, currently under the thumb of these huge corporations, would not have the same incentives to mass produce food -- they would either go under along with the corporations who have been cheaply supporting them, or they would have to find other, more sustainable ways to farm for the few (hopefully environmentally conscious) meat eaters that remained.

Having considerably fewer meat eaters would also affect corn production -- if there aren't animals "needing" to eat it, there's not much of an incentive to grow so much of it. (This is particularly likely since there is so much press lately about the evils of corn throughout our food system; turns out that high fructose corn syrup and maltodextrin and related products aren't so good for us and may be the prime culprits in the obesity and diabetes epidemics. Imagine that!)

Meat would likely become more expensive, making it less of a go-to food and more of a special occasion one. Again, not the vegan dream, but one that is environmentally sustainable and better for our overall health.

Perhaps (though this is probably wishful thinking) working conditions for the (usually poor, minority, or immigrant) workers in slaughterhouses would improve.

Farmland currently used for animals would be turned over to other sources of food (i.e., plants).

With dramatically fewer animals to feed, there would be a huge decrease in the amount of poop they produce. Runoff from factory farms would be lessened, leaving water sources (and crops) healthier.

The current argument that a-vegan-driving-a-Hummer is-less-of-an-environmental-hazard-than-a-meat-eater-driving-a-Prius might have to be reexamined.

Oh, and assuming that people eat well and don't just find ways to stuff different crap into their meat-and-dairy-free mouths, people would likely, as a whole, be healthier. That would have to be a good thing for our new health care system, don't you think?!

I'm not expecting that this will actually happen, at least not anytime soon. But the parallels between the two processes -- restructuring the American welfare state and restructuring the American diet -- are intriguing.

The Democrats get labeled socialists and babykillers and constitution destroyers and big government, pull-the-plug-on-granny freedom haters. The vegans get labeled crazy and excessive and out of touch, elite and obsessive.

I am happy to accept the following labels: democrat-leaning-toward-socialist, almost-vegan, and happily obsessive. I think we'd all be better off if we were, collectively, almost vegetarians and almost socialist democrats.

So, now that "we" have done the work for the new health care system, "we" have to work on the new American food system too.

It's for OUR OWN GOOD. And the good of the planet, and the good of a whole lot of animals.

Can't wait to hear what the opponents yell back.

Advocacy? Activisim? Teaching?

As a professor, I'm sometimes caught in the bind of what I *want* to say and what I *should* say. In general, I'm very, very careful. I don't reveal my political opinions (though most people could probably guess them pretty easily); I make sure my lectures stick to facts published in peer-reviewed articles or books. When discussing something that could be construed as controversial, I make sure I present both sides, even when I think the "other side" is basically out to lunch. I make sure my students always understand that most social issues have two sides, and (gasp!) even academics cannot always settle the debates.

So, when I decided, for my Sociology of Health and Medicine class, that I would present scientific evidence of the benefits of a plant-based diet, I did so nervously. Would the students be able to take the information and assimilate it into our typical sociological discussions of economic class, justice, socialization or help-seeking? Would they see it as relevant to a medical sociology class, or would I risk being seen as someone using class time to promote a personal interest?

I've assigned, for this week (the theme of which is the sociological study of lifestyles), to have students read research on vegetarianism, as well as excerpts from The China Study, a book about the largest epidemiological study ever undertaken. I did this in conjunction with the chapter in their textbook on healthy lifestyles; the chapter emphasized the (duh!) obvious needs for people to exercise, drink in moderation and refrain from drugs and cigarettes, as well as the age, education level, class, gender and race differences in those practices.

I didn't know when I assigned these readings if I'd look like a radical or not. Sure, this is Eugene and there are plenty of vegetarians and vegans here, but we're still very much a minority, and in general even sociologists (known for their radicalism among all academic departments) don't discuss diet. Sure, organics is big here, as is the trend to "know your farmer" and buy locally. In fact, it's probably easier here in this part of Oregon to meet the following criteria -- vegan or vegetarian, organic AND local -- than in practically any other part of the country.

But this is a sociology class and not an open pulpit for advocacy; I refrained from lecturing myself because I simply wanted to present the EVIDENCE and see if they would connect the issues we've been discussing all term (access to health and health care, disparities in health outcomes and help-seeking behaviors, economic class and health) to the medical research on vegetarian/vegan diets and health.

They did. Very well, in fact. A 65-page powerpoint presentation. They presented much more evidence that I would have, had I lectured myself. Their presentation was so long, however, that the class never got the chance to discuss the social, cultural, economic and political implications of vegetarianism or veganism, something I had hoped they would get to do.

So, today, before I lectured about Parson's conception of the sick role, I asked them if they wanted to talk about the students' presentation. They did. I asked if there were criticisms they had of the material. I got some interesting responses, ranging from, "Gosh, I tried to go vegan once but it's so hard and I couldn't get enough protein and craved meat all the time," to "Well, some meat is better than other meat; my Dad used to raise our meat or hunt it; I wasn't brought up eating meat from the grocery store."

Other criticisms were veganism can get to be expensive (yes, indeed, it can) and that it takes a long time to retrain yourself to shop, cook, and eat differently (I also agree). Still another critique was that cheap food like meat and dairy is subsidized by the government, which explains both why information about their poor products is not widely disseminated, as well as why people continue to buy it.

Another thoughtful student said that in many parts of the country, it might be stigmatizing NOT to eat meat and dairy; that in places like Eugene, it's almost cool, but it's unlikely to be perceived that way everywhere. Stigma. A key sociological concept. Love it.

Still another comment was that cattle in particular are almost symbolic of the pioneer spirit and the West. You'd almost think that last argument was for the point of NOT eating beef, but the point the student was trying to make was that giving up beef might feel, for some people, like giving up their heritage. I hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms, but as the great-great-granddaughter of a pioneer who got here from Iowa via a couple of oxen, I have to say I agree. Cattle are symbolic of the West and as long as factory farmers portray a bunch of "happy cows," most of us aren't going to question whether or not we should be eating them. Heritage, imagined communities, clever marketing -- all sociological topics. Love that too.

Vegans would of course have a FIELD DAY with these responses and would in particular jump all over the guy who said it's hard to get enough protein and the girl who said eating meat you hunt is better for you than eating meat you buy in the store.

I, however, find these responses very honest and, for the most part, true. As a class we ended up talking about the theoretical range of "good" (factory farming = very bad; grass-fed, free-range = better but more expensive; vegetarian/vegan = arguably even better, based on knowledge of Dr. Campbell's studies). We also discussed who is likely to know this information and who is likely to be able to act on it. (Same answer for virtually all health-related issues discussed this term: those with more money.)

Finally, we also discussed the social problems inherent in dealing with information that severely challenges long-held assumptions. EVEN ARMED WITH EVIDENCE FROM WELL-DONE STUDIES, people resist changing their diets. The cultural pulls of what you think you already know and affordability -- sociologists call these "socialization" and "economics" -- are strong deterrents against change.

Does milk "do a body good"? Is beef "what's for dinner"? Did you, your parents, your grandparents and pretty much everybody you've ever known drink milk and eat beef (or chicken or pork or fish or lamb)? If the answer is "yes," well, then, it's gonna be pretty hard to convince you that maybe you should not. Socialization is a powerful tool.

The students seemed to enjoy the discussion of diet, cultural norms, socialization, poverty, government subsidization, and health. Because this is a sociology class, we completely stayed away from the vegan philosophical arguments that it's never OK to eat or wear ANY animal products. I also did not bring up issues of environmental sustainability or a critique of factory farming or an animal rights' perspective. I kept the focus on health and health information and on how such information can be resisted for social, economic and cultural reasons.

Was I doing advocacy? Kinda. Activism? Not really. Teaching. You bet.

Progress

It's been awhile since I've written on the supposed topic of this blog: transitioning from a conventional diet to a vegan one.

I'm pretty much "there," though I occasionally allow a little dairy if I'm in somebody's house and the only options are carnivore or vegetarian. It's rare in my house that I do this, but outside of the house, it's sometimes hard to eat or drink without allowing for dairy. At church, for instance, I go ahead and have coffee with milk if I have coffee at all. At events like birthdays or holiday gatherings, I'll go ahead and have a dessert that probably has eggs and butter in it. Obviously, if I host the event, the food is vegan. But it's a bit much for me to bring my own vegan dessert to somebody else's party (I'll do so if asked). For example, if the only options at a potluck for main dishes are eggplant parm and fried chicken, I go ahead and eat the eggplant, leaving most of the cheese to the side. I have privileged being a polite guest over strict dietary preferences.

I'm comfortable with these allowances, though I know the die-hard vegans would not be.

As for the rest of the family -- my husband happily eats whatever vegan dishes I make, though he has not transitioned and has no plans to do so. When he cooks, which he does often, he makes a vegan version for me and the "regular" version for himself and the kids. He shops for vegan things without my asking him to do so. He's been very supportive. I think at least 50% of his meals are vegan, another 25% vegetarian, and probably another 25% have some meat. Not bad. I can live with that.

The kids? They all still eat dairy, though I restrict quantity much more than I used to. They're now used to hearing, "You already had one yogurt, so, no, you can't have cheese." They still eat meat, though probably only twice a week (which, in all honesty, is about the rate we used to eat meat as a family). So...they have more vegan options, but I can't claim they always go for them. Many nights, my husband and I eat a vegan entree, while the kids reject it and end up eating a sandwich or a bowl of soup, both of which are usually vegetarian.

It's a real uphill battle to CHANGE the way a family eats. We were already eating very healthily, at least compared to most American families. Vegetables and fruits have always been plentiful here; low-fat milk and whole grain cereals and breads too. The myriad ways to interpret "poor diet" -- processed foods, high sugar content, low fruit and vegetable intake, low fiber -- have never been good descriptors of my kids' diets, although my middle child is a junk food junkie if left to his own devices.

The additional burden -- and that IS what it is -- to forgo meat AND dairy -- is a big one. So, for now, I'm at peace with being the family vegan, setting an example, calmly answering questions (if they're asked!), and hoping that the kids decide on their own to eat even better than they already are.

The "Poll": How Long Have You Known About Veganism?

For the last month, I had a wee bitty poll on my blog here. It was poorly constructed, and meant only as a jumping-off point for a discussion of "knowledge" of veganism. The "sample" is absolutely in no way, shape or form, representative of a known population. I don't know who answered the question ("How long have you known about veganism?") but I strongly suspect that the 40 people who took the 6.5 seconds to answer are probably some of my Facebook friends. MAYBE -- just maybe -- a stray Twitter user saw my tweet about my poll and wandered over here to answer it. But honestly, I doubt that. Whatevah -- thanks to all who answered!

Acknowledging first that the poll was not much and that the sample is not statistically representative, I'll still share the "results": 30% claimed to have known about veganism for so long that they can't remember when they didn't know; another 52% claimed to have known for six or more years; and 7% said they'd heard of veganism in the last 1-5 years; another 7% in the past year; and only 2% claimed no knowledge.

I'll skip the discussion of how the question could have been better written as well as the obvious problem of the "sample" (i.e., my friends) being one that probably already knew of veganism from, if nothing else, my previous writings (and I'm sure from other, better sources as well).

I asked the question because I wondered if people felt veganism was "new" or "old." Judging by my "data," veganism is not a new idea. That got me thinking...while my obsession with veganism is very new (7 months); my initial introduction to veganism goes back at least 15 years.

At that time, the only vegan I knew was the daughter of a colleague of my husband's, and she was a very odd young woman, and that's putting it charitably. (She never made eye contact with people; she had a hard time holding "normal" conversations; she dressed all in black; she seemed depressed and completely obsessed with food...you get the picture.) Although I was experimenting with vegetarianism and macrobiotics then, the idea of consistently giving up dairy and forgoing wool and leather and honey and silk? Well -- that just seemed more than a little crazy. And for reasons that remain fuzzy, the whole animal rights angle was not part of my introduction to veganism; it may not have even been part of her reason for being a vegan.

So, frankly, I basically "forgot" about veganism until this year; and in the meantime, I've had three kids, finished a masters degree and a Ph.D., moved several times, struggled with a kid with ADHD, helped my Mom through colon cancer and watched my Aunt die of breast cancer, watched my husband launch a pretty great career -- in other words, I've had other crap to think about. Forgive me if obsessing over veganism, the environment and animal rights was not foremost on my mind for quite awhile.

My life is now a whole lot more settled AND I've met some vegans that I would actually describe as "normal." WHO introduces you to a new idea as well as WHEN that idea comes into your life are two powerful factors in determining whether the idea finds fertile ground in your brain. I don't think, back in the early 90s, when I was still reeling from the deaths of my Dad and brother and working on my first master's degree, that meeting a vegan who dressed all in black and spoke in whispers was likely to convert me to her cause. Just sayin'.

When you think about how long you've known about veganism and the reasons you have for being or not being a vegan, take some time to think about how and when you heard about the issue and how that -- more than the actual "facts" that vegans ususally spew about animal rights and health -- may have affected your choice. And maybe if you are a vegan, you can be more aware of how you might come across to those non-vegans in your midst. And if you're not a vegan, you might now believe me that we're not all witches in covens wearing black pleather and chanting mantras.

We're actually lighting soy candles, debating wool use, and re-tweeting posts about needy dogs while making bean balls, quinoa, and tofu ricotta. We call ourselves "normal". :)

Ridiculously Easy Vegan "Baked" Soup

My Mom shared a Weight Watchers recipe with me for "Oven Baked Fall Soup." I've adapted it a bit -- taken out the chicken broth, upped the veggies a little and increased the water -- and here's the revised version. It's super-easy and goes well with some crusty bread (topped with Earth Balance vegan margarine, of course) and a red wine. And the kids *tried* it and didn't hate it. I actually LIKE it. Brownie points for progress!

1/2 c lentils
1/2 c split peas

OR 1 cup dry bean soup mix

OR 1 c just lentils

5 cups vegetable broth (I used three 14 oz cans of Swanson's vegetarian vegetable broth)

1 c chopped carrots
1 c chopped celery
1 c chopped red bell pepper
1 c chopped onion
1 bay leaf
1 teaspoon cumin
1/4 teaspoon pepper

optional: 1 c chopped cabbage or 1 c chopped cauliflower If you add these additional vegetables, you'll need to increase the broth, probably by a cup or two.

Mix everything together in big pot. Cover pot and bake in the oven at 350 for 2 hours.

Easy, huh?!

A Vegan(ish) Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving was my first major holiday since I started eating a vegan diet.

Of course.

Thanksgiving is basically a holiday that revolves around a dead bird; dairy-laden mashed potatoes, creamed spinach, creamed onions, buttery stuffing, and creamy pies; and a fictitious tale of goodwill between colonists and natives. A great backdrop, to be sure, against which to highlight dietary changes.

I knew going into this that I was THE vegan. Nobody else. Not even a vegetarian in the crowd. Everybody else would eat whatever they normally ate -- which is to say, the stereotypical all-American thanksgiving feast, complete with debate over whether or not to cook a turducken next year.

The best I could do was bring a few dishes of my own (to share, of course) and pray that I didn't get a lot of flack from the relatives. I didn't want the holiday to turn into a "weird Elaine" conversation, nor did I want to turn it into a lesson for everybody else. I just wanted to eat and celebrate abundance. Lessons can happen at other times.

I was a little on edge, anticipating a whole lot of drama. After all, what's a holiday without a little family drama, I ask you?

Well...I actually have nothing -- NOTHING -- to complain about. I am floored to be writing this, as I could easily regale you with tales of holidays past when arguments about things far less important than diet or animal welfare or the environment went from lively to heated within minutes (topics like kids' bedtimes or ages at when kids SHOULD KNOW TO TIE SHOES, for instance).

Nobody gave me a bad time. Nobody tried to trick me into eating something that wasn't vegan. Several people tried my dishes and proclaimed them tasty (leek-mushroom pie, a tofurkey roast and a sweet potato dish). I happily ate my dishes, salad and a roll. Though I ate less than everybody else, I TOTALLY had enough, and was spared the 'oh-my-god-I-ate-too-much-and-I'm-going-to-die' feeling.

I titled this post "vegan(ish)" because I did succumb to a teeny slice of pumpkin pie, which I'm pretty darn sure had some dairy in it somewhere.

Next year, I'll bring a vegan pie, too. :)