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.

Just How Compassionate Are "We," Really? The Brooke-and-Fur Controversy

Two vastly different types of "vegan" news were all over the internet yesterday.  One, Psychology Today wrote about a study claiming to find proof that vegetarians and vegans are more compassionate than omnivores; more areas of their brains (compared to omnivores' brains) appear to react (MRI tests) to images of both animal and human suffering.  You can find the article at the link above. Predictably, vegans and vegetarians and organizations like PETA "tweeted" and "shared" this information widely, as proof that "we" are better than all you "stupid" omnivores and, of course, didn't we know that all along?

And the wording of their tweets and shares was about that compassionate, by the way, as were the comments that followed said tweets and Facebook posts.

Alongside that information was the tidbit of news that Brooke Shields was quoted as saying,   "Wearing fur may be associated with something grandmotherish. Something you wear when you visit the opera, or if you are a rock star and wears it inside out. But I will advocate that both my generation and the younger generation can wear fur".  This was EVERYWHERE yesterday, but if you want evidence, go to PETA, the original article, twitter (just search for her), or ecorazzi.com. 

Now, I *totally* disagree with Brooke Shields' choice to wear fur.  TOTALLY.  (Read my review on the fur trade documentary Skin Trade if you don't believe me.) But if we vegans and vegetarians are so compassionate -- so evolved in our empathetic responses to people and animals -- should "we" be expressing our disgust at Brooke's choices with the following words?  (There were, of course, plenty of people who did NOT use these types of words, but the following posts are but a brief selection of the harsh and cruel words aimed at Brooke yesterday on the internet; I have left all spelling and grammar and punctuation errors as they were originally written.)

GO DIE IN A PITCH SOMEWHERE, BROOKE SHIELDS!!! FUCKING FUR-LOVING CUNT!!!!!!!!!!  (twitter)

Brooke shields, this is why you're some dumb ass jobless fucked up bitch! (Twitter)

What an asshole. (Twitter)

I didn't dream about anally electrocuting animals on fur farms, but apparently Brooke Shields did. (PETA writer)

Brooke Shields is SCUM. Seriously, this fading siren is resorting to animal abuse to stay in the limelight. Pathetic! (comment on the PETA blog)

I hope you never have a peaceful nights sleep again you washed up old fur hag. (another comment on the PETA blog)

I would like to see her skinned alive and be worn all the time. (yet another comment on the PETA blog)

She need an electrical prod shoved up her ass!! (comment left on PETA's Facebook page)

She could make a fur coat with her eye brows although she doesn't need one with all the fat in her ass she can keep warm. (another comment from PETA's Facebook page)

When Brooke Shields dies and meets her maker, all those little animals will be standing there watching, as she falls down to HELL!  (ditto)

I could go on and on, but you get the picture:  those supporting animal rights and theoretically *so* much more compassionate than omnivores (who are assumed *not* to support animal rights) are hellishly rude and anything but compassionate in their treatment of Brooke Shields, who last I thought about it, is just another human being like the rest of us.  Flawed.  Capable of making some BIG mistakes.  Unfortunately, when she makes them, everybody knows about it. 

I'm SO glad I'm not famous.

My own tweet "to" Brooke (I actually hope for her sake she's NOT reading the crap posted on Twitter) was the following:  "You have disappointed me. Fur? Really? I *know* you can live without it and still look SMASHING. Watch Skin Trade."

I believe it is possible to raise awareness of atrocities such as those repeatedly seen in the fur industry without resorting to foul language or criticism of a person's career, physical attributes, intelligence, or age.  Granted, maybe all the above comments come from meat-eaters; I don't actually *know* for sure, but judging on the organizations they purport to support, it is a safe guess that quite a few of them put themselves out there both as animal advocates and as vegetarians, maybe even vegans. 

If "we" want people to believe that one of the benefits of a vegan or vegetarian diet is increased compassion and less violence, we need to make sure that our words toward fellow human beings reflect those values. 

Even if our brains (rather predictably, given our philosophical commitments) fire up "more" than omnivores' brains when shown images of cruelty, we undermine the claim that we're so "nice" if we talk about people with so little regard for their personhood. 

I hope Brooke changes her mind.  And I hope if she does, people quietly applaud her and let her do so with grace, rather than with shaming criticism. 

Changing Their Palates, Take Two (Hundred?)

I'm nearly five months into an almost-vegan diet, and trying to get the kids to eat fewer animal-based foods and more plant-based ones. Despite that I am allowing them to eat some meat and some dairy (dairy daily, meat once or twice a week), the modifications I'm making to their diets are still proving to be tough to accomplish. To any of you out there who aren't parents yet, know that if you want your kids to eat well, best not to EVER let them have poor-quality (read: processed, cheesy, fast, easy, typical "kid") food. Changing their palates is darn hard work. No vegan or vegetarian dish tastes as good -- claim my kids -- as chicken strips and french fries, or pizza, or fried chicken, or scrambled eggs, or grilled cheese sandwiches, or Kraft Mac and Cheese, or a bowl of ramen.

Yet I persevere; my kids did not get their tenacity from nowhere. In an attempt to better my odds at improving their diets, I recently purchased a cookbook: Mattare and Muldawer's "Better Than Peanut Butter and Jelly: Quick Vegetarian Meals Your Kids Will LOVE". The title and the reviews both seemed so promising. So far, my husband and I love the recipes and, well, the kids...do not.

Tonight's menu was "Crispy Snow Peas" and a recipe with a wonderfully hopeful name: "Spinach Casserole They'll Really Like". My husband and I thought both dishes were delicious. Yet, the four-year-old practically screamed at the sight of the casserole ("Get it off my pwate!"), but happily ate the snow peas. The nine-year-old flat out refused to try either dish because, in his typically brutal analysis, "that food looks DISGUSTING!" He ended up eating cereal with fresh berries, two pieces of leftover homemade pizza (one slice was veggie), and a bowl of popcorn. All in all, not horrible, but still not ideal. (I harbor the hope that one day, all five of us will enjoy the same healthy food.) The four-year-old ended up eating a sizable portion of the snow peas, an apple, and chocolate ice cream.

My twelve-year-old is vacationing with friends; just received a call. Apparently she ate an "adult-sized portion of ribs".

Sigh. I have my work cut out for me.

Obsessions

I'm stuck. I can't stop obsessing about veganism, vegetarianism, environmental issues, food issues, health. I guess, as far as obsessions go, I could do worse. But I do worry I'm boring my "readers" (all, oh I don't know -- five of you?). Those of you who have known me for awhile know I tend to do this -- get stuck on an issue, work it out to death, and then go on. I also do this with celebs and TV shows -- get stuck on one or read everything ever written about somebody, watch every show or movie that person ever did, and then move on. That parallel kind of disturbs me, but it's true.
****
If I'm honest with myself, it's how I arrived at my dissertation topic. Several years ago, for pleasure, I was reading Indian novels -- LOTS of Indian, Pakistani, Bangledeshi novels -- and then I moved on to articles and books written on South Asian immigrants. As I came up on the time when I had to start thinking of a dissertation topic, I knew I just HAD to find a way to do my dissertation on something South Asia-related. Only problem? I had just spent years prepping to be a medical sociologist, with a specialty in mental health, and with a young family and a husband with a very good job, it was unlikely I was going to India for field work. (I would have LOVED to have been able to do that.) I solved that dilemma by using second generation South Asians in a study of intergenerational conflict and mental health. After finishing the dissertation, my obsession was(almost)gone.

I suspect other people who have written dissertations have also experienced the near-total cessation of interest in their topic. After all, writing and defending a dissertation proposal, writing and defending an IRB proposal, designing a questionnaire, advertising a study, doing background readings, interviewing 33 people and transcribing two-hour long interviews for each, surveying over 100 people anonymously, coding data, and THEN writing a 300+ page document does induce weariness of whatever topic one chooses. And I didn't mention editing or total overhaul of chapters.
****

But I am nowhere near reaching that saturation point with my current obsession. Yesterday, I posted a question on Facebook about whether or not my friends agreed with me that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) occasionally crosses the line with their tactics. The answers I got back can basically be summarized as "I am leery of any organization that seems to believe that any means justifies the ends." That's my point of view.

For instance, I thought PETA was very rude to refer, in a Twitter feed, to the recently deceased Oscar Mayer as a "rotting corpse." No matter how much I may agree with them that, in hindsight, Oscar Mayer contributed to the proliferation of really awful-for-you foods, he has a family who is(I assume)grieving his loss. To speak of him that way (and to send a letter to Kraft foods suggesting that the Wienermobile be buried with him -- that I found in a PETA blog and in a Tweet) is just really low. Really immature. If I use a word common to PETA-supporters' generally immature vernacular, it was LAME.

In fact, I think the Weinermobile should be in a museum. Perhaps PETA could start one. The museum could document how foods have been chemically altered over time, often filled with things that are known carcinogens. The museum could use the Weinermobile to show how advertising often hoodwinks us into thinking things are OK that are absolutely NOT.

But Oscar Mayer need not be demonized; he was a product of his time -- nothing more, nothing less. The only thing really remarkable about him (compared to all other 95-year-olds who also died last week) is that he capitalized on the time much better than his peers. In this capitalistic society, we need to stop and remember that -- and remember that our society ENCOURAGES this. I doubt he was a horrible person, filled with the intention of poisoning kids. I doubt that very much.

I can't help but compare Mayer's capitalization via processed meats and simplified food preparation with what I see as the capitalization of MANY people on the general idea of "live your dream life now." I find this theme EVERYWHERE -- in my friends' businesses, in blogs, in bestselling books, on TV shows (most notably, Oprah), and in tweets. While this is a nice thought -- I don't disagree with it -- it's also something people are making money on. Some people are making LOTS of money on this general idea. Do you see the parallel to Oscar Mayer? I do. Different outcome, sure. But similar social pattern. It's a sign of the time, just as surely as packaging foods and creating machines to do all our work were the sign of the times 90 years ago.

Last night, I did a little research into two organizations commonly held up as iconic by vegan, vegetarian, environmentalist types. I read PETA's webpage (there are lots of subsections; I concentrated on what they say about themselves) and I did the same for the Sea Shepherd (of "Whale Wars" fame). My conclusion: the Sea Shepherd does a better job of explaining itself and of being less rhetorical, less inflammatory, less immature. Yet the Sea Shepherd' cause -- protecting wildlife, particularly ocean wildlife, enforcing whaling laws, conserving the oceans -- is prone to the libel "ecoterrorism," due to the fact that the crew actively attempts to intervene with whaling (and other) activities. PETA, too, is often criticized for its tactics. I happen to think, however, that PETA deserves more of the criticism it gets than does the Sea Shepherd. PETA could improve, IMHO, by being more polite.

Yesterday, I found a poem, written by the Captain of the Sea Shepherd and posted on his MySpace page. I reposted it to Facebook. While kinda funny, it was not a great response to his critics. (My friend called it "lame.") Yeah, it was. That's why I went over to the webpage itself; what is there is NOT lame. I suspect a lot of people who call the Sea Shepherd names have not taken the time to check them out in detail. Do it.

I remember, several years ago now, finding a little interview with Jorja Fox (of CSI fame -- my current TV show obsession) regarding PETA. In the interview, she describes PETA's "rock and roll" personality. In describing them that way, she seemed to suggest that their tactics are "cool," defensible, and I am VERY sure that a lot of people follow PETA (and the Humane Society and the Sea Shepherd) because Jorja is an advocate of those organizations. I'm not dissing the organizations or the celebs; I don't begrudge Jorja her opinion. But I do think all people -- moi included -- need to take a step back and REALLY look into organizations that are promoted by the people we currently admire. It's not enough to learn about their causes; after all, it's hard not to support the ideas of protecting animals and oceans. But tactics matter too. It's a good break on an obsession.