Confessions of an Ex-, Ex-Vegan
Brady & Me, circa 1976
In light of Stephanie’s “Stop the Fight Against Factory Farming, Save the Animal Rights Movement,” which has not surprisingly turned into a passionate discussion, I thought I’d share how I went from being vegan to eating the flesh of cows for a bit over a year in 1999. Some of you know much of this story because I’ve blogged about it previously, but it’s particularly pertinent to Stephanie’s post.
I stopped using animals in the late 1980s. I didn’t think it was right to eat or wear cows if I wasn’t going to eat or wear my childhood cat, Brady. Life was filled with cheeseless pizza and bad shoes. But I was straightedge so it’s not as if being fashionable or even mainstream was interesting to me. My hair was 1/4 inch long, save for long bangs. I wore vinyl combat boots and had a black-only wardrobe.
I only wish I had a picture of me back in the day.
When I met other people at college who didn’t use animals, I discovered that they focused on veal and fur. Their primary interest in their outreach (which they did constantly) was educating people about the horrors of certain uses of animals. And though I had no idea it was happening at the time, I went from being someone who didn’t believe we had the right to use animals, to someone more concerned with suffering. Now, I lived in Manhattan, so this nuance didn’t affect my lifestyle in any way. I was still a vegan.
Ten years later, when I found myself in a very vegan-unfriendly environment but with access to pricey “grass-fed,” “free-range” cow products, I convinced myself that it would be okay to eat filet mignon because of the alleged better treatment of the cows. And because of their natural diet. And because they had all of those green fields to roam. And because they wouldn’t be pumped with hormones or steroids or antibiotics. And because filet mignon wasn’t a processed food.
And because by that time the idea of creating someone just to kill them for food wasn’t what I was thinking about. I was concentrating on reducing suffering, and buying the grass-fed cut of cow was, in my mind, a reduction of suffering over the factory farmed cut. In other words, I am here to tell you, from personal experience, that when your focus is suffering instead of use, you can always find a way to use animals. You can always convince yourself that what you’re doing/buying/eating/wearing is better than the alternative.
On Valentine’s Day of 2000, my neighbor (now husband, and now vegan) prepared my favorite meal. Grilled filet mignon-medium rare, basmati rice and asparagus. He poured Veuve Clicquot and toasted to our friendship. And then I cut into my medallion of cow flesh, and out popped two maggots, all squiggly and excited to meet me.
My neighbor was thoroughly repulsed, but my response was “What do you expect from dead, decaying flesh.” And at that moment I re-realized that I was cutting into somebody’s flesh. And I would never have done that to Brady*.
Obviously, this story is mortifying and opens me up to all kinds of ridicule. I wasn’t vegan for the right reasons. I was never really a vegan to begin with. Fine. Get it out of your system. But also see this as a cautionary tale about focusing on factory farming and on suffering. Animal rights is supposed to be about the right to live life free of someone who wants to make you into a commodity rather than what happens once you already are one. It’s supposed to be about the origin of the problem. Because without the origin, you don’t have a problem.
—
*I went re-vegan after that episode, and my neighbor/husband joined me about six years later (yes, I lived with an omnivore, and cooked for him, for six years).
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
Thank you for sharing this, friend, for putting yourself out there. And for whatever it’s worth, I’m not a great fan of the “you were never really a vegan then”-style arguments. I understand the impulse to go there, but I don’t know whom or how much it helps to make such judgments about a person’s past or developing intentions, feelings, ways of living, and so on.
Also, um, how much do I want to see photos of you from this time? “My hair was 1/4 inch long, save for long bangs. I wore vinyl combat boots and had a black-only wardrobe.” Oh, please, find the photos. :)
Thanks, Steph. In a way I’m fortunate to have experienced this issue from different angles. I have an intimate understanding of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonest–I’m an expert in both! It’s humbling, though, and it helps me relate to people in all phases of their transition, including backsliding.
I think my dad has photos, but I’m afraid to ask. Not sure what it was about the 1980s that made us all think we didn’t look ridiculous.
I definately believe that the focus should be on use. If you end use you end suffering.
But maybe I’m too young in my activism to give up the latter? I still think suffering is important. In my “pitch” I always try to say that we need to end the use AND suffering of animals.
And maybe I do this too because of a conversation with someone who is a vegan but not an animal rights activist. Their reasoning? They don’t “use” animals. The “suffering” that animals are subjected to, is at someone elses hand. I know that’s strange. Takes all kinds I guess.
As for me I understand that use is the crux… But I just can’t let go of the suffering quite yet. Perhaps I never will.
Bea – people relate to suffering, they don’t relate to “use”. While for many vegans, the issues of “use” and “suffering” are inextricably linked, for many non-vegans, the only way they can start to see that the use itself is unnecessary is through an empathetic response to suffering.
When I share with people why I went vegan, I didn’t say “Hey, it’s because we don’t need to use animals”. People don’t relate to that. I share an incredibly emotional, very personal, individual story and how MY ACTIONS contributed to the suffering of others. It shares the blame (if *I* can say ‘I was part inflicting suffering on other through my behavior, then it isn’t hard for other people to make their own personal connections), reduces those defensive walls and has convinced more people to go vegan than any other story I’ve shared.
So don’t stop with the empathy angle. Most humans are pretty emotional beings. Using that is an excellent way to offer insight and inspire compassion and behavior change.
Like Marji, I do still talk to people about suffering, and I think that’s an important part of getting people to start thinking and caring. Most of us go through a process; very few people go from unaware omnivores to anti-exploitation vegans overnight. If someone had come to me eight years ago and said, “We just don’t have a right to use animals,” it would have gone in one ear and out the other. Exposure to the suffering involved in animal agriculture was my gateway, was what opened me up to exploring and caring.
So I don’t object to appealing to people’s compassion and empathy, at all. I just think we can do that without setting things up the way they’ve too often been set up — as if “factory farming” is the only evil and as if suffering (physical and/or emotional), really, isn’t involved in all animal agriculture on some level. I just think think it’s important to, when we talk about suffering, also talk about the broader issues and not fall into the trap of letting people believe factory farming = bad/suffering, small farms = good/humane. And it sounds to me like you’ve been conscious of striking that balance.
I don’t perceive it as an “either/or” situation between suffering vs. use when having a discussion with people who aren’t vegan. (And I’m not saying you do, Marji.) If people realize that use is the root or cause of suffering, they’re often inspired to begin living a vegan life—instead of running down to the food co-op to buy a slab of “certified humane, grass-fed beef.” When they make the emotional connection between use and suffering, people do awaken to the horror. Discussing use doesn’t have to mean dry academic theories about ethics. If we’re able to show what use means in the everyday existence of a pig who never sees the sun or a mother cow sobbing helplessly for her newborn calf torn away from her forever, I’m certain people will respond from their hearts.
@MJ: I don’t really perceive it as an either/or situation as well. But I do pick and choose the words I use – the ultimate message ends up being the same. For my job, where I have to talk to people who may have arrived at the sanctuary for a “farm tour” (and all that word “farm” may mean), the concept of “we don’t need to use animals” is so far beyond most of their grasps. So I have to couch it in terms they understand. I imagine this is true of most vegans trying to convince people to change their behavior – what works effectively in one situation fails in another. And I think we should all be sensitive to that (and I’m not saying you aren’t).
Marji,
The reason I personally think it’s vital to address use, especially in animal advocacy, is because when we don’t, then thoughts such as the following are the result. And I think this misleads our society toward the acceptance of “humane meat.” We get farther away from true freedom for the animals. And I don’t agree with Dr. Buyukmihci that “eating meat is a personal choice” humans are entitled to. I think this vet’s perspective is an example of precisely what Stephanie is trying to address in her recent post.
From veterinarian Nedim C. Buyukmihci:
If one still wants to eat nonhuman animals, there are numerous, economical methods of raising them for food and fiber which do not require the extreme confinement, deprivation and privation of the present industry standard. The trite argument that we must do it in the present fashion in order to get food at a reasonable price simply is not true. It has been shown that what you gain in labor cost savings from ‘factory’ farming is offset by the cost of equipment and other factors. Practical application of less intense housing systems has shown that these can be just as productive, safe for the animals and financially sound as ‘factory’ farming. In the case of pigs, a pasture system has been shown by workers at the University of Tennessee to be significantly more efficient and financially cheaper than a confinement system. There were less post-weaning losses and disease as well as better consistency in sow and pig performance.
Whether you eat nonhuman animals or wear products made from them is a personal choice. Bear in mind, however, that the animals you eat have lives and interests of their own. They suffer pain, frustration and boredom in a manner similar to you. They at least have a right to enjoy a reasonable life before being killed at our hands. Certainly, their life should be as close to a natural existence as is feasible. It is not important that they are going to die anyway. Rather, it is the quality of life they experience which matters. We should not be the only ones to enjoy freedom of movement and freedom of expression. Customs, convenience, economics and sheer utility are not ethically valid reasons for preventing these animals from living a decent life.
MJ, this person says:
“It is not important that they are going to die anyway. Rather, it is the quality of life they experience which matters.”
This is the message being sent by many advocates and groups in the movement. We need to challenge this thinking as speciesist since all animals (not just humans) value their lives and want to continue living. Veganism prevents needless suffering AND death. Other animals need rights to life and liberty upon freedom from property status.
Brandon,
Yeah, I’ve noticed that what this vet says is not an anomaly. You’re so right–it’s a classic example of speciesist beliefs. Such beliefs are especially dangerous when repeatedly spewed by groups or individuals who are supposed to advocate for the animals and only the animals. I agree that as long as animals are viewed as commodities, a real conversation about animal rights can’t even begin to exist. The people who own the animals–who profit greatly from their suffering and deaths–will never allow it.
If, as you suggest, humane myth is being endorsed by many folks in the movement, then the movement sure as hell needs to evolve.
@MJ: I’m curious why you brought up ONE quote from Dr. Ned? Interesting selection, for many reasons.
Marji,
I thought one was plenty. But here’s another from as early as August 2003:
A vegan for 17 years Buyukmihci does not wear, eat, or use any animal products.
“There’s no hope of stopping the raising and killing of animals today or in the foreseeable future,” he said. “Even though I don’t believe in raising other animals for food if it’s going to be done at least we can make their lives as good as humanly possible. Right now their lives are absolutely horrific. And it would take very little to make their lives better. Their day-to-day living is horrible.”
Source: (The quote is on the bottom of page 2.)
http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-08-24/living/17502887_1_animals-practice-surgery-nedim-buyukmihci
As you can see from the entire article, this vet is a kindhearted vegan who has done much for the animals. However, perhaps from a feeling of despair, he advocates the humane myth propaganda. Maybe reluctantly, but nonetheless that is what he’s doing. And this is what activist/filmmaker James LaVeck (at Tribe of Heart) and others continue to address: the problem of animal advocates who don’t advocate solely for the animals. Just imagine if activists like this vet campaigned against all animal exploitation instead of compromising and advocating “humane use.”
What I’m saying is it saddens me that great activists are giving in to the meat industry in desperate hopes of making gains for the animals. They’re just getting crumbs from the oppressor’s table because the meat industry sets up all the rules. We must do better for the animals.
Thanks for this! As a vegan who has rationalized plenty of nonvegan behavior–”Oh, there’s nothing vegan to eat at this bar, I guess I’ll just have some cheese pizza”–I appreciate your willingness to share your story. Veganism is a practice, just like anything else worthwhile.
Hi Shannon,
I never thought of veganism–like yoga–as being a practice! I haven’t spent more than a minute with the idea, but so far I like it! Considering something a practice is factoring in humility and imperfection and the reality that more can always be done.
Thanks.
Hi Bea,
I don’t think we should necessarily give up on talking about suffering. I’m merely pointing out where that discussion can easily lead. If suffering is what someone is concentrating on, I now examine the concept of suffering more thoroughly than I used to so that it actually encompasses all use. How does one take someone’s physical and reproductive freedom, control nearly all aspects of their life, then kill them–no matter the method–and not consider that abuse? So use=abuse and you don’t have to “let go of the suffering” as it becomes part of your discussion.
You’re still left with more abuse vs. less, however, and I don’t have an answer for that other than why abuse at all.
“I now examine the concept of suffering more thoroughly than I used to so that it actually encompasses all use. How does one take someone’s physical and reproductive freedom, control nearly all aspects of their life, then kill them–no matter the method–and not consider that abuse? So use=abuse and you don’t have to ‘let go of the suffering’ as it becomes part of your discussion.”
Exactly. Sorry — I somehow missed this comment before leaving my own in response.
This is my approach as well. Using other animals as resources is abuse. It’s also cruel. And exploitation and oppression. The animal rights movement needs to use emotive language but use it in a way to encompass all forms of human exploitation of other animals.
To add to my last comment, check out this short essay called:
“Reflections on Language and Activism” from the Feb. 2006 Newsletter of the now-defunct group Rights for Animals: http://perso.wanadoo.es/boletinrfa/feb06.html
Along with Joan Dunayer’s work, this essay helped me decide my choice of words on this issue.
This is what I was going to suggest: it’s okay to talk about suffering alongside use, because as long as there is use, there will always be suffering. (After all, when something is no longer useful, what do you do with it? Dispose of it, of course!) But let’s not concentrate on suffering to the exclusion of use/ownership/exploitation.
Mary, I completely relate to your college experience. I believe when we grow up within a predominantly animal-using culture, few of us ever really question if it’s just wrong to use animals. By bringing the focus back to this question will trigger a change in human perceptions of nonhuman animals. I think this approach is strongest and, yes, inherently focuses on ending suffering—not merely reducing it (and thus still allowing for animal use). If as a culture we realize it’s wrong to do whatever we want to any other species in air, land, or water, then subjugation and use must end. A new era will begin in our relationship to the natural world.
Thankyou for sharing friend! What can I say…I have done the vegetarian trip for many years!!! Only I used to eat fish and sometimes chicken…Therefore..I was not a vegetarian..Until I broadened my education..Now I’m kind of Vegan..skimmed milk is my crime!!!!! But I am getting there!!!
After having viewed and read the sadistic, monstrous processes that animals Suffer in order to fill our conditioned taste buds AND to accommodate our fashion frenzies, I now do all I can do to make people aware of the crimes being committed on our animal kingdom. I have a new found respect which was already there , I just needed educating!!….I was ignorant and surely we can forgive ignorance..Without the voice of humans the animals do not have a chance on this planet..we must always strive with our voices…the voices will grow and when we become ‘joined nations’ for the voiceless which is already in motion..only then will we be able to have our voices heard..We are fighting against conditioning’s of life which are as perennial as the grass we walk on.. Most of us were brought up in a meat eating environment, as was I!
The voices got to me …. Pray to all that is good that the beat goes on..and on…and on!
Ah yes, the voices got to me too. As a vegetarian entering my 6th year at it, the furthest from my mind was that I was somehow causing “suffering” to animals. I didn’t know the many ways I was being hoodwinked! So much for being the critical thinker I always thought I was!
I guess that’s why in my own advocacy I don’t (can’t) leave out the “suffering” – It’s what leads to all the other questions. But all this information must always end, with the end, of “use”.
And I can’t help but comment about this photo – beautiful and innocent. I see photos of myself as a child… and other children with their beloved nonhuman friends. I always think – That is someone who is for animal rights! We all start out that way… I know we do. We start off not wanting to harm. Maybe this is why going back to our empathetic state, is the route most of us take? It was always there. It just got buried under misconceptions of “use”. (?)
Thanks, Bea. I was a cute kid, eh?
Brady got it all started for me, as our relationship made me think about animals other than cats, and I couldn’t shake the notion that all animals are the same. As a kid, I wondered why I couldn’t have a giraffe or a goat as a pet, but I also wondered why we didn’t eat cats and dogs and it all seemed so unfair. Years later, I still hold the notion that animals are the same–in that we all deserve to live our lives free of subjugation. To this day I wonder whether I’d be vegan if it weren’t for Brady.
Yeah, cute kid… And lovely woman! :)
Sounds like your understanding (empathy?) of Others has been a long standing issue for you.
I know the end goal is to free “pets” from our needs, wants and uses… But until this happens, I’m certain that as society interacts more with these fur and feathered family members, it will aid the realization that all beings desire their lives and freedoms.
The most critical thing for me, was the initial question of: What exactly is the difference between X animal and Y animal… and “human” animal? I have found that usually opens the floodgates for many courageous enough to listen. Not many *change* – But at least they’re aware that they’re participating in something very twisted. ;)
@MJ – The last line of what Dr. Ned said… I’d eliminate the disqualifier of “a decent life” and it would read true: Customs, convenience, economics and sheer utility are not ethically valid reasons for preventing these animals from living. (period).
It’s amazing when a member of our own species dies too young, at the hands of an unfortunate accident or “fate”… We have such sympathy over the tragedy. Ah, but killing “others”? Good (long) life or not, when we’re ready for them to serve “their purpose”, their time is up!
I’m always so disappointed in our arrogance. :(
Bea,
I also wish more humans had compassion for nonhuman animal children.
Yes, human arrogance is pretty pathetic, especially when people think they have a right to tell another species how to exist (to serve human desires and taste buds). But maybe sometimes people just look blindly at the world from a human-centered point of view. It’s frustrating, but to keep acting with empathy and to continue asking the hard questions, we move closer and closer to freedom for the animals. We might or might not see the results in our lifetime. But what each of us does today will determine the kind of world the animals will share with us in the future.
I’ve read this story before Mary it’s a great post. But had to comment about the empathy and “practice” aspects. Practice…not in the sense of being vegan…that’s a bit strange…but practicing how to express our feelings of being ethical vegans.
There is absolutely nothing problematic about appealing to our empathy to guide us in our quest to deal with others and this issue. It is what we feel that motivates every thing we do. EVERYTHING. Somehow we have become dislocated from understanding that having empathy and compassion is what makes us who we are and brought us to where we are as activists. It may “feel” like we are thinking everything out and lets hope that we are eventually …but it is our compassion/empathy for others that links us to the chain of living vegan yet it is what most often is simply overlooked.
Having compassion for ourselves in regard to what we feel is often overlooked as well. Discussing our feelings of why we are ethical vegans with those who question it all… can be a huge benefit if we can express it properly. This is a good place to talk about “practice”. The practice of articulating what it is that we FEEL. Vegan Toastmasters..great organization if you have one in your area.
Comprehending and always staying connected to what we feel allows us to have a wisdom and composure that goes further and deeper than we can imagine. Practicing expressing ourselves as vegans is a huge key to all of this. Being able to express our sorrows and our grief as well as our anger and frustration allows us to explain our being vegan with others in a much more rational and hopefully with enough practice..a calm way. This may be the most important angle we have in illustrating, demonstrating and teaching our veganism to others. Being able to illustrate the connection from use to suffering as well.
This is not an easy task and most of us are lucky if we have 5 minutes a day when we can slow down enough to focus on what we are feeling and then to be able to express it is difficult. But you need to practice…Practice…connecting what brought you to being vegan. It is like meditating and yoga…a bit.
It can be done and it might be the key to making a connection from our hearts to others.
We live in a world of others and we do need to make the best of that world and we need to be able to explain to them how we arrived at who we are.
Thank you Mary for being so candid and sharing that experience. I’m really glad you expressed this. Your experience is a first-hand account of precisely the troubling issue that Stephanie and a growing number of people (includinbg myself) are very concerned about.
All of us here ought to familiarize ourselves with the pertinent testimony and info on http://www.HumaneMyth.org and share this website with as many people as we can.
maggots also infest vegetables. if you had happenstanced across a maggot in your Vegan food, would you have insisted on never eating vegetables?
Hello Al – I hope Mary won’t waste her precious time responding to this… But I have a few extra moments and would like to say this to you: How can you read through all these many valid reasons to allow sentient beings to live their complete lives properly and come away with “maggots” as a reason to not kill/eat them? I suggest you dismiss that one line reference and re-read the many logical and compassionate choices stated herein. If you think the only reason vegans don’t consume animal products is just because it’s disgusting (which it is) – You’ve missed the point of veganism and animal rights completely. (deliberately)?
hello Bea,
i have the highest respect for the Vegan ethical imperative. Which is exactly why i did not discuss it here, amongst the already committed.
I try to save those discussions for where they might be worth a byte of bandwidth…. in the non-Vegan fora.
If other Vegans wish to busy themselves forming/joining Vegan boards whose purpose is to congratulate each other, they have the right to do so. It’s not my cup of tea.
Ms Martin stated that THE reason why she stopped eating “cow” flesh was because of that incident with the maggots.
Now, if we imagine that our responsibility is to actually stop as much suffering as possible, then we have to use arguments that the omnivores and carnivores will not toss out the window as being nonsensical emanations from folks who aren’t awake enough to have noticed that the beef of commerce comes from steers, not cows. And that vegetation supports insect larvae (“maggots”) when it’s rotten as much as meat does.
I can show you scads of ex-Vegans. You cannot show me very many ex-ex-Vegans. Therefore, I don’t think I am the one who needs to improve my persuasion and salesmanship skills.
Al,
Yes, I agree that I should have been more careful with my language. However, “cow” is often used to refer to domestic bovines of either sex. You can find that in most dictionaries. “Folks who aren’t awake enough?” Al, why on earth would I want to respond to such rudeness?
I was telling a story of the moment I was reminded of what I truly believe. The spirit of the story is that I was brought back to where I should have been. It’s not a perfect story, but it’s what happened.
Good day.
Hello Al… Yes, please do show me “scads” of ex-Vegans… And actually – aren’t we both a little off in classifying “cows” – Being that they are all (dairy cow and “steer” alike) technically called “bovines”. But I think you enjoy your terminology – I’m sure certain chickens to you are “broilers” or “egg layers”… Certain sheep are “mutton” – And certain pigs are “swine” or just plain old “porkers”. But isn’t that how most people get around identifying with the being? Use some kind of generic “purposeful to man” label and the recognition of the individual fades on the grill or the plate.
As for me, I intend to respect cows, pigs and birds – And you need not count me ever in your “scads” of ex-Vegans.
Have a lot of fun in your forum here. Just continue to build your large echo chamber,and outfit it nicely with sofas and comfortable chairs. MEanwhile, i will continue to interlocute with folks in the real world. Animals will NOT DIE because of my flavor of activism. Your flavor of activism will give life to more archives in the Google servers.